I watched a reality show tonight called The Force about real life crime.  They showed as an example someone who committed a crime, and in doing so committed a number of crimes.  When prosecuted he was only sentenced on a single crime.

My question is if someone rides a motor cycle into a parked car, the rider was speeding, was drunk, unlicensed, the bike was unregistered, unroadworthy and uninsured, and what should they be charged with?  Well the answer was riding while under the influence.  (I know this because it was my car.  The good news was the guy survived uninjured, the police knew him well. )

So if drunk drivers are unfit to drive and are in control of 2 tonnes of speeding metal, should they not also be charged with attempted murder?  They are in charge of a lethal weapon and are not in control.  They could hit any number of people in other cars, on bikes or pedestrians.  Now this is not supposition , this is reality and it happens EVERY day.  The ones that don’t hit anyone on this occasion are lucky, but no less negligent.  The possibilities are the same.

Why should they not be charged with attempted murder.  2 Reasons, we don’t really think that drink driving is a crime, and we do not prosecute on the results of crimes .

Summary

1. People should be sentenced consecutively for each of their crimes, they should not just be prosecuted for the worst of their crimes.  They do not deserve the discount.
2. Drunk drivers, Drug drivers should be charged with attempted murder, each and every time, plus whatever other crimes they have committed.
3. Our Government needs to make a decision are they serious about crime?  If so then they should not be selective about what they prosecute.

Share

Save