Speeding Fines to Fund Domestic Violence Counsellors.

Margaret Pilkington · 31-03-2007, 14:50

According to a front page article in one of todays newspapers, motorists who are caught speeding and go to court to challenge their fines will be penalised by having a surcharge of £15 added to their fine.
This money is to fund counsellors for victims of domestic violence and rape. Somehow, I don't get the connection between motorists and victims of violent crime.
Shouldn't it be the perpetrators of the violent crime who pay for the counsellors......not the motorist?

For motorist, read Cash Cow.

MargaretR · 31-03-2007, 15:19

Saw a lot of victims in my career, and suffered myself -(briefly thank goodness). If it ever happened to you you would be just thankful help is available and not care who pays. The actual offenders are usualy low earners with a low mentality and end up in prison - so wouldnt/couldnt pay.
If money can't be raised from general taxation I suppose the 'affluent' motorists will provide (just the ones who break rules)

Doug · 31-03-2007, 15:25

I don't mind this so much. I just hope the money goes directly to supporting the victims and not wasted on writing reports and paying for non combatant advisors.

Less · 31-03-2007, 15:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by [email protected]

Saw a lot of victims in my career, and suffered myself -(briefly thank goodness). If it ever happened to you you would be just thankful help is available and not care who pays. The actual offenders are usualy low earners with a low mentality and end up in prison - so wouldnt/couldnt pay.
If money can't be raised from general taxation I suppose the 'affluent' motorists will provide (just the ones who break rules)

Unfortunately although I agree that someone should pay to help the victims of violence, I cannot see why if, the perpetrators of these acts cannot be made to pay the responsibility should be thrown onto the motorist.

If the powers that be are unable to make those responsible pay surely they are causing a miscarriage of justice?
Maybe the motorist is guilty of speeding, but that does not make him/her guilty of violence so he/she is being punished for a crime they did not commit which has got to be wrong in the eyes of any fair and just society?

MargaretR · 31-03-2007, 15:43

Would you prefer an income tax rise, or a council tax rise, or it to be paid by a 'boy racer'?

Less · 31-03-2007, 15:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by [email protected]

Would you prefer an income tax rise, or a council tax rise, or it to be paid by a 'boy racer'?

No, I would prefer a society where this (violence), doesn't happen.
Being a member of the, 'let the punishment fit the crime brigade', I am all for justice being given out in it's correct proportions, if after getting a speeding fine the person goes home and beats up their spouse then they should be hit with the full weight of the law, but if the motorists are innocent of violent crime then they should not be punished for the crimes committed by others.

MargaretR · 31-03-2007, 16:02

Perhaps a solution would be a % of ALL fines to be dedicated towards helping ALL victims, whatever the crime was (violent or otherwise)

A speeding motorist is a potential killer and a £60 fine taught me not to break 'the rules'

Doug · 31-03-2007, 16:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by [email protected]

Perhaps a solution would a % of ALL fines to be dedicated towards helping ALL victims, whatever the crime was (violent or otherwise)

A speeding motorist is a potential killer and a £60 fine taught me not to break 'the rules'

It taught me twice Margaret. I'm not against this idea but I also feel that Less's point is valid. If we punished offenders in the first place maybe we wouldn't have such a problem. If a man got five years, and I mean five years maybe he'd be less of a bully when he got out.

But the point of this is support for the victims and it must be paid for from somewhere.

Less · 31-03-2007, 16:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by [email protected]

A speeding motorist is a potential killer and a £60 fine taught me not to break 'the rules'

Any motorist is a potential killer, that is one of the reasons all legal drivers have to have insurance.

If my house was robbed, by some low life thief, I would not expect a different thief that stole thousands of pounds from the company he worked for to have his sentence extended because the law can't afford to prosecute the thief that stole from me.

Yes, the motorist that is fined is guilty of speeding and he broke the law, (I have done this myself), but he has not committed any other crime so why should he be punished for other peoples misdemeanour's?

Again I will repeat, I would love to live a society where violence doesn't happen, but I also want to live in a society where the punishment is fair, if the motorist is not guilty of someone else's crime then he should not be punished for it.

accymel · 31-03-2007, 16:19

Maybe hefty fining the perpretrators that submit the violence should pay towards costs of domestic violence & enforce it - men & women!! Having been once a victim myself my perpretrator got a fine & never paid it cos the loophole was he didnt have to having spent time in prison for a simular but seperate to the fined offense & the courts actually dropped the fine saying he paid in prison - funny that cos i saw nothing of it as it was me he was to pay it too!!!!

MargaretR · 31-03-2007, 16:29

I was suggesting a % levy on all fines, not extension of prison sentences.

Some perpetrators of lesser crime think that they have not made anyone suffer -ie 'victimless crime' - a false assumption

Petty theft and burglary causes mental anguish.(had that too)

A motorist speeding on an empty urban road in the dead of night disturbs sleep of residents, and what if the odd one of 2 were agonisingly ill or dying - not nice is it?

When you get down to basics crime is crime and in all its forms it offends and spoils the quality of life for others.

To specify a crime which particularly offends me - dog fouling - sounds very petty doesnt it. The people who dont pick up thier dog's s**t dont think of themselves as criminals. Children can go blind if the dog isnt wormed frequently, and I physically retch at the sight of the stuff (I suppose I suffer 'mildly') but do they realise that there is very little crime which is 'victimless'.

Margaret Pilkington · 31-03-2007, 16:52

I don't see all speeders as boy racers......and I think it is wrong to see motorists as a group of people that it is OK to use to raise money from.

I'm not saying that we should not provide cousellors for those unfortunate people who have suffered at the hands of violent criminals. Would it not be better to seize the assets of these people to pay for their victims to get help?

Margaret Pilkington · 31-03-2007, 16:57

And in answer to your question - Yes, I would care if a motorist was surcharged because apart from speeding, he/she has committed no other crime. Violent offenders should be made to take responsibility for their actions.

MargaretR · 31-03-2007, 17:03

To get back to your original 'victims' -domestic violence (sorry I strayed off topic a bit) -
As a Dhss visiting officer specialising in 'newly separated women' for many years, I can only say that in the horrendously numerous cases of domestic violence I encountered, the majority of cases resulted in no help, support or compensation for the victim.
The offenders had need of counselling too (alcoholism, anger management)
and more often than not had no assets to seize.

chav1 · 31-03-2007, 17:11

bloody pathetic just another way of screwing money out of the motorist and they use rape victims ,battered wifes etc to hide behind

it shouldnt need money from speeding fines to help people teh money shoudl already be there