# Drink driver Beth Mackie only gets 5 years



## numbnuts (19 Dec 2014)

....and out in two and a half it's a joke
http://www.kentonline.co.uk/herne-bay/news/teenage-drink-driver-jailed-for-28940/


----------



## Turbo Rider (19 Dec 2014)

Heart breaking story. Don't know what to make of the sentence. Doesn't seem nearly long enough, but on the other hand, I can't see jail time doing her any good. Tragic. RIP.


----------



## G3CWI (19 Dec 2014)

Somehow it seems a shame that there is not a life-time driving ban available.


----------



## Roadrider48 (19 Dec 2014)

This is an absolutely dreadful story!
I feel for his wife and children.
I hate the excuses these people seem to come out with after all the damage they do through their own stupid actions.


----------



## young Ed (19 Dec 2014)

awful! it says he lives in Ashford which is my nearest town at only 10 or 15 miles away, makes it really hit home if you know what i mean. tragic and terrible
hopefully when Mackie has served her 5 years and had her 5 year driving ban she will take a bit longer to get behind the wheel again on her own conscience, but probably not 
hopefully this will scar her for life and she will never even imagine drinking and driving again, or speeding, again probably not 

2 things i have always sworn is that when i start driving i will never drink and drive and will never speed, ever!

i remember when the incident was posted about on here when it first happened this spring
Cheers Ed


----------



## classic33 (20 Dec 2014)

G3CWI said:


> Somehow it seems a shame that there is not a life-time driving ban available.


Why would that stop them driving?
One local to me had a 19 year ban to serve, once he was old enough to drive. Now he's driving despite the ban being in place.


----------



## oldstrath (20 Dec 2014)

Turbo Rider said:


> Heart breaking story. Don't know what to make of the sentence. Doesn't seem nearly long enough, but on the other hand, I can't see jail time doing her any good. Tragic. RIP.


Even if it did her no good, a serious length sentence might at least cause other cretins to engage a neuron or two. And it would keep her off the road, which would be a good thing.


----------



## Mobytek (20 Dec 2014)

A Life-time driving ban is availabl as an option for some convicitons.

When someone is faced with having commited a crime of which there are miltiple chargers available, the CPS will aim for the highest charge that has the best chance of conviction. She could have been charged with Murder or manslaughter but the chance of a convicition would have been too slim to make chasing it a possability - bearing in mind the "beyond all reasonalbe doubt" benchmark needed in a court of law.

What does happen a lot of the time though is that th person themselves will admit, or plead guilty to a lesser charge. This is where it becomes tricky. If the CPS decide to decline this lesser charge admitance and push for a higher charge, then they are in fo all or nothing. Fail to get the higher charge and they walk, get the higher and they are banged.

So in the case of a lot of Drink Driving that involves a death of someone, manslaughter would prob be the highest that on paper they could go for (someone causing or permitting the death of another, but without pre-medietation - to paraphrase), 

But when they please guilty to TWOC, DD or dangerous driving then CPS will often look at he balances of probabilities, the preseidents set by previous cases, and see what they can go with.

If punishments scaled from 1 (slap on the wrist /suspended sentence) through to 10 (life without parole) then a higher charge conviction could get you a level 6 - 8, but the chance of getting it is 10 - 20%, but guilty admittance to the lesser charge with a convicition level of 3 - 5 that is 100% then where are they going to go?

It is not nice, nor right, but it is how they system works, and how Mr Loophole Lawyer earns his living.

As for the 50% rule, the other 50% is on licence, whereby they can be racalled to serve the rest should anything happen during their out half. So, maybe she might get out, and 6 months later go out and something happend for which normally a caution, ora fin, but no - pulled back for the other 2 1/2 years.

Not to detract that the families have my sympathies due to one young persons' minute of drunken stupidity, which no imprisinment etc can ever bring them back.

People scoff when people are not "sent down" but in reality, if you do, they will cost the tax payer £40,000 + PA to keep them there, they are secured away and protected from the general public, do not have to face their daily scorn, the living without a car, taking public transport, turned down from jobs, being refued this and that and eventualy, when they do come out (besides an involved few) who will remember who they are? Will there be a new thread on here that "Beth Makay has been released"?

Sending someone down should, and is, only reserved for those that pose a danger to the public. Most sentences can be served "in the public", open prisions etc etc as although what they have done is wrong, very wrong, but in general they are not a risk to the general public, people they pass in the street etc. Is someone who embessled £4m from a bank a threat to the people in the park?


----------



## Turbo Rider (20 Dec 2014)

oldstrath said:


> Even if it did her no good, a serious length sentence might at least cause other cretins to engage a neuron or two. And it would keep her off the road, which would be a good thing.



It may actually do her and the rest of society bad, as well as not doing her any good though. She doesn't sound like a career criminal but she's about to be exposed to a fair few, so she can't help but pick up new tricks. I doubt if it will put anyone off either. It was a drunken decision that she made and she was persuaded into doing so, if the story is to be believed, and people are more prone to making silly, often catastrophic decisions when they're drunk. It would keep her off the road though and you can't argue with that. I'd go with a lifetime driving ban, community service and some time around the families of victims, with a suspended sentence if she's ever caught driving again, personally. Think it would achieve more positivity.


----------



## Pale Rider (20 Dec 2014)

Leaving aside the offence for a moment, five years is a long stretch for an 18-year-old who may have been 17 and a youth in law when the offence was committed.

She has been dealt with correctly as an adult - that time marker is the date of sentence - but had she been a youth the sentence would have been very different.

Don't get me wrong, there would be no complaints from me had she got a lot more.

But her young age, previous good character, and the fact the offence was the result of only one admittedly very poor decision makes a big difference.

Whichever way you look at it, she will be released at a relatively young age, and it is in everyone's best interest the 60-odd years she spends at liberty are done so to in a law abiding manner.

Criminalising a young person for life helps no one.


----------



## oldstrath (20 Dec 2014)

5 years for her isn't nearly as long as what she inflicted on others. And sorry, but she did not have to drink, nor break the law by driving after doing so, nor did she have to drive off after hitting the guy, nor did she have to lie. Sounds to me like someone who is already a criminal. 

Maybe imprisonment isn't the best option for her development, but it would be rather nice if our criminal system could find a way to indicate some disapproval of those who use their cars to kill people.


----------



## glenn forger (20 Dec 2014)

Yes, it's not a straightforward penitent young woman who made an error, as the court noted. She chose to drive, she could have got a cab. She tried to get away-she left a man dying in the road and tried to save her skin. She then tried to blame the dead man for his own death by lying to the police. She KNEW she had a black box fitted and still broke the speed limit. And she was twice the limit two and a half hours AFTER she killed Mr Christian. Her passenger was arrested and presumably faces no charges but his actions were pretty disgusting too, just not criminal. Mackie's actions after she killed a man were contemptible.


----------



## Arrowfoot (20 Dec 2014)

glenn forger said:


> Yes, it's not a straightforward penitent young woman who made an error, as the court noted. She chose to drive, she could have got a cab. She tried to get away-she left a man dying in the road and tried to save her skin. She then tried to blame the dead man for his own death by lying to the police. She KNEW she had a black box fitted and still broke the speed limit. And she was twice the limit two and a half hours AFTER she killed Mr Christian. Her passenger was arrested and presumably faces no charges but his actions were pretty disgusting too, just not criminal. Mackie's actions after she killed a man were contemptible.



5 years for a moment of folly at such young age. No doubt impaired judgement due to alcohol. Well aware that it caused a death but the sentence is quite something. We give career criminals engaged in repeated cycles of violence less than that. 

On the other I would like to see her passenger charged as well and penalised. He must have known that she was drinking.


----------



## oldstrath (20 Dec 2014)

The solution to drink driving exists already. Fit something such as this https://www.smartstartinc.com, to every car, make tampering in way with it a criminal offence punished by automatic imprisonment, loss of licence and confiscation of the car. Problem gone.

Oh, you probably have to reduce the alcohol limit to effectively zero, as in Scotland now, and allow random stops by police to check the device, and other stuff. But these seem good ideas anyway.


----------



## oldstrath (20 Dec 2014)

Arrowfoot said:


> 5 years for a moment of folly at such young age. No doubt impaired judgement due to alcohol. Well aware that it caused a death but the sentence is quite something. We give career criminals engaged in repeated cycles of violence less than that.
> 
> On the other I would like to see her passenger charged as well and penalised. He must have known that she was drinking.


Not 'a moment of folly'. Either she is too sick with alcohol dependency ever to drive, or she made a conscious decision to drink, a conscious decision to drive, and a conscious decision to lie.


----------



## glenn forger (20 Dec 2014)

Getting in the car was a moment of folly. Speeding, another moment of folly. Failing to stop, another mof, lying to the cops, another mof. That's four, how many do you get?


----------



## oldstrath (20 Dec 2014)

User13710 said:


> How many do you get before what?
> 
> Has anyone on here actually never made a bad judgement, sober or drunk? This young woman made a series of very poor decisions and she killed someone. She should at least never be allowed to drive a car again. The prison sentence I'm not so sure about.



Well, not one involving lobbing around a tonne or so of metal while completely bladdered. More seriously, I (and probably others) get sick of seeing the police, the CPS and the courts offer up excuse after excuse to let off drivers who maim or kill. Then finally when one is convicted the sentence seems short for the act of taking away a life, regardless of whether it was 'an act of folly' or an act of malicious stupidity.

But ok, I'm no longer young, my stupidities now endanger mostly me and a few other willing participants, and I've never been to jail, so maybe I can't really empathise. There is, as I posted above, a technological fix for this particular kind of stupidity, and probsbly we shoild be asking MPs and cycling organisations to push for that, rather than hoping this one girl will get hammered.


----------



## robjh (20 Dec 2014)

One of the questions raised here is how you prevent disqualified drivers from driving anyway. I would favour some kind of personal ID tag linked to the driving licence, that had to be displayed in the windscreen whenever you drive a car, and can be read by road safety cameras, but I don't see a hope in hell of this or any other effective measure being put in place.


----------



## young Ed (20 Dec 2014)

young Ed said:


> 2 things i have always sworn is that when i start driving i will never drink and drive and will never speed, ever!
> Cheers Ed


oh and i will NEVER EVER fiddle with my satnav/phone/radio etc, weather stopped at lights/junction or on the move. especially after what happened a few years ago.

a very close friend of mine, only about 13 or so at the time, was on her bike crossing the road at a proper crossing whilst riding to school one morning and this driver fiddling with her phone or satnav looked up and saw the lights were green and though 'oh shoot it's green' and just stepped on it and boom! T boned my mate and another lady on foot, left other lady paralysed for life and my mate, after 50 metres flying through the air, dead both my mate and the other woman thought this driver was waiting and letting them cross
lesson learnt, don't fiddle with technology whilst driving!


Mobytek said:


> when they do come out (besides an involved few) who will remember who they are? Will there be a new thread on here that "Beth Makay has been released"?
> *I expect i will remember the case, didn't know Mr Christian Smith my self nor Beth Mackie but it is one local to me and i find on things like this i seen to remember rather well for a fair few years*
> Sending someone down should, and is, only reserved for those that pose a danger to the public. Most sentences can be served "in the public", open prisions etc etc as although what they have done is wrong, very wrong, but in general they are not a risk to the general public, people they pass in the street etc. Is someone who embessled £4m from a bank a threat to the people in the park?
> *we get our piglets from a local womens open prison farm and i believe there are some rather serious ones in there that would be a serious risk to the public and are in for life but have served so many years under high security and a normal closed prison and have been good and sensible and not caused any trouble so are now trusted to be in an open prison*


Cheers Ed


----------



## Turbo Rider (20 Dec 2014)

I don't think anyone's trying to underplay what she did or make excuses for her. Very wrong what she did, very wrong how she acted afterwards and very tragic for both sets of families, especially his. I do think though, that the eye for an eye attitude is asking for trouble and that if everyone went around with that attitude, there wouldn't be much left of the world. It's not that I think her punishment is too light, more that it's completely wrong and I don't think much good will come out of a prison term at all...not just for her but for anyone. Prevention would be the best answer of all, but you can't prevent what's happened already. Mandatory breath tests are probably the only way to stop these things in future though. Doesn't help with drugged up drivers though...


----------



## Arrowfoot (21 Dec 2014)

oldstrath said:


> Not 'a moment of folly'. Either she is too sick with alcohol dependency ever to drive, or she made a conscious decision to drink, a conscious decision to drive, and a conscious decision to lie.



We all have seen tradesmen ripping off the vulnerable, the meek and even those that can stand up on for thousands of quid with bad, incomplete and even some yet to start to jobs and you do not see them behind bars even for a day. They have destroyed homes, families, relationships and the mental damage can be immense. Yet xwe think 5 years for a silly night at that young age of 18 yrs with no pre meditation, no plan to do any form of harm is still insufficient.


----------



## Arrowfoot (21 Dec 2014)

robjh said:


> One of the questions raised here is how you prevent disqualified drivers from driving anyway. I would favour some kind of personal ID tag linked to the driving licence, that had to be displayed in the windscreen whenever you drive a car, and can be read by road safety cameras, but I don't see a hope in hell of this or any other effective measure being put in place.



This is indeed a serious concern.


----------



## Roadrider48 (21 Dec 2014)

Arrowfoot said:


> We all have seen tradesmen ripping off the vulnerable, the meek and even those that can stand up on for thousands of quid with bad, incomplete and even some yet to start to jobs and you do not see them behind bars even for a day. They have destroyed homes, families, relationships and the mental damage can be immense. Yet xwe think 5 years for a silly night at that young age of 18 yrs with no pre meditation, no plan to do any form of harm is still insufficient.


Are you seriously comparing death by drink-driving to a plumber charging a bit too much?


----------



## Arrowfoot (21 Dec 2014)

Roadrider48 said:


> Are you seriously comparing death by drink-driving to a plumber charging a bit too much?



That's a strawman argument. Would you lose sleep if a plumber overcharges - certainly not.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (21 Dec 2014)

classic33 said:


> Why would that stop them driving?
> One local to me had a 19 year ban to serve, once he was old enough to drive. Now he's driving despite the ban being in place.


So you've shopped him?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (21 Dec 2014)

As to the OP. At least she was prosecuted and convicted. ~The Met seems to giving up on even charging drivers who kill cyclists.


----------



## glenn forger (21 Dec 2014)

Pale Rider said:


> Leaving aside the offence for a moment, five years is a long stretch for an 18-year-old who may have been 17 and a youth in law when the offence was committed.



She was 18 when she killed Mr Smith.


----------



## MacB (21 Dec 2014)

User13710 said:


> How many do you get before what?
> Has anyone on here actually never made a bad judgement, sober or drunk? This young woman made a series of very poor decisions and she killed someone. She should at least never be allowed to drive a car again. The prison sentence I'm not so sure about.



I suppose it really comes down to whether you believe that loss of liberty should be a punishment or a safety measure to protect society. In the cases of violence or the threat of violence I can see the need for prison. Beyond that I can only really see a desire for revenge with some very weak claims around rehabilitation draped over the top.


----------



## oldstrath (21 Dec 2014)

Arrowfoot said:


> We all have seen tradesmen ripping off the vulnerable, the meek and even those that can stand up on for thousands of quid with bad, incomplete and even some yet to start to jobs and you do not see them behind bars even for a day. They have destroyed homes, families, relationships and the mental damage can be immense. Yet xwe think 5 years for a silly night at that young age of 18 yrs with no pre meditation, no plan to do any form of harm is still insufficient.



If you mean she didn't set out to kill that particular man, then i agree there was no premeditation. But i can't see how anyone with enough intelligence to pass a driving test can fail to understand that driving while pissed is likely to endanger other people. So I would argue that the act of getting behind the wheel, indeed the act of driving to a place she planned to drink, constituted either a premeditated intention to put other lives at risk, or is evidence of such immaturity that she should never have had a driving licence.


----------



## Arrowfoot (21 Dec 2014)

oldstrath said:


> If you mean she didn't set out to kill that particular man, then i agree there was no premeditation. But i can't see how anyone with enough intelligence to pass a driving test can fail to understand that driving while pissed is likely to endanger other people. So I would argue that the act of getting behind the wheel, indeed the act of driving to a place she planned to drink, constituted either a premeditated intention to put other lives at risk, or is evidence of such immaturity that she should never have had a driving licence.



Its the 5 years thats I am disturbed with.

Sadly alcohol, good crowd, great fun leads to impaired judgement. Sadly she must had idiots as friends as I know that the mob I am with will not allow a mate to drive off in this manner.


----------



## classic33 (21 Dec 2014)

GrumpyGregry said:


> So you've shopped him?


More than once. And more than once he's just laughed at the sentence handed to him by the court.


----------



## oldstrath (21 Dec 2014)

MacB said:


> I suppose it really comes down to whether you believe that loss of liberty should be a punishment or a safety measure to protect society. In the cases of violence or the threat of violence I can see the need for prison. Beyond that I can only really see a desire for revenge with some very weak claims around rehabilitation draped over the top.



Deterrence?


----------



## oldstrath (21 Dec 2014)

MacB said:


> I suppose it really comes down to whether you believe that loss of liberty should be a punishment or a safety measure to protect society. In the cases of violence or the threat of violence I can see the need for prison. Beyond that I can only really see a desire for revenge with some very weak claims around rehabilitation draped over the top.



Deterrence?


----------



## MacB (21 Dec 2014)

oldstrath said:


> Deterrence?



a lifetime driving ban, community service and fines can act as a deterrent to others in as much as a deterrent would ever influence a young, silly and drunk person in the heat of the moment.

As a society we spend an awful lot of money processing and 'deterring' offenders only for the next generation to make the same sort of errors.


----------



## Turbo Rider (21 Dec 2014)

MacB said:


> a lifetime driving ban, community service and fines can act as a deterrent to others in as much as a deterrent would ever influence a young, silly and drunk person in the heat of the moment.
> 
> As a society we spend an awful lot of money processing and 'deterring' offenders only for the next generation to make the same sort of errors.



As a society, we also encourage everyone to get as drunk as they can, so the messages are mixed up all over the place. IMO, the voice of society sounds something like:

"Don't drink and drive. If you do drive and then drink then don't drive, but only if you've had more than a certain amount of mg of alcohol and if you've had nearly that amount already (which you probably don't know) then you should have a tiny bit more, just so you hit the mark and if you go over the limit, but only slightly, and you happen to be going my way then drop us off, would you? Seriously, you'll be fine...I wouldn't let you drive if I thought (hic) you'd get in trouble (hic)."

Even garages...places that you usually drive to...sell alcohol...umm.


----------



## oldstrath (21 Dec 2014)

MacB said:


> a lifetime driving ban, community service and fines can act as a deterrent to others in as much as a deterrent would ever influence a young, silly and drunk person in the heat of the moment.
> 
> As a society we spend an awful lot of money processing and 'deterring' offenders only for the next generation to make the same sort of errors.



Lifetime driving licence revocation appears to be unenforceable, fines are only enforced if the offender is wealthy enough, and community service appears to be treated as a joke. I'll freely admit to believing that the issue of driving after alcohol can and should be fixed by technology, but calling her behaviour an error understates how serious it was, IMO. To be blunt, I cannot understand how anyone without serious mental health issues can do what she did - getting drunk is one thing, but then driving? How can anyone not know this is dangerous? 

Edit: I've just spotted this 
http://www.theguardian.com/politics...-drive-laws-saved-lives-msps-vote-legal-limit 
heap of shite from the assistant editor of the Guardian. Apparently being a brainless toerag about alcohol and driving is not confined to 18 year olds.


----------



## glenn forger (21 Dec 2014)

What an utterly stupid article, as many commentators point out.


----------



## LinchPin (21 Dec 2014)

User13710 said:


> How many do you get before what?
> 
> Has anyone on here actually never made a bad judgement, sober or drunk? This young woman made a series of very poor decisions and she killed someone. She should at least never be allowed to drive a car again. The prison sentence I'm not so sure about.


You make it sound like a freak event as if it's the first time this woman had drunk and driven. ... and No I can't prove she has before.


----------



## LinchPin (21 Dec 2014)

User13710 said:


> It might sound like that to you, but I didn't say that. Does it matter?


I think it's fair to have the attitude of "There but for the grace of God go I" and if it was one momentary lapse of judgement then maybe 'cut her some slack' but it would seem that she made a series of momentary lapses.


----------



## LinchPin (21 Dec 2014)

User said:


> I don't


In general or in this particular case ?


----------



## StuartG (26 Dec 2014)

I look forward to Michael White's next article calling for the unchaining of our airline pilots who suffer an even more draconian limit than the Scots even under the Holyrood jackboot. How could any reasonable passenger begrudge their captain three glasses of wine before take-off? Indeed wouldn't a Guinness or two extra make them even more relaxed? It's not as though they have to look out for other planes with all those air traffic controllers and proximity warning radars. Driving can be more demanding of one's concentration so if Michael says its all right it must be so - mustn't it?

Cretin.


----------



## ufkacbln (27 Dec 2014)

Arrowfoot said:


> Its the 5 years thats I am disturbed with.
> 
> Sadly alcohol, good crowd, great fun leads to impaired judgement. Sadly she must had idiots as friends as I know that the mob I am with will not allow a mate to drive off in this manner.



A salutary tale of a guy in the Navy who had a few beers the night before his release, and the session extended. His mates then took his car keys and put him in a taxi to HMS Nelson

He however stopped the taxi once out of sight, came back, got his spare car keys and drove off, driving into a wall a few miles later

Breathalysed and found guilty he was disciplined by the Royal Navy by being broken back to the "Able Rate"

Effectively that cut his retirement settlement and pension by about 30%

It does however show that even when friends have the best intentions the "need to drive" often outweighs this common sense


----------



## Wobblers (28 Dec 2014)

User13710 said:


> How many do you get before what?
> 
> Has anyone on here actually never made a bad judgement, sober or drunk? This young woman made a series of very poor decisions and she killed someone. She should at least never be allowed to drive a car again. The prison sentence I'm not so sure about.



Yes, I doubt there will be a single person reading this who hasn't made a bad judgement. I think it also fair to say that it's good odds that no one reading this will have killed someone as a result of a bad decision. But for me it's not the poor judgement of driving whilst pissed. It's that she drove away leaving her vixtim to die in the road without even bothering to check. That's not "bad judgement". That's the actions of scum (the swear filter won't let me say what I really think). She deserves every single day of that sentence, and more.

At the moment, leaving the scene of an accident appears to have few bad consequences. The eventual punishment is rarely significantly increased. Yet the culprit may not be caught, or at worst it will no longer be possible to prove that they were over the limit. So it's possible to do what could be termed as "punishment arbitrage" - reduce your chances of getting caught or convicted for drink driving with no meaningful downside. The only way to prevent that is to make sure all hit and run crimes carry harsh penalties - if the penalties for leaving the scene were greater than for causing the "accident", then we might see fewer hit and runs.


----------



## ufkacbln (28 Dec 2014)

Don't forget that judicial penalties are not only about punishing the individual, but also a deterrent for others


----------



## Firestorm (28 Dec 2014)

I hope the "mate" who persuaded her to give him a lift is now looking for a new group of friends too. What twunt asks someone, who has already decided not to drive , to give them a lift ? I know she should not have driven and she deserves all she get, but for a mate to be that feckin selfish....jeez


----------



## qigong chimp (1 Jan 2015)

I read that article and interestingly - is it? is it really? - can't remember seeing any of the words "crime", "criminal" or "killer". Instead it seems I've read something about 2 victims of an accident or incident with consequences for one intelligent and hard working young victim and a dead victim who was wearing a helmet.


----------



## ColinJ (3 Jan 2015)

G3CWI said:


> Somehow it seems a shame that there is not a life-time driving ban available.





User said:


> There is.


Somehow it seems an absolute outrage that the life-time driving ban option, which apparently is available, is not used more often!


----------



## ufkacbln (3 Jan 2015)

A life time driving ban is really an irrelevance to many drivers

If a driver is already driving a "disposable" car without a licence, insurance or MOT then banning them from driving them will simply see them driving whilst banned, without a license, insurance or MOT


----------



## ColinJ (3 Jan 2015)

Cunobelin said:


> A life time driving ban is really an irrelevance to many drivers
> 
> If a driver is already driving a "disposable" car without a licence, insurance or MOT then banning them from driving them will simply see them driving whilst banned, without a license, insurance or MOT


Send them to prison for 5 years for doing that!


----------



## ufkacbln (3 Jan 2015)

User said:


> That is not a good enough reason not to use it. We cannot accept a lack of respect for the law as a reason not to enforce it.





User said:


> Not immediately but a scale that goes, one week, one month, one month and crush car, six months and crush car, etc should have some effect.




I was not suggesting that it was not used, simply pointing out that as in all legal censures there are those that will ignore


----------

