McRamFan Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 Causing death by dangerous driving was the charge, maximum sentance 14 years, he was given just over 7 and out in less than 4. There can not be a blanket excuse that being drunk makes a person less responsible or less capable of making decisions, that person knew that by drinking it would affect their abilities in other ways. Saying I got in the car because I was drunk and not thinking straight would not stand up in court, the court will see it as the start of a chain of events that when it occurred the person was resonable at the start of the events, and their actions let to the final outcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 Causing death by dangerous driving was the charge, maximum sentance 14 years, he was given just over 7 and out in less than 4. There can not be a blanket excuse that being drunk makes a person less responsible or less capable of making decisions, that person knew that by drinking it would affect their abilities in other ways. Saying I got in the car because I was drunk and not thinking straight would not stand up in court, the court will see it as the start of a chain of events that when it occurred the person was resonable at the start of the events, and their actions let to the final outcome. They knew it would affect some abilities but to able to predict that line of events would take a seer so itis unreasonable to assume he still has full responsibility at that point. I think the sentence was fair considering everything, he obviously isn't an evil man just someone who had a drink and made a big mistake. So did the court see it my way or yours? They didn't try him with manslaughter or murder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McRamFan Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 They knew it would affect some abilities but to able to predict that line of events would take a seer so itis unreasonable to assume he still has full responsibility at that point. I think the sentence was fair considering everything, he obviously isn't an evil man just someone who had a drink and made a big mistake. So did the court see it my way or yours? They didn't try him with manslaughter or murder. I think the sentance unfair considering everything. They could not try him for manslaughter or murder as it was dealt with under the Road Safety Act and not Common Law. So if 7 years is fair in your opinion, what would have had to happen to get 14? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 I think the sentance unfair considering everything. They could not try him for manslaughter or murder as it was dealt with under the Road Safety Act and not Common Law. So if 7 years is fair in your opinion, what would have had to happen to get 14? The person not being innebriated makes a big difference to me and Mr Mcormick was obviously under duress with thoughts about his relationship which can make people make silly actions as well. If someones previous conduct was poor and they had committed actions of a similar nature. His feelings towards the situation as well matters to me. In my view he simply made an error, and thus 7 years with the parole is certainly enough in my view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrivateDerby Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 The person not being innebriated makes a big difference to me and Mr Mcormick was obviously under duress with thoughts about his relationship which can make people make silly actions as well. That's bizarre, Jermaine Pennant said EXACTLY the same thing last week 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rolleyes' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':rolleyes:' /> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 That's bizarre, Jermaine Pennant said EXACTLY the same thing last week 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rolleyes' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':rolleyes:' /> 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=';)' /> it is true though 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':P' /> sad of course and pathetic but true. Mr Mcormick doesn't strike me as a thug but a man who isn't the brightest who made a mistake which millions make each year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrivateDerby Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 That or the same bent brief... yeah true mate, I just find it sad that clubs have no scruples signing cons when there are loads of lads waiting for a chance to play who haven't put a foot wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 That or the same bent brief... yeah true mate, I just find it sad that clubs have no scruples signing cons when there are loads of lads waiting for a chance to play who haven't put a foot wrong. I think we need to be careful when we talk about convicts. I personally wouldn't have a problem with someone like McCormick coming to play for derby, however someone like Marlon King I would probably have problems with. I do believe we all make mistakes and to be judged entirely on the past can be very unfair and it can have damaging consequences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McRamFan Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 80000 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=';)' /> it is true though 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':P' /> sad of course and pathetic but true. Mr Mcormick doesn't strike me as a thug but a man who isn't the brightest who made a mistake which millions make each year. 90k get done for drink driving in England and Wales (rough average). Its a mistake that should not happen and should be dealt with harshly. There are enough idiots on the road to contend with as a normal driver, why should I have to worry that if I am driving at night that someone who isn't the brightest gets behind a wheel of a couple of tonne of steel and decides to drive it in excess of 70 miles per hour after drinking heavily? What gives them that right? You may feel justice has been servered for the killing of 2 kids and the crippling of an adult, and that less than 4 years is OK, for what he did, however I hope there is a change in the law that does make this akin to murder. Thank you for the debate, lets agree to disagree on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 80000 90k get done for drink driving in England and Wales (rough average). Its a mistake that should not happen and should be dealt with harshly. There are enough idiots on the road to contend with as a normal driver, why should I have to worry that if I am driving at night that someone who isn't the brightest gets behind a wheel of a couple of tonne of steel and decides to drive it in excess of 70 miles per hour after drinking heavily? What gives them that right? You may feel justice has been servered for the killing of 2 kids and the crippling of an adult, and that less than 4 years is OK, for what he did, however I hope there is a change in the law that does make this akin to murder. Thank you for the debate, lets agree to disagree on this one. Okay but Iam not endorsing drink driving and in honesty I am annoyed that you're almost insinuating that I think it is okay. They don't have a right to go drink driving, however apart from keeping campaigns going and picking up people who are driving erratically what else can we do? harsh sentences don't work as a deterrent so that is a no go to start with. Other questions need to be asked like why didn't the police pick him up earlier? if he was driving for so long why didn't anyone call the police/ also the police are supposed to guard the motorways why didn't they see this? A change in a law would just send someone to jail for longer which makes them more stigmatized, makes them more institutionalized and costs more to the tax payer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
furball Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 Like others have said, I think this one is fairly simple to make a decision. Should a person be able to continue their job after they have been to prison and completed their punishment? Yes, and that is how the justice system is meant to work. Once you have completed your time, you are free to continue your life as you wish (bar a few exceptions), as long as you don't break the law again. If McCormick was a painter, I'm sure no-one would argue that he wasn't able to go back to being a painter after his four years. It shouldn't make a difference that he was a footballer. Now, whether his crime deserved only four years is a completely different question and one I am sure that not many of us are qualified to answer outside of our own morals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duracell Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 People confuse manslaughter and murder easily. He murdered no one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luce86 Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 Like others have said, I think this one is fairly simple to make a decision. Should a person be able to continue their job after they have been to prison and completed their punishment? Yes, and that is how the justice system is meant to work. Once you have completed your time, you are free to continue your life as you wish (bar a few exceptions), as long as you don't break the law again. If McCormick was a painter, I'm sure no-one would argue that he wasn't able to go back to being a painter after his four years. It shouldn't make a difference that he was a footballer. Now, whether his crime deserved only four years is a completely different question and one I am sure that not many of us are qualified to answer outside of our own morals. I agree that a career is an important part of the rehabilitation process of offenders, and agree that the issue here is not that he is going to be back working, but that his sentence was far too short in the first place, but my question is this: Would a painter, shop worker, or other "normal" job have such an easy time finding an employer to take them on? As a teacher, who has to have an enhanced CRB check evrey three years/ every job change (whichever is soonest....) the answer is, simply, had I committed the offence that McCormick had, I would never be allowed to ply my trade again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 I agree that a career is an important part of the rehabilitation process of offenders, and agree that the issue here is not that he is going to be back working, but that his sentence was far too short in the first place, but my question is this: Would a painter, shop worker, or other "normal" job have such an easy time finding an employer to take them on? As a teacher, who has to have an enhanced CRB check evrey three years/ every job change (whichever is soonest....) the answer is, simply, had I committed the offence that McCormick had, I would never be allowed to ply my trade again. That is an argument for making sure it is easier for ex convicts find jobs again. Of course we need to be careful, but if you had done what McCormick had done I fail to see why that should disqualify someone from working with children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uttoxram75 Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 Its a pointless argument fellas. The reality is that you can be sensible about sentences, rehabilitation and the like in the abstract. If the **** had killed your kids or grandkids you'd want him dead not appearing in the papers and on TV every week.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 Its a pointless argument fellas. The reality is that you can be sensible about sentences, rehabilitation and the like in the abstract. If the **** had killed your kids or grandkids you'd want him dead not appearing in the papers and on TV every week.. But that is exactly why the families of victims shouldn't decide what happens to people because how can they be objective? The family moaned last year when he was working in a charity shop on day release. We have a problem in this country with our prison system and how we treat people who have come out of prison if we don't change our culture the re-offending rate will continue to rise. Mr McCormick isn't an evil person because of what he has done, he has made a mistake and he most certainly deserves a chance to be part of a community again and to ply his trade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cisse Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 Mr McCormick took lives of two little kids and ruined even more lives. Should not walk free, ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uttoxram75 Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 But that is exactly why the families of victims shouldn't decide what happens to people because how can they be objective? The family moaned last year when he was working in a charity shop on day release. We have a problem in this country with our prison system and how we treat people who have come out of prison if we don't change our culture the re-offending rate will continue to rise. Mr McCormick isn't an evil person because of what he has done, he has made a mistake and he most certainly deserves a chance to be part of a community again and to ply his trade. I'm not arguing with you YR, I agree our penal system is designed to fail - we have enough evidence in the state of the country to support that - the point is you cannot expect the family to forgive and forget. If the guy became a self employed tradesman or summat like that no one would ever know. The fact that, potentially, his name will appear in sports pages, results sections and on TV highlights, will make it even harder for the family. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 I think the fact the he is footballer is clouding a lot of peoples judgement. If wayne rooney had done the exact same thing, and none of the prem clubs wanted him would you have him at derby?????? Just because we are envious of the person does not mean he is less entitled to work, all he knows is football why should he not continue to work in that area, What he should do is some interview (donate all proceeds to charity) and then make a commitment to donate a percentage of his salary to charity say 50% as in a commitment to make sure he is a good role model and try and influence people from this not happening again at the end of the day dispite what happened he IS NOT a nasty person he hasnt gone out and beat somebody up killed them, He made the most stupid mistake in the world and look at the consequence of those actions! Its not like he has seen red and glassed someone, or ran them off the road, the problem with this and what this highlights is people arent massively bothered about drink driving!!!! None of the schemes work if they are going to keep a limit what they should do is if you are caught drink driving you are banned PERMANENTLY from driving no ifs or buts if you are over the limit you are banned for life.. I had a friend caught 3 times over the limit, he was banned for a year, (lived in a city not a massive issue) only fined £1k not going to break the bank, and his car insurance has gone up!! IF they are going to clamp down it just have a ban for life!!! nobody would take the risk! that would cut all of the risk taking and result in it actually affecting peoples lifes without putting a burden on prison service, obviously where those actions result in further offences like this they should be judged on there own merit I am not condoning drink driving but if people want to deal with it we all need to be honest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pearl Ram Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 All he knows is football ??? Is he beyond retraining in another occupation ? It's not the fact he's a footballer that get's me, it's the fact he has the temerity to think he can return to a priviledged occupation in the spotlight and think his actions will not further affect the family of the bereaved and injured. I think this says more about McCormick's self indulgence than anything, I hope he get's pelters wherever he plays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.