If anyone is misrepresenting your position, it is you - I am trying to get a clear understanding of your comments. All your comments appear to say that you think that driving bans can serve no useful purpose.
I have literally not said that, and I apologise for patronising you here, but I will now simply quote what I have said in thread, none of which relates to an opinion that "driving bans can serve no useful purpose" or that "nobody should ever be banned from driving".
Seen it argued that a lifetime disqualification is unlikely to work
My emphasis, making clear it is
not my position, but have read it elsewhere. "Seen it argued" does not imply agreement. Relating to
lifetime bans only.
There is no way that a driving ban would have stopped someone like this from actually driving. He already had previous offences and would offend again. Hopelessly naive to suggest the punishment for this sort of accident - pulverising a woman to death with your car - is just to be told not to drive a car again.
My emphasis, showing my comments are relating only to the very serious nature of the offending actually under discussion in the thread, and the "just" is in direct response to the tweet under discussion by
@Yew who said
Given that this was a nonviolent offence, the same could have been achieved by a driving ban, with a much lower cost to the taxpayer.
- his comments relating specifically to
this offence under discussion in
this thread where he talks about how the justice system can ensure the offender wouldn't be a danger to the public if he was simply banned from driving.
I’m talking about driving while unlicensed or banned. You can’t detect that in practice unless they are also committing other road offences, so I can’t see how that is an effective deterrent or punishment in lieu of being jailed for brutally killing someone with your vehicle.
Here I am replying to you, and I specifically frame that a driving ban is not effective as a deterrent or punishment specifically for
the offence and circumstances under discussion in the thread, and say it cannot be used as a deterrent or punishment in
lieu of prison. (That bit is really important, do you see how I am not making any sort of general argument against driving bans or suggest they never have any use in the justice system whatsoever?)
No, you haven't. I have made no such argument in the thread.
This is where I'm replying to you saying I have never said made any general point about never "banning people from driving".
In fact, I have never even argued that Mr Iqbal shouldn't be banned; all of the discussion prior to this has been about how it can't be used, as
@Yew suggests, as a deterrence and preventive measure in lieu of prison for this man who has committed this offence.
At no point did I make any general point that my opinion was nobody should ever be banned from driving, anywhere in the thread, yet you remain unsatisfied when I clarify my comments and remain convinced I am arguing a different point. I am not:
Driving bans are not a useful punishment or deterrent to people who have committed repeated and seriously reckless road offences, and certainly not to someone who seemed to make it his "thing" to record himself driving very fast and very recklessly.
This is part of my direct reply to you clarifying and I find it hard to believe you are unable to comprehend it, because you quoted selectively from this post to make a tedious sideline.
A few other select points where I take great care to lay out that I, again, with tedious repetition, am speaking against
this man and
this offence and in relation to the ban being a substitute for jail time, and not making a general point against driving bans:
- that *instead of jail*, a driving ban is an appropriate level of deterrence and punishment for someone who not only killed a person in the most appalling, most culpable way on the road, but also has a history of defying requirements to be insured, and defying warnings not to race on the public road...
is not defensible or realistic, because a driving ban is a relatively minor inconvenience. You simply drive someone else's (insured, taxed) car, and you won't be detected if you aren't committing any other offences.
Therefore, another punishment is required, above and beyond merely being banned from driving.
Indeed, and that banned drivers do drive again, frequently, and commit other road offences, frequently, should be quite enough to suggest that in this very egregious case it's not likely to be a good substitute for jail time.
Hopefully this English comprehension lesson has been useful and the "...instead of jail, for this man who committed this sort of offence" has managed to penetrate.
