Sunday, 21 June 2009

Of course they should be sacked

Do civil libertarians do anything other than undermine standards and decency?
Civil libertarians have criticised a proposal to sack police officers if they are convicted of drink-driving.

Queensland Police Commissioner Bob Atkinson is expected to release a new policy this week following a number of drink-driving offences by off-duty police.

Eight officers have been caught driving over the limit this year.

Queensland Council for Civil Liberties vice-president Terry O'Gorman said dismissing police convicted of drink-driving was harsh and amounted to "double punishment".

"Drink-driving disqualification periods generally are onerous and in some cases have a harsh flow-on effect on employment and family financial stability if a person as a result of losing a licence can't work," he said.

"This is as true for police as it is for the general community."

Mr O'Gorman said police convicted of drink-driving already faced being taken off the road and given desk jobs, often resulting in less pay.

Officers could also miss out on promotion, he said.
So, officers who are convicted of drink driving could earn less pay and miss out on promotion?

How sad for them.

What about if they use racist language and are convicted?

Or shoplift a Snickers Bar?

Police officers who drink drive have no place in the police force, as they obviously have disdain for the law.

They should be sacked let alone lose pay and promotion.

(Nothing Follows)


sfw said...

Too hard Jack, everyone makes a mistake sometimes, I bet you have done things that you shouldn't have and have learned from the experience. I'm not saying they should not be punished but to lose everything for a mistake of judgement is too harsh. In Victoria the government changed the law so that to be over the limit it's not above .05 but .05 and above. Now most of the people who are caught are usually right on the limit. Once they would have been told to be careful, now they lose their licence. People who have bad accidents are usually pissed rotten and they know they are. There is a world of difference between .05 and .1 and above lets get back to common sense and discretion.

Kaboom said...

I agree wholeheartedly with SWF - far too harsh.

An arbitrary line between "legal" and "you're gone!", which in itself is discriminatory, as women tend to fare far worse on the breathalyser.

Losing your career for a momentary human error is just wrong.

However, if it were imposed for major DUI offences (0.15 upwards), or drug-driving, then I am 100% in support.

We have enough kill-joy wowsers in society as it is, Jack.....