The dangers to society? Paedophiles, rapists and murderers. I realise that the flaw in this plan would be drawing the line, but I just believe that people who are genuinely not a danger to society shouldnt go to jail.
Maybe it could be a 3 strikes and you're out kinda thing? you get 2 non-custodial sentences and imprisoned on the 3rd?
I basically agree that Prison should be a last resort. For persisent offenders, it is.
I think that people should only be imprisoned if they are a danger to society.
A negligent driver, for example, who hits and kills a person by accident (eg he's on his mobile phone) should certainly be punished with a fine or community service, but I dont believe he should be jailed.
I think the knowledge that he killed a person would be punishment enough to be honest.
Or people who commit fraud. They are criminals and should be punished, but as they are not dangers to society, they shouldnt be imprisoned.
Well there's a nice set of deterrents removed.
These punishments are here to show people what a lethal weapon a car is when driven irresponsibly.
Lots of people use phones when driving,but unless they are idiots they should realise that simple bit of carelessness could result in a death and them in jail for years.
If you run a kid down on a bike and kill him,I don't think his parents would be happy with "Sorry I was on my phone,it was an accident"
The dangers to society? Paedophiles, rapists and murderers. I realise that the flaw in this plan would be drawing the line, but I just believe that people who are genuinely not a danger to society shouldnt go to jail.
Maybe it could be a 3 strikes and you're out kinda thing? you get 2 non-custodial sentences and imprisoned on the 3rd?
So you think uninsured ,licenceless ,phone chattering drivers are not a danger to society.
Perhaps when you or a loved one is injured by an uninsured or chattering driver you may change your mind
So you think uninsured ,licenceless ,phone chattering drivers are not a danger to society.
Perhaps when you or a loved one is injured by an uninsured or chattering driver you may change your mind
I'm not condoning it! But its hardly like they are going out to kill people on purpose.
Yes, you get the odd person who doesnt care, but I bet the majority of people would be gutted to have carelessly injured someone and a fine or community service coupled with that knowledge would be enough to ensure that it never happened again. People make mistakes. Should they really have their whole lives destroyed by it? Should they really suffer the complete mental torture of going to jail with the rapists and murderers, when they're already suffering from the knowledge that they've hurt or killed someone through their own carelessness?
I totally appreciate what you're saying, but I must ask you to have reasoned debate and not reply to my posts with such aggression.
The first is where the driver is deliberately driving in a dangerous or reckless manner which leads to an accident that kills one or more people.
The second is where a driver, who is driving in a reasonable manner, makes a mistake or a misjudgement which leads to an accident that kills one or more people.
The first one should lead to a long prison sentence. As for the second one it would depend on the circumstances, but it could lead to a suspended sentence or a relatively short term in prison.
A perfect example of what I am talking about is the Selby Rail Crash.
This was caused by a driver of a Land Rover coming off a Motorway just before a bridge over a railway line. The Driver was convicted of 10 counts of Causing Death by Dangerous Driving because he was judged to have fallen asleep at the wheel of his car. This led to his car coming off the Motorway an ending up on the Railway which caused a train to derail and hit another train coming in the opposite direction.
If on the other hand he had not fallen asleep at the wheel and had made a mistake while driving in a reasonable manner and had still ended up on the railway way line and caused the resulting accident. Then he would have been guilty of Causing Death by Careless Driving and may not have got a prison sentence.
When driving you are legally required to be in complete of control of your faculties and unhindered by an act of recklessness, careless driving, alcohol in the system, drugs in the system and willful distractions such as the use of a mobile phone etc because the car is no less a killing machine than a gun is piece of metal.
In the case of Naseem he should have served his full sentence and then some, if Im not mistaken his showing off in his killing machine broke every bone in the body of his victim who to this day suffers from those injuries to this day.
If you get in your car (not even already having hit or killed anyone) and are under the influence of any unlawful substance, using a implement that would distract you from the safe control of your car, or are plain wreckless: you've broken the law - and therefore your intent is already implicit in your act prior to getting into and driving said vehicle.
Ive seen some absolutely ridiculously soft sentencing on car drivers who have killed people, there seems to be at least one memorably horrendous case or two every month. Moreso there seems to be this disgraceful rise in hit and run crimes where individuals have just been left for dead or even just dead at the scene.
Our legal system is completely at sixes and nines imho and the sooner we increase sentencing from the bottom end up the better
Also, what makes an uninsured driver necessarily a dangerous one??
Have you never seen Traffic Cops or Road Wars?
An uninsured driver will always be commiting other offences.
Whether its just no tax or worse things like being disqualified completely,and often they will be involved in other crimes.
But thats all beside the point.
Uninsured drivers don't need to worry about their premiums increasing so they are more likely to be less careful on the road.
If you are hit by an uninsured driver tomorrow and your car is written off,who's going to pay for your replacement car?
If one of your loved ones is killed or injured by an uninsured driver,the driver will go to jail,but the rest of the mess is left to you.
So if a partner is killed and you find yourself homeless because the mortgage is no longer affordable with a single wage will you still think uninsured drivers are not a problem.
The Trevor McDonald ITV show did a special the other week and showed the devastation they leave behind.
The menace they are is proven by the fact that if you are uninsured and stopped by the police your car is immediately confiscated and within weeks is crushed.
Good job too.
Uninsured drivers are second only to drink drivers in the moronic scumbag stakes
Also, what makes an uninsured driver necessarily a dangerous one??
It shows a premeditated lack of regard for the law and by association the reason why those laws were put in place, therefore, a danger to every road user he/she might have the misfortune to encounter under adverse circumstances.
The first is where the driver is deliberately driving in a dangerous or reckless manner which leads to an accident that kills one or more people.
The second is where a driver, who is driving in a reasonable manner, makes a mistake or a misjudgement which leads to an accident that kills one or more people.
The first one should lead to a long prison sentence. As for the second one it would depend on the circumstances, but it could lead to a suspended sentence or a relatively short term in prison.
A perfect example of what I am talking about is the Selby Rail Crash.
This was caused by a driver of a Land Rover coming off a Motorway just before a bridge over a railway line. The Driver was convicted of 10 counts of Causing Death by Dangerous Driving because he was judged to have fallen asleep at the wheel of his car. This led to his car coming off the Motorway an ending up on the Railway which caused a train to derail and hit another train coming in the opposite direction.
If on the other hand he had not fallen asleep at the wheel and had made a mistake while driving in a reasonable manner and had still ended up on the railway way line and caused the resulting accident. Then he would have been guilty of Causing Death by Careless Driving and may not have got a prison sentence.
Has the second offence actually become law yet? I know it is being put in place, but it certainly wasn't there for the Selby crash.
The only other option to causing death by dangerous driving was driving without due care and attention, although there was an offence of causing death by careless driving whilst under the influence, which wasn't applicable.
This is a question that's always bugged me, and more so recently. Should people not be sentenced on the basis of what they actually did, rather on the unintended consequences of their actions?
The obvious example here is causing death by dangerous driving; this has a maximum sentence of fourteen years, and those convicted of it are pretty certain to go to jail (in Scotland, you never see sentences less than three years now, though the courts seem a little more lenient in England). Dangerous driving not causing death, however, has a maximum sentence of two years, and many convicted of it are spared prison. Even in the case of Prince Naseem, the boxer, who got the maximum, he got 16 months because he'd pleaded guilty, and got out on a tag after serving quarter of his sentence ie only FOUR MONTHS.
And yet the crime the person actually intentionally committed was the same; the person who caused the death didn't intend to do it. So why such a big discrepancy? Is it simply so the relatives of the dead person can feel better? Yet I know of at least 2 cases where the relatives begged the judge not to impose a jail sentence.
If the sentences are to be a deterrent, surely they need to apply to all dangerous drivers?
The same argument obviously applies to manslaughter. It also applies, in reverse, to attempted murder - why should someone who tries to murder someone get credit just because they bungled it? Why shouldn't they get life like a successful murderer? Are we offering them another shot at it?
Any thoughts?
It's just the way the law is, although ~ logically ~ I see your point. For example, when that guy got 5 years for crashing his car down a railway embankment and causing deaths through a derailment, because he went to sleep at the wheel of his car. I doubt he'd have even been imprisoned if the line, unbeknown to him, had been closed due to engineering work and no collision taken place.
Yet the act he committed would have been identical in degree, yet different in consequence simply as a result of fate.
Has the second offence actually become law yet? I know it is being put in place, but it certainly wasn't there for the Selby crash.
There is no offence yet of causing death by careless driving. People are charged with careless driving and magistrates (or sheriffs in Scotland) cannot take into account the fact that someone died. As far as I know jail sentences aren't given, just fines, community service and driving bans.
The Government intends to change this; it plans to bring in a new offence of causing death by careless driving with a maximum sentence of five years in jail. This has been much demanded by certain newspapers, by many relatives of victims of careless drivers and by road safety charities.
My feeling is that this is the wrong way to go. To me, it means the courts are simply doling out revenge for the life lost. Understandably this can make the relatives feel better (though, as I said in my original post, that isn't always so, particularly in cases where the the driver causes the death of a friend, whose family may know him/her well), but is this really what the justice system should be for?
To me, there are a number of purposes a sentence should serve. First and foremost, it should protect the public from dangerous people who might harm them. Now, a dangerous driver who has killed is no more of a future danger to the public than one who hasn't - yet. In fact, if he/she isn't a sociopath, the driver who has killed is less likely to re-offend given the shock they've had.
Second, the sentence should, though this has become something of a joke in overcrowded prisons, rehabilitate the prisoner and make him a better person. Thirdly, and related, it should deter the offender from doing it again. Is the driver who has killed any more in need of this than an equally dangerous driver who (through sheer luck) hasn't?
Finally, the sentence should deter others. This is where I feel the current law really falls down. How many dangerous drivers really expect to cause a death? Most, if they did, just wouldn't do it. After all, they are putting their own lives at risk, not just those of others; if the thought of their own death or injury doesn't deter them, is it likely that a jail sentence will?
My belief is that most dangerous drivers either have misplaced confidence in their driving abilities, or simply feel immortal (it's no coincidence that so many of them are very young drivers). They don't expect to have an accident, so why would a jail sentence that only applies to killer drivers bother them.
I'm not advocating that people are simply allowed to get off because they didn't mean it. Instead, I think there should be one offence of dangerous driving, with higher sentences available than the two years now applying. Sentencing should take account of the level of irresponsibility of the driving, the drivers previous history, the likelihood of re-offending, but not factors which are purely accidental, which includes whether someone died.
Surely if the driver knew that they could face serious jail time regardless of whether they killed anyone or not, that would be far more of a deterrent?
A person is guilty of murder if he attacks someone, with the intention of killing that person, or of causing grevious bodily harm, and the person he attacks does in fact die.
Are you therefore suggesting that anyone convicted of grevious bodily harm should be given a life sentence?
If so, where is the incentive to stop when you have knocked your victim unconscious?
Why not continue until he is dead?
After all, you'll get the same sentence and you are less likely to be caught if your victim is dead.
I would have regarded murder as only applying when the accused person intended to kill. To me, if a person attacks someone meaning to hurt them, even very seriously, but not kill them, then that's not murder. If the law says differently, then not for the first time I think the law is wrong.
The question of violent assaults resulting in death is in many ways trickier than the driving cases, because the system I think should exist for dangerous driving already does exist for careless driving.
I think it wouldn't be beyond the wit of man though to devise laws that would see a person punished on the basis of whether he could reasonably have expected his assault to kill someone or not.
Nor are all manslaughter cases ones involving violence at all. The man who made that inflatable sculpture that came adrift causing the deaths of two women, for instance, has now been charged with manslaughter. He never intended to hurt anyone, though they presumably have reason to believe the accident was caused through his error. Should he really be charged with the same crime as some yobs who jump up and down on someone's head?
The thing is somebody is innocently living their lives until x comes along....
x has to be responsible for their actions, what lead up to the innocent person being killed? If they were hit by x then x is fully responsible for the concequences of their actions not what they intended to do. Of course this is only if they have commited a criminal act like assult, if they havent then it's an accident.
There was someone recently in my area who was travelling at speed 60 in a 40 if I remember correctly. He had just got a new car and was showing off a bit to a friend. Unfortunately for him, an elderly couple had just made a wrong turn and gone the wrong way up a one way street. He ploughed into them and the couple were killed.
I think he got 4 years imprisonment or something, which I think was a bit harsh in the circumstances. I think most of us can say we have exceeded the speed limit at times, and who could have predicted that this elderly couple would suddenly appear. This guy was previously law abiding and full of remorce for his actions. Lives had been lost, but I thought they may have been killed anyway if he was doing 40, as they should not have been in the road.
I thought the sentence was excessively harsh (and I don't say that about many custodial sentences), especially when you compare it to some peadophile who got 2 years for offences against a minor, in the same week.
The best driver in the world is helpless, if a pedestrian suddenly runs into the road 5 yards in front of them.
Similarly, if a cyclist rides an unlit bicycle from a concealed driveway at 2am, no driver on earth can miss him if he's only 5 yards away.
A driver is only responsible for an incident (I hate the term "accident", because many aren't really accidents, but negligent behaviour) if he could reasonably have prevented it.
I mean, you wouln't blame a driver who hit a child playing "chicken" on the motorway, would you?
Something like that happened here (The kid just ran out in front of the car) and the driver didn't get any jail time because the Parents and Police saw it as an accident and the Driver was going the speed limit so he wasn't at fault.
I think that logic should be used by all Cops all over the world. It's pointless to have put that driver in jail when he was following the law and the kid just ran out in the street. It's unfortunate the child died but the driver couldn't have done anything.
I thought the sentence was excessively harsh (and I don't say that about many custodial sentences), especially when you compare it to some peadophile who got 2 years for offences against a minor, in the same week.
But the death sentace was pretty harsh for the poor couple?
How many lives has the death of the couple ruined, their family, sons, daughters, how would you feel burying your mum and dad in the same week because some pr*ck wanted to show off to his mates?
But the death sentace was pretty harsh for the poor couple?
How many lives has the death of the couple ruined, their family, sons, daughters, how would you feel burying your mum and dad in the same week because some pr*ck wanted to show off to his mates?
Two accidents: both occur in exactly the same way. But one ends up injuring the driver, and the other injures or kills an innocent person who just happened to be in the wrong place. Normally if just the driver and no-one else is involved, he will not be sent to prison. But if a pedestrian is involved, he will possibly get 4 years.
Two accidents: both occur in exactly the same way. But one ends up injuring the driver, and the other injures or kills an innocent person who just happened to be in the wrong place. Normally if just the driver and no-one else is involved, he will not be sent to prison. But if a pedestrian is involved, he will possibly get 4 years.
Is that not simply societal revenge ?
No it's about taking responsibility for your actions and how they can effect others. By driving like that he could have killed his friends in the car or anyone.
If you take a knife and stab someone and they survive then you would get a lighter sentance than if they died.
But the fact that you commited the act means that you live with the consequences of your actions.
For me it's not about revenge it's about responsibility and consequences. To me you sound like a liberal oh it's not his fault that he took drugs, stole a car, crashed it and killed 2 people, give him a soft sentance, the people were unlucky to be in the way when he crashed the stolen car at high speed.
I would have regarded murder as only applying when the accused person intended to kill. To me, if a person attacks someone meaning to hurt them, even very seriously, but not kill them, then that's not murder. If the law says differently, then not for the first time I think the law is wrong.
The question of violent assaults resulting in death is in many ways trickier than the driving cases, because the system I think should exist for dangerous driving already does exist for careless driving.
I think it wouldn't be beyond the wit of man though to devise laws that would see a person punished on the basis of whether he could reasonably have expected his assault to kill someone or not.
Nor are all manslaughter cases ones involving violence at all. The man who made that inflatable sculpture that came adrift causing the deaths of two women, for instance, has now been charged with manslaughter. He never intended to hurt anyone, though they presumably have reason to believe the accident was caused through his error. Should he really be charged with the same crime as some yobs who jump up and down on someone's head?
To be guilty of murder, it has to be proved there was an intent to kill, or cause serious injury.
That seems right to me. If the person doesn't die, the charge is attempted murder.
There are various types of manslaughter, including corporate manslaughter, which covers gross negligence.
The sentence should reflect the consequences of the persons actions, and therefore if a dangerous driver kills someone, they should be punished more than someone who doesn't.
The important thing is that the driving offence is proved first, rather than the fact someone was killed. The death is really an aggravating factor to the offence.
But the death sentace was pretty harsh for the poor couple?
How many lives has the death of the couple ruined, their family, sons, daughters, how would you feel burying your mum and dad in the same week because some pr*ck wanted to show off to his mates?
Yes but the couple were driving the wrong way up a one way street. You could call the driver of that car a pr**K.
If the other driver had died, one of them could be serving the 4 years.
Something like that happened here (The kid just ran out in front of the car) and the driver didn't get any jail time because the Parents and Police saw it as an accident and the Driver was going the speed limit so he wasn't at fault.
I think that logic should be used by all Cops all over the world. It's pointless to have put that driver in jail when he was following the law and the kid just ran out in the street. It's unfortunate the child died but the driver couldn't have done anything.
As far as I'm aware that logic is used in most countries that I know of. You can't be charged for an accident that wasn't your fault when you were obeying the law.
I have however known a case where a driver has been convicted for a death that occurred when he was travelling over the speed limit even though expert evidence presented by the defence, and not contested by the prosecution, showed that nothing would have happened any differently if he'd been going within the speed limit.
There was someone recently in my area who was travelling at speed 60 in a 40 if I remember correctly. He had just got a new car and was showing off a bit to a friend. Unfortunately for him, an elderly couple had just made a wrong turn and gone the wrong way up a one way street. He ploughed into them and the couple were killed.
I think he got 4 years imprisonment or something, which I think was a bit harsh in the circumstances. I think most of us can say we have exceeded the speed limit at times, and who could have predicted that this elderly couple would suddenly appear. This guy was previously law abiding and full of remorce for his actions. Lives had been lost, but I thought they may have been killed anyway if he was doing 40, as they should not have been in the road.
I thought the sentence was excessively harsh (and I don't say that about many custodial sentences), especially when you compare it to some peadophile who got 2 years for offences against a minor, in the same week.
4 years is a pretty long sentence for causing death by dangerous driving. Excess speed alone is not normally enough to prove dangerous driving either, so I suspect there must have been much more to this case than the facts given.
For me it's not about revenge it's about responsibility and consequences. To me you sound like a liberal oh it's not his fault that he took drugs, stole a car, crashed it and killed 2 people, give him a soft sentance, the people were unlucky to be in the way when he crashed the stolen car at high speed.
Liberal is a much-abused word.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm not necessarily advocating soft sentences for dangerous or drunk drivers who kill, just that the same tough sentences should apply to ones who don't, but who sooner or later might.
Last year a girl who had two previous drink driving convictions killed a woman in a road accident and got seven years. What if she'd got a tough jail sentence for her first drink driving convciction, or at least her second? Then the woman who died might still be alive, and the girl, although still serving serious jail time, would at least be spared the guilt she will now have to live with.
There's Syed from The Apprentice; he's racked up four drink driving convictions and seen no jail time. Why do we have to wait until he kills someone before he gets anything more than a slap on the wrists?
Comments
Hang them upside down, by their nuts?
Now that would be an effective "suspended" sentence.
Well there's a nice set of deterrents removed.
These punishments are here to show people what a lethal weapon a car is when driven irresponsibly.
Lots of people use phones when driving,but unless they are idiots they should realise that simple bit of carelessness could result in a death and them in jail for years.
If you run a kid down on a bike and kill him,I don't think his parents would be happy with "Sorry I was on my phone,it was an accident"
Perhaps when you or a loved one is injured by an uninsured or chattering driver you may change your mind
I'm not condoning it! But its hardly like they are going out to kill people on purpose.
Yes, you get the odd person who doesnt care, but I bet the majority of people would be gutted to have carelessly injured someone and a fine or community service coupled with that knowledge would be enough to ensure that it never happened again. People make mistakes. Should they really have their whole lives destroyed by it? Should they really suffer the complete mental torture of going to jail with the rapists and murderers, when they're already suffering from the knowledge that they've hurt or killed someone through their own carelessness?
I totally appreciate what you're saying, but I must ask you to have reasoned debate and not reply to my posts with such aggression.
Also, what makes an uninsured driver necessarily a dangerous one??
Causing Death by Dangerous Driving.
And
Causing Death by Careless Driving.
The first is where the driver is deliberately driving in a dangerous or reckless manner which leads to an accident that kills one or more people.
The second is where a driver, who is driving in a reasonable manner, makes a mistake or a misjudgement which leads to an accident that kills one or more people.
The first one should lead to a long prison sentence. As for the second one it would depend on the circumstances, but it could lead to a suspended sentence or a relatively short term in prison.
A perfect example of what I am talking about is the Selby Rail Crash.
This was caused by a driver of a Land Rover coming off a Motorway just before a bridge over a railway line. The Driver was convicted of 10 counts of Causing Death by Dangerous Driving because he was judged to have fallen asleep at the wheel of his car. This led to his car coming off the Motorway an ending up on the Railway which caused a train to derail and hit another train coming in the opposite direction.
If on the other hand he had not fallen asleep at the wheel and had made a mistake while driving in a reasonable manner and had still ended up on the railway way line and caused the resulting accident. Then he would have been guilty of Causing Death by Careless Driving and may not have got a prison sentence.
In the case of Naseem he should have served his full sentence and then some, if Im not mistaken his showing off in his killing machine broke every bone in the body of his victim who to this day suffers from those injuries to this day.
If you get in your car (not even already having hit or killed anyone) and are under the influence of any unlawful substance, using a implement that would distract you from the safe control of your car, or are plain wreckless: you've broken the law - and therefore your intent is already implicit in your act prior to getting into and driving said vehicle.
Ive seen some absolutely ridiculously soft sentencing on car drivers who have killed people, there seems to be at least one memorably horrendous case or two every month. Moreso there seems to be this disgraceful rise in hit and run crimes where individuals have just been left for dead or even just dead at the scene.
Our legal system is completely at sixes and nines imho and the sooner we increase sentencing from the bottom end up the better
Have you never seen Traffic Cops or Road Wars?
An uninsured driver will always be commiting other offences.
Whether its just no tax or worse things like being disqualified completely,and often they will be involved in other crimes.
But thats all beside the point.
Uninsured drivers don't need to worry about their premiums increasing so they are more likely to be less careful on the road.
If you are hit by an uninsured driver tomorrow and your car is written off,who's going to pay for your replacement car?
If one of your loved ones is killed or injured by an uninsured driver,the driver will go to jail,but the rest of the mess is left to you.
So if a partner is killed and you find yourself homeless because the mortgage is no longer affordable with a single wage will you still think uninsured drivers are not a problem.
The Trevor McDonald ITV show did a special the other week and showed the devastation they leave behind.
The menace they are is proven by the fact that if you are uninsured and stopped by the police your car is immediately confiscated and within weeks is crushed.
Good job too.
Uninsured drivers are second only to drink drivers in the moronic scumbag stakes
It shows a premeditated lack of regard for the law and by association the reason why those laws were put in place, therefore, a danger to every road user he/she might have the misfortune to encounter under adverse circumstances.
Has the second offence actually become law yet? I know it is being put in place, but it certainly wasn't there for the Selby crash.
The only other option to causing death by dangerous driving was driving without due care and attention, although there was an offence of causing death by careless driving whilst under the influence, which wasn't applicable.
It's just the way the law is, although ~ logically ~ I see your point. For example, when that guy got 5 years for crashing his car down a railway embankment and causing deaths through a derailment, because he went to sleep at the wheel of his car. I doubt he'd have even been imprisoned if the line, unbeknown to him, had been closed due to engineering work and no collision taken place.
Yet the act he committed would have been identical in degree, yet different in consequence simply as a result of fate.
There is no offence yet of causing death by careless driving. People are charged with careless driving and magistrates (or sheriffs in Scotland) cannot take into account the fact that someone died. As far as I know jail sentences aren't given, just fines, community service and driving bans.
The Government intends to change this; it plans to bring in a new offence of causing death by careless driving with a maximum sentence of five years in jail. This has been much demanded by certain newspapers, by many relatives of victims of careless drivers and by road safety charities.
My feeling is that this is the wrong way to go. To me, it means the courts are simply doling out revenge for the life lost. Understandably this can make the relatives feel better (though, as I said in my original post, that isn't always so, particularly in cases where the the driver causes the death of a friend, whose family may know him/her well), but is this really what the justice system should be for?
To me, there are a number of purposes a sentence should serve. First and foremost, it should protect the public from dangerous people who might harm them. Now, a dangerous driver who has killed is no more of a future danger to the public than one who hasn't - yet. In fact, if he/she isn't a sociopath, the driver who has killed is less likely to re-offend given the shock they've had.
Second, the sentence should, though this has become something of a joke in overcrowded prisons, rehabilitate the prisoner and make him a better person. Thirdly, and related, it should deter the offender from doing it again. Is the driver who has killed any more in need of this than an equally dangerous driver who (through sheer luck) hasn't?
Finally, the sentence should deter others. This is where I feel the current law really falls down. How many dangerous drivers really expect to cause a death? Most, if they did, just wouldn't do it. After all, they are putting their own lives at risk, not just those of others; if the thought of their own death or injury doesn't deter them, is it likely that a jail sentence will?
My belief is that most dangerous drivers either have misplaced confidence in their driving abilities, or simply feel immortal (it's no coincidence that so many of them are very young drivers). They don't expect to have an accident, so why would a jail sentence that only applies to killer drivers bother them.
I'm not advocating that people are simply allowed to get off because they didn't mean it. Instead, I think there should be one offence of dangerous driving, with higher sentences available than the two years now applying. Sentencing should take account of the level of irresponsibility of the driving, the drivers previous history, the likelihood of re-offending, but not factors which are purely accidental, which includes whether someone died.
Surely if the driver knew that they could face serious jail time regardless of whether they killed anyone or not, that would be far more of a deterrent?
I would have regarded murder as only applying when the accused person intended to kill. To me, if a person attacks someone meaning to hurt them, even very seriously, but not kill them, then that's not murder. If the law says differently, then not for the first time I think the law is wrong.
The question of violent assaults resulting in death is in many ways trickier than the driving cases, because the system I think should exist for dangerous driving already does exist for careless driving.
I think it wouldn't be beyond the wit of man though to devise laws that would see a person punished on the basis of whether he could reasonably have expected his assault to kill someone or not.
Nor are all manslaughter cases ones involving violence at all. The man who made that inflatable sculpture that came adrift causing the deaths of two women, for instance, has now been charged with manslaughter. He never intended to hurt anyone, though they presumably have reason to believe the accident was caused through his error. Should he really be charged with the same crime as some yobs who jump up and down on someone's head?
x has to be responsible for their actions, what lead up to the innocent person being killed? If they were hit by x then x is fully responsible for the concequences of their actions not what they intended to do. Of course this is only if they have commited a criminal act like assult, if they havent then it's an accident.
That's my opinion.
I think he got 4 years imprisonment or something, which I think was a bit harsh in the circumstances. I think most of us can say we have exceeded the speed limit at times, and who could have predicted that this elderly couple would suddenly appear. This guy was previously law abiding and full of remorce for his actions. Lives had been lost, but I thought they may have been killed anyway if he was doing 40, as they should not have been in the road.
I thought the sentence was excessively harsh (and I don't say that about many custodial sentences), especially when you compare it to some peadophile who got 2 years for offences against a minor, in the same week.
Something like that happened here (The kid just ran out in front of the car) and the driver didn't get any jail time because the Parents and Police saw it as an accident and the Driver was going the speed limit so he wasn't at fault.
I think that logic should be used by all Cops all over the world. It's pointless to have put that driver in jail when he was following the law and the kid just ran out in the street. It's unfortunate the child died but the driver couldn't have done anything.
But the death sentace was pretty harsh for the poor couple?
How many lives has the death of the couple ruined, their family, sons, daughters, how would you feel burying your mum and dad in the same week because some pr*ck wanted to show off to his mates?
Two accidents: both occur in exactly the same way. But one ends up injuring the driver, and the other injures or kills an innocent person who just happened to be in the wrong place. Normally if just the driver and no-one else is involved, he will not be sent to prison. But if a pedestrian is involved, he will possibly get 4 years.
Is that not simply societal revenge ?
No it's about taking responsibility for your actions and how they can effect others. By driving like that he could have killed his friends in the car or anyone.
If you take a knife and stab someone and they survive then you would get a lighter sentance than if they died.
But the fact that you commited the act means that you live with the consequences of your actions.
For me it's not about revenge it's about responsibility and consequences. To me you sound like a liberal oh it's not his fault that he took drugs, stole a car, crashed it and killed 2 people, give him a soft sentance, the people were unlucky to be in the way when he crashed the stolen car at high speed.
To be guilty of murder, it has to be proved there was an intent to kill, or cause serious injury.
That seems right to me. If the person doesn't die, the charge is attempted murder.
There are various types of manslaughter, including corporate manslaughter, which covers gross negligence.
The sentence should reflect the consequences of the persons actions, and therefore if a dangerous driver kills someone, they should be punished more than someone who doesn't.
The important thing is that the driving offence is proved first, rather than the fact someone was killed. The death is really an aggravating factor to the offence.
Yes but the couple were driving the wrong way up a one way street. You could call the driver of that car a pr**K.
If the other driver had died, one of them could be serving the 4 years.
As far as I'm aware that logic is used in most countries that I know of. You can't be charged for an accident that wasn't your fault when you were obeying the law.
I have however known a case where a driver has been convicted for a death that occurred when he was travelling over the speed limit even though expert evidence presented by the defence, and not contested by the prosecution, showed that nothing would have happened any differently if he'd been going within the speed limit.
4 years is a pretty long sentence for causing death by dangerous driving. Excess speed alone is not normally enough to prove dangerous driving either, so I suspect there must have been much more to this case than the facts given.
Liberal is a much-abused word.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm not necessarily advocating soft sentences for dangerous or drunk drivers who kill, just that the same tough sentences should apply to ones who don't, but who sooner or later might.
Last year a girl who had two previous drink driving convictions killed a woman in a road accident and got seven years. What if she'd got a tough jail sentence for her first drink driving convciction, or at least her second? Then the woman who died might still be alive, and the girl, although still serving serious jail time, would at least be spared the guilt she will now have to live with.
There's Syed from The Apprentice; he's racked up four drink driving convictions and seen no jail time. Why do we have to wait until he kills someone before he gets anything more than a slap on the wrists?