Darron Gibson

He should be made do his community service in a rehabilitation clinic helping victims of drunk drivers.

The O'Shea wrote: I know many in society feel a visceral need to see people "locked up"; but at the end of the day what good does that really do, particularly for someone who apparently is suffering from mental health issues. He's received a hefty punishment and will presumably be mandated to go through treatment for his problems as well; hopefully it sets his life back on course.

The O'Shea wrote: I know many in society feel a visceral need to see people "locked up"; but at the end of the day what good does that really do, particularly for someone who apparently is suffering from mental health issues. He's received a hefty punishment and will presumably be mandated to go through treatment for his problems as well; hopefully it sets his life back on course.

The O'Shea wrote: If he had harmed someone then yes, a custodial sentence would have certainly been appropriate. The problem with the "a few months caged up would do him good" line of thought is that research has continually proved it to be dead wrong. Our judicial systems have two functions, to punish AND rehabilitate; people often overlook the 2nd function in favour of going all in on the 1st, and that is simply counterproductive.

Ultimately a sounder legal mind than me has deemed it fit to ban him for 40 months so I have to accept that. If it Had been me making the decision I would have sentenced him to maximum time available to me in a jail and ordered that he receives all care available to help him combat his ingrained habit of drink driving in the hope that he wouldnt do it again. I believe this would have a greater potential to stop future offending, which would be my primary concern, than a 40 month ban. I would also trust that HMP and the NHS could provide him any medical help that he requires. 

He knocked a fella off a bike and drove into petrol pumps the 1st time. If that didn't knock sense into him then colliding with 4 parked cars won't.

Fintan wrote: The O'Shea wrote: If he had harmed someone then yes, a custodial sentence would have certainly been appropriate. The problem with the "a few months caged up would do him good" line of thought is that research has continually proved it to be dead wrong. Our judicial systems have two functions, to punish AND rehabilitate; people often overlook the 2nd function in favour of going all in on the 1st, and that is simply counterproductive. I feel with Gibson a stint in jail will be the best form of rehabilitation. Surely a successful rehabilitation program for him is one that stops him driving vehicles whilst incapable through drink or drugs no? It would be the firmest message he could be sent that he needs to cease his repeat offending behaviour.  I don't buy that we need a person to be injured or killed before a person can be jailed in a scenario such as this. That implies that his rights to help and compassion is higher than a hypothetical victims rights. Not so imo considering he is a repeat offender now. I am all for rehabilitation in the first instance - I previously took time away from this forum after I advocated that kids who "burnt" a horse in Tallagh needed help and education rather that hanging which was the general consensus on here and got personal abuse for it - but I think Gibson is too far gone and needs locked up in order to aid his rehab.  As initially mentioned, a point which you didnt address, he can get any help he needs for medical or rehabilitation purposes he needs in jail.

SuperDave84 wrote: Fintan wrote: The O'Shea wrote: If he had harmed someone then yes, a custodial sentence would have certainly been appropriate. The problem with the "a few months caged up would do him good" line of thought is that research has continually proved it to be dead wrong. Our judicial systems have two functions, to punish AND rehabilitate; people often overlook the 2nd function in favour of going all in on the 1st, and that is simply counterproductive. I feel with Gibson a stint in jail will be the best form of rehabilitation. Surely a successful rehabilitation program for him is one that stops him driving vehicles whilst incapable through drink or drugs no? It would be the firmest message he could be sent that he needs to cease his repeat offending behaviour.  I don't buy that we need a person to be injured or killed before a person can be jailed in a scenario such as this. That implies that his rights to help and compassion is higher than a hypothetical victims rights. Not so imo considering he is a repeat offender now. I am all for rehabilitation in the first instance - I previously took time away from this forum after I advocated that kids who "burnt" a horse in Tallagh needed help and education rather that hanging which was the general consensus on here and got personal abuse for it - but I think Gibson is too far gone and needs locked up in order to aid his rehab.  As initially mentioned, a point which you didnt address, he can get any help he needs for medical or rehabilitation purposes he needs in jail.  Hypothetical victims have hypothetical rights. Gibson has actual rights. Also, victims have no rights to see someone punished any more than society has the right to see him punished. They may have a right to civil redress and certain rights under the victims rights directive but victims have no additional rights to see criminals punished any more than anyone else. If a driver runs you down, you might want to see him sent to jail, but criminal justice is meant to be objective.

well I hope he nevers wear an Ireland jersey again... unless in the back garden with his kids....enough excuses....