Jump to content

Luke McCormick


Stitch_KTF
 Share

Recommended Posts

This could raise a debate. I’ve not been busy today, at all. Decided to voice this on here after failing to get onto the radio…..see if I’m on my own on this one.

 

 

 

Hearing all about the Luke McCormick thing all over again today following this goal celebration got me thinking. I have thought about this kind of thing a lot before – not least because of our own Lee Hughes

 

 

 

McCormick is made out to be a monster in the media, most agree. His mate has made a gesture in support and now the mourning families are on the radio, “we’re appalled, it’s disgusting, we demand an apology”. Now no doubt many of us would, if biased as they are, be the same, but I think it’s too far. I obviously don’t know McCormick, maybe he’s a tosser of the highest order, maybe he’s generally a decent man who made an idiotic decision, whilst drunk may I add, to drive. What I do know is he’s an idiot who made an idiots mistake and got massively unlucky……not a monster who now needs lambasting forever and ever!! It’s not like he’s sat in his cell laughing and fantasising at the tragedy……I bet he’s also a broken man, leaving a broken family. Let’s afford him a little support of his friends please.

 

 

 

Now, getting to the point, I think there’s something seriously wrong with society and the justice system. He should have got more than 7 years you say? Maybe he should, but not as punishment for killing those boys, as punishment for his crime, which was drink and dangerous driving.

 

 

 

For me the consequences of a crime committed shouldn’t alter the charge and/or the punishment. That should be determined by the crime that was consciously committed. For me, McCormick ought to serve the same punishment as the man who gets pulled over on a Sunday morning and fails a breath test with no tragic consequences. They are guilty of the same crime. It’s common sense. Following a precedent, if you will. Now, before you give me both barrels, I’m not implying that McCormick should get off with a 12 month driving ban, I’m implying the man who fails the breath test ought to be jailed for 7 years also. In a nutshell they both commit the same crime, yet McCormick is punished to a much greater degree basically because he was unlucky. After all, I wouldn’t be surprised at all if one of the parents of the poor boys has, at some time, driven over the legal limit…….I certainly have, although not for some time and I never will do again.

 

 

 

The term ‘prevention is better than cure’ comes to mind. Surely it is better to threaten 7 year jail sentences to any drink driver, as opposed to the occasional ‘unlucky’ one made an example of. That would serve better to stop drunks driving, and reduce road deaths as a result.

 

 

 

Going off a on a tangent, I also noticed the irony in the same radio also advertising the fact that 46% of crime is alchohol related. What the :censored:? Then why is it legal to such an extent? Why is it marketed so much? Why is it socially encouraged? At the same time the planting of a (cannabis) seed is illegal, presumably incase you go and spend £7 giggling in McDonalds. The potential punishment far outweighs that of the average drink driver, and even rivals McCormicks sentence!?!?!? The same goes for ‘popping pills’, presumably incase you can’t get it up when you get to bed with that girl you’ve had a fun, 100% trouble free, booze free night out with…………the world’s mad.

 

 

I’l tell you why booze is legal, because it’s become socially accepted over hundreds of years. If alcohol was dicscovered today it would be made Class A immediately. I’ve grown to dislike booze…..to me it means hangovers, expense, potential embarrassment, potential trouble. Yes, it’s ok in moderation, but then what isn’t? Anyway, back to bashing McCormick for falling into a trap society carelessly set him, and those 2 poor boys, up for……

 

 

:drinking::drinking::drinking::drinking45::drinking45::drinking45:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Booze is legal and easily available because of the tax revenues it generates for HM Government.

 

Drink / Driving is a horrible crime full of potential damage to others. I did it when younger, got away with it, and now realise how horribly things could have turned out. I was lucky, as were those other drivers on the northbound A34 as I headed south!

 

Society is too accepting of the "morning after" drive when the body is still packed with booze and the brain is tired and addled. As were many on this board last week (too accepting, that is!).

 

But we know society is broken, no politician is prepared to fix it and the people don't really want it fixing.

Edited by opinions4u
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This could raise a debate. I’ve not been busy today, at all. Decided to voice this on here after failing to get onto the radio…..see if I’m on my own on this one.

Hearing all about the Luke McCormick thing all over again today following this goal celebration got me thinking. I have thought about this kind of thing a lot before – not least because of our own Lee Hughes

McCormick is made out to be a monster in the media, most agree. His mate has made a gesture in support and now the mourning families are on the radio, “we’re appalled, it’s disgusting, we demand an apology”. Now no doubt many of us would, if biased as they are, be the same, but I think it’s too far. I obviously don’t know McCormick, maybe he’s a tosser of the highest order, maybe he’s generally a decent man who made an idiotic decision, whilst drunk may I add, to drive. What I do know is he’s an idiot who made an idiots mistake and got massively unlucky……not a monster who now needs lambasting forever and ever!! It’s not like he’s sat in his cell laughing and fantasising at the tragedy……I bet he’s also a broken man, leaving a broken family. Let’s afford him a little support of his friends please.

Now, getting to the point, I think there’s something seriously wrong with society and the justice system. He should have got more than 7 years you say? Maybe he should, but not as punishment for killing those boys, as punishment for his crime, which was drink and dangerous driving.

For me the consequences of a crime committed shouldn’t alter the charge and/or the punishment. That should be determined by the crime that was consciously committed. For me, McCormick ought to serve the same punishment as the man who gets pulled over on a Sunday morning and fails a breath test with no tragic consequences. They are guilty of the same crime. It’s common sense. Following a precedent, if you will. Now, before you give me both barrels, I’m not implying that McCormick should get off with a 12 month driving ban, I’m implying the man who fails the breath test ought to be jailed for 7 years also. In a nutshell they both commit the same crime, yet McCormick is punished to a much greater degree basically because he was unlucky. After all, I wouldn’t be surprised at all if one of the parents of the poor boys has, at some time, driven over the legal limit…….I certainly have, although not for some time and I never will do again.

The term ‘prevention is better than cure’ comes to mind. Surely it is better to threaten 7 year jail sentences to any drink driver, as opposed to the occasional ‘unlucky’ one made an example of. That would serve better to stop drunks driving, and reduce road deaths as a result.

Going off a on a tangent, I also noticed the irony in the same radio also advertising the fact that 46% of crime is alchohol related. What the :censored:? Then why is it legal to such an extent? Why is it marketed so much? Why is it socially encouraged? At the same time the planting of a (cannabis) seed is illegal, presumably incase you go and spend £7 giggling in McDonalds. The potential punishment far outweighs that of the average drink driver, and even rivals McCormicks sentence!?!?!? The same goes for ‘popping pills’, presumably incase you can’t get it up when you get to bed with that girl you’ve had a fun, 100% trouble free, booze free night out with…………the world’s mad.

I’l tell you why booze is legal, because it’s become socially accepted over hundreds of years. If alcohol was dicscovered today it would be made Class A immediately. I’ve grown to dislike booze…..to me it means hangovers, expense, potential embarrassment, potential trouble. Yes, it’s ok in moderation, but then what isn’t? Anyway, back to bashing McCormick for falling into a trap society carelessly set him, and those 2 poor boys, up for……

:drinking::drinking::drinking::drinking45::drinking45::drinking45:

 

 

Excellent post, Stitch.

 

Especially after today's headlines regarding stopping "happy-hours" and supermarkets selling alcohol as loss leaders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest sheridans_world

I totally disagree that he was unlucky. He wasnt unlucky, he made a stupid decision when way over the limit and hit a car. That isnt unlucky, that is a result of his decision.

 

That said, you're 'joe plumber fails a breath test on a sunday morning should get the same sentence' is a good point. Question being, is seven years too long for someone who got caught drink driving, while I think a prison sentence (2 years?) would be acceptable, I think seven is a tad over-the-top.

 

As for alochol, beer inparticular I quote wikipedia

 

Beer was one of the most common drinks during the Middle Ages. It was consumed daily by all social classes in the northern and eastern parts of Europe where grape cultivation was difficult or impossible. Though wine of varying qualities was the most common drink in the south, beer was still popular among the lower classes. Since the purity of water could seldom be guaranteed, alcoholic drinks were a popular choice, having been boiled as part of the brewing process.

 

In short, there would have been even more death and disease throughout the middle ages had it not been for beer. Funny saying that because if there had not been beer, would Luke McCormick, Hughesy, me or you had been born if disease would have killed our ancestors?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for alochol, beer inparticular I quote wikipedia

In short, there would have been even more death and disease throughout the middle ages had it not been for beer. Funny saying that because if there had not been beer, would Luke McCormick, Hughesy, me or you had been born if disease would have killed our ancestors?

 

I shouldn't have to say this to a 'Global Moderator' but moderation is the name of the clear message.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I totally disagree that he was unlucky. He wasnt unlucky, he made a stupid decision when way over the limit and hit a car. That isnt unlucky, that is a result of his decision.

 

An unlucky result :wink:

 

Appreciate the positive responses - I was half expecting some stick after hearing the callers limited opininons on the radio!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are two ways to go that seem fair to me:

 

1) Punish people who equally according to the level of alcohol found in their blood stream when checked, or;

 

2) Punish people equally according to the level of responsibility the way they drove had in causing an accident.

 

At the moment we are in a half way house that does nobody much good. Personally I abhor drink driving, yet have known people who I am scared :censored:less of driving with when they are sober. A child whose parents were killed by a careless sober driver who was inside the speed limit still doesn't have a parent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That said, you're 'joe plumber fails a breath test on a sunday morning should get the same sentence' is a good point. Question being, is seven years too long for someone who got caught drink driving, while I think a prison sentence (2 years?) would be acceptable, I think seven is a tad over-the-top.

Seriously? Two years for dangerous driving? I drink, as you know, and I've sampled recreational drugs whilst at uni and I accept the risk I take doing that. Its well known that all 'recreational drugs' (I include the legal ones in this too) can and do cause long term illness even in moderation but that's my risk. The child walking her dog or the family in their sedan should not be subjected to that same risk. To say someone knowingly drink driving should only face two years is, in my opinion, crazy!

 

And I know someone who's been banned for drink driving. He's a great guy. But the fact that he didn't even go to prison, to me, is an outrage. The logistics mean it will never be realistic. Thats life.

 

Its the same reason I support the smoking ban, despite my usually liberal leanings regarding governmental interventions. The risk should always be individual and not enforced.

 

 

Oh, and financially the cost of alcohol consumption and smoking to the government is higher than the tax generated income.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just thought I'd add some interesting facts about this subject from Japan ( I know I keep going on about this great place ).

Considering this population seriously enjoy to drink, almost everynight, (especially the males) the fear of drink driving has really been drilled into everyone. If you even smell slightly alcoholic or whatever when you are stopped (and there are many many random searches) then you will receive the following:

 

5 years inprisonment (huddled with yakuzas, brazilians or insane people - all together)

OR 1 million yen fine (25k + 1 year hard labour with minimal wage)

 

immediate firing from your current job (and unable to ever do the same job again due to the officials believing it was the job that drove you to drive whilst drinking)

 

license revoked for life

 

1 year license revokation for any additional people in your car (they also have fine of about 5k each)

 

impounded car

 

all names and contacts on your mobile will be cross-checked. warrents can be issued to visit ANY of those contacts' homes. any additional crimes (drugs, porn, etc etc can be used agaisnt the drink driver as an assosciate)

 

The community will treat you as an outcast - especially if living within a small town. (This is very harsh on Japanese people/traditions)

 

-------------------

Also - police use points systems here so if they do pull a drink driver they could face instant promotion themselves - hense the reason they do plenty of random spot-checks. if the police can pin any other offences on that driver via the mobile contacts it's an extra point per person.

Needless to say - drink driving is not even thought about here......

We do however have something which I believe England tried a few years back.

It's called Daiko. This is where a taxi with 2 people in it picks you up. One of the drivers drives your car with you in it back home (or wherever). The other driver drives the taxi. This is actually cheaper than a normal taxi due to using a little of your own petrol. You also have the benefit of knowing you're fully insured should the taxi driver crash your car. (although they take special crash courses and have cards to prove it - most have also done police extra training - so your safe).

 

All in all - my point is. No one should have to or even want to drink drive. If you drink drive, regardless of how 'lucky/unlucky' you are, punishment should be maximum. Also..... camera's are useless.... have more spot checks.

P.S. in a country full of technology, there are no speed cams anywhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to put a wet blanket on the ridiculous length sentences for people who drink and drive, but if you do you will have loads of borderline drivers tearing it up in your streets to escape prosecution, generally around the time kids are being taken to school.

 

You can pick any crime and pick a strong length of jailtime. People think for instance that an abductor and molester of children should be strung up and killed as their punishment. All this means is that every child which is abducted/molested will be killed .

 

So we suggest, say three years for drunk driving. Are there levels of drink driving that are taken into consideration? Or is the man that has two pints the same as the woman that has two bottles of vodka? What about drunk and disorderly? People have been killed by many drunks in the street. I feel that, as this currently stands as a crime which would receive a harsher sentence than DBDD/DD, surely being pissed in the street should be five years? No?

 

All crimes can be escalated to the worst case scenario, you've just got to go with what has happened. If that is someone has driven a bit over the limit in the morning, and no harm has come, then revoke their license, fine them, short term jail sentence if it is a stupidly over the limit scenario. Alot of people just need a reminder in the form of a kick up the backside that the laws of the land are for everyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to put a wet blanket on the ridiculous length sentences for people who drink and drive, but if you do you will have loads of borderline drivers tearing it up in your streets to escape prosecution, generally around the time kids are being taken to school.

 

You can pick any crime and pick a strong length of jailtime. People think for instance that an abductor and molester of children should be strung up and killed as their punishment. All this means is that every child which is abducted/molested will be killed .

 

So we suggest, say three years for drunk driving. Are there levels of drink driving that are taken into consideration? Or is the man that has two pints the same as the woman that has two bottles of vodka? What about drunk and disorderly? People have been killed by many drunks in the street. I feel that, as this currently stands as a crime which would receive a harsher sentence than DBDD/DD, surely being pissed in the street should be five years? No?

 

All crimes can be escalated to the worst case scenario, you've just got to go with what has happened. If that is someone has driven a bit over the limit in the morning, and no harm has come, then revoke their license, fine them, short term jail sentence if it is a stupidly over the limit scenario. Alot of people just need a reminder in the form of a kick up the backside that the laws of the land are for everyone.

I can see what you're tying to say. But being drunk in the steet at kicking out time isn't comparable to drink driving. If I'm drunk I'm responsible. I don't pick fights or put others at risk. I'm at risk myself by being less aware/general health risks but to a realistic extent no one else is.

 

If, however, I drive - no matter how good I am normally or how little I've drank I'm transfering that risk to countless others. Personally I think one drink is too much and should be a fine (escalating for repeat offenders) and that as the volume consumed increases so should the punishment. Once someone can be considered 'drunk' there should be jail/hard labour/fines involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...