Using mobile, kills cyclist - sentenced to 5 years.

[turbobloke]

V8 Fettler said:

turbobloke said:

Johnnytheboy said:

wolves_wanderer said:

Loads of crimes are punished differently according to the consequences, why is this so wrong?

On the assumption that the consequences are different for two people that behaved in exactly the same way, why should the more serious outcome be punished more harshly?

Exactly, some people appear to think there's no basis for a charge of manslaughter when everything could be grouped by outcome so that any act resulting in death is classed as murder.

Obviously that's carp. Any process that has outcomes mattering more than culpable intent has lost sight of what justice should be about.

The arena of motoring offences is becoming steadily less just, with forced self-incrimination or confession and now pure chance determining the charge and sentencing options e.g. causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving.

A minor lapse that's not in the league of dangerous driving will have outcomes determined by pure chance, making a mockery of justice for all involved.

Since when has the legal system been primarily concerned with justice?

Cynical Sunday!

Whatever the answer to that may be, it's getting steadily worse in terms of motoring offences.

[wolves_wanderer]

turbobloke said:

Johnnytheboy said:

wolves_wanderer said:

Loads of crimes are punished differently according to the consequences, why is this so wrong?

On the assumption that the consequences are different for two people that behaved in exactly the same way, why should the more serious outcome be punished more harshly?

Exactly, some people appear to think there's no basis for a charge of manslaughter when everything could be grouped by outcome so that any act resulting in death is classed as murder.

Obviously that's carp. Any process that has outcomes mattering more than culpable intent has lost sight of what justice should be about.

The arena of motoring offences is becoming steadily less just, with forced self-incrimination or confession and now pure chance determining the charge and sentencing options e.g. causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving.

A minor lapse that's not in the league of dangerous driving will have outcomes determined by pure chance, making a mockery of justice for all involved.

nonsense.

If I punch someone and they get bruised then I will end up with a caution or a fine probably. If I hit them in exactly the same way, they fall and crack their head and end up dead, it isn't a travesty of justice that I am punished more severely.

If you do something that you know you shouldn't that may, in exceptional circumstances, cause the death of someone innocent then you shouldn't be surprised to be punished for it more harshly.

[wolves_wanderer]

turbobloke said:

wolves_wanderer said:

turbobloke said:

Seeing singlecoil agree with something I posted a couple of days ago is welcome but curious, something must be wrong

Same question to you.

That makes sense.

Apologies, I was having quote trouble on my mobile but thought you would join the dots from the post directly above it.

[turbobloke]

wolves_wanderer said:

turbobloke said:

wolves_wanderer said:

turbobloke said:

Seeing singlecoil agree with something I posted a couple of days ago is welcome but curious, something must be wrong

Same question to you.

That makes sense.

Apologies, I was having quote trouble on my mobile but thought you would join the dots from the post directly above it.

No problem, and things have moved on.

[turbobloke]

wolves_wanderer said:

turbobloke said:

Johnnytheboy said:

wolves_wanderer said:

Loads of crimes are punished differently according to the consequences, why is this so wrong?

On the assumption that the consequences are different for two people that behaved in exactly the same way, why should the more serious outcome be punished more harshly?

Exactly, some people appear to think there's no basis for a charge of manslaughter when everything could be grouped by outcome so that any act resulting in death is classed as murder.

Obviously that's carp. Any process that has outcomes mattering more than culpable intent has lost sight of what justice should be about.

The arena of motoring offences is becoming steadily less just, with forced self-incrimination or confession and now pure chance determining the charge and sentencing options e.g. causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving.

A minor lapse that's not in the league of dangerous driving will have outcomes determined by pure chance, making a mockery of justice for all involved.

If I punch someone and they get bruised then I will end up with a caution or a fine probably. If I hit them in exactly the same way, they fall and crack their head and end up dead, it isn't a travesty of justice that I am punished more severely.

Quite so because a Court and a reasonable person would know that a single punch can be fatal. If you punch somebody there is clearly a possibility of serious injury or death from the punch alone, so people need to take this into account before landing a haymaker.

wolves_wanderer said:

If you do something that you know you shouldn't that may, in exceptional circumstances, cause the death of someone innocent then you shouldn't be surprised to be punished for it more harshly.

If you commit an act which a reasonable person could foresee as carrying the risk of serious injury or death to another person then indeed, the punishment should fit the crime, however where this could not be foreseen and there was no intent whatsoever then the charge and the punishment must be different for justice to mean anything.

It's not a case of all or nothing, but proportionality. Can you see why manslaughter exists when the outcome is the same as murder? Malign intent and being able to foresee likely outcomes do matter, and in fact that's the crucial aspect.

Edited by turbobloke on Sunday 31st August 09:56

[tenpenceshort]

turbobloke said:

... a reasonable person would know that a single punch can be fatal. If you punch somebody there is clearly a possibility of serious injury or death so people need to take this into account before landing a haymaker.

A reasonable person would know a single collision on the road can be fatal. If you collide with somebody there is clearly a possibility of serious injury or death, so people need to take this into account when driving.

To claim that serious injury or death is unforeseeable as the result of a road collision is unsustainable.

[turbobloke]

tenpenceshort said:

turbobloke said:

... a reasonable person would know that a single punch can be fatal. If you punch somebody there is clearly a possibility of serious injury or death so people need to take this into account before landing a haymaker.

A reasonable person would know a single collision on the road can be fatal....

You've gone straight to the outcome, so it won't wash.

A minor lapse in concentration may be at a level where a collision could not be expected or foreseeable, and if the outcome was a crash or not makes no dfference to the degree of culpable intent. Looking at the speedo for a speed check - culpable? What punishment fits if a crash ensues?

[wolves_wanderer]

turbobloke said:

tenpenceshort said:

turbobloke said:

... a reasonable person would know that a single punch can be fatal. If you punch somebody there is clearly a possibility of serious injury or death so people need to take this into account before landing a haymaker.

A reasonable person would know a single collision on the road can be fatal....

You've gone straight to the outcome, so it won't wash.

A minor lapse in concentration may be at a level where a collision could not be expected or foreseeable, and if the outcome was a crash or not makes no dfference to the degree of culpable intent. Looking at the speedo for a speed check - culpable? What punishment fits if a crash ensues?

but we all know that a minor lapse in concentration can lead to a crash and a crash can lead to death, you are contradicting yourself.

[turbobloke]

wolves_wanderer said:

turbobloke said:

tenpenceshort said:

turbobloke said:

... a reasonable person would know that a single punch can be fatal. If you punch somebody there is clearly a possibility of serious injury or death so people need to take this into account before landing a haymaker.

A reasonable person would know a single collision on the road can be fatal....

You've gone straight to the outcome, so it won't wash.

A minor lapse in concentration may be at a level where a collision could not be expected or foreseeable, and if the outcome was a crash or not makes no dfference to the degree of culpable intent. Looking at the speedo for a speed check - culpable? What punishment fits if a crash ensues?

but we all know that a minor lapse in concentration can lead to a crash and a crash can lead to death, you are contradicting yourself.

We don't know that, and you've dodged the question on behalf of tenpenceshort to escape that fact.

A driver carries out a speedo check, as good drivers do. Because of the enforcement culture the speedo checks may be more frequent these days. Immediately after a speedo check, a fatal crash ensues. You're saying that the speedo check should not take place because taking your eyes off the road for a split second at a random moment might lead to a fatal accident. That's carp.

Article said:

Elderly Man Died After Car Hit Him

As he came along the High Street in Coedpoeth, the driver slowed down because he knew it was a speed trap area. "I checked my speed, looked up again and saw a figure in front of me and slammed on the brakes. He just seemed to be stood there, I didn't see where the pedestrian came from," he said.

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Elderly+man+died+after+car+hit+him.-a0108459995

Outcome: death, sadly. Outcomes matter more than intent? Not a chance.

So how long should the ban term be for being caught up in this predictable event? Jail time maybe?

[tenpenceshort]

turbobloke said:

You've gone straight to the outcome, so it won't wash.

A minor lapse in concentration may be at a level where a collision could not be expected or foreseeable, and if the outcome was a crash or not makes no dfference to the degree of culpable intent. Looking at the speedo for a speed check - culpable? What punishment fits if a crash ensues?

What makes you think the offence of careless driving requires any intent?

Secondly, the scenario you suggest, momentarily checking your speedo, is unlikely to fulfill careless driving (or any criminal sanction) irrespective of outcome and, equally, unlikely to result in an accident in any case, so it's irrelevant to the discussion.

[turbobloke]

tenpenceshort said:

turbobloke said:

You've gone straight to the outcome, so it won't wash.

A minor lapse in concentration may be at a level where a collision could not be expected or foreseeable, and if the outcome was a crash or not makes no dfference to the degree of culpable intent. Looking at the speedo for a speed check - culpable? What punishment fits if a crash ensues?

What makes you think the offence of careless driving requires any intent?

Because the law says so? The offence of driving without due care and attention (careless driving) under section 3 of the RTA 1988 is committed when the defendant allows their driving to fall below the standard expected of a competent and careful driver as per section 3ZA(2) of the RTA 1988. See also here:

http://www.motorlawyers.co.uk/offences/careless_dr...

"allowing your standard of driving to fall below that of a prudent motorist"

So, don't allow it. How hard can it be (rhetorical question).

tenpenceshort said:

Secondly, the scenario you suggest, momentarily checking your speedo, is unlikely to fulfill careless driving (or any criminal sanction) irrespective of outcome and, equally, unlikely to result in an accident in any case, so it's irrelevant to the discussion.

Wrong again, it has happened, and it did result in a pedestrian death. Checking once too often, at the "wrong" time (sheer chance) due to the enforcement regime in place atm. Anyway only the outcome matters, right?

[turbobloke]

Those who think that outcome trumps intent and proportionality in terms of mens rea can go fish have yet to explain away the continued existence of manslaughter when a death (outcome) is a death so all we need is the offence and charge of murder.

Clearly, in terms of road deaths or otherwise, culpable intent does matter and is a fundamental aspect of justice, with outcomes secondary. To do anything else would lead to injustice. As we see with motoring offences.

[tenpenceshort]

turbobloke said:

Wrong again, it has happened, and it did result in a pedestrian death.

Was the driver prosecuted? No. Was the speedo check the only cause of the accident? How can we tell (for example, did the actions of the pedestrian contribute to a lesser or greater extent than of the driver)?

As I said, for the purposes of the discussion (and the law) your example is irrelevant.

[turbobloke]

tenpenceshort said:

turbobloke said:

Wrong again, it has happened, and it did result in a pedestrian death.

Was the driver prosecuted? No. Was the speedo check the only cause of the accident? How can we tell (for example, did the actions of the pedestrian contribute to a lesser or greater extent than of the driver)?

Yet there are PHers on here arguing that outcomes matte most. Somebody died at the hands of a motorist not looking at the road ahead. It seems that you agree with me that outcomes do not matter most. If the law got it right in this case, that's good, it doesn't always happen like that.

tenpenceshort said:

As I said, for the purposes of the discussion (and the law) your example is irrelevant.

In your own style [panto]oh no it isn't[/panto] though you wish it were.

The outcome from checking a speedo as part of an act of driving was death and for those who think that outcomes matter more than the presence or absence of any action with intent, what next?

Hopefully, a re-think.

[tenpenceshort]

turbobloke said:

tenpenceshort said:

turbobloke said:

You've gone straight to the outcome, so it won't wash.

A minor lapse in concentration may be at a level where a collision could not be expected or foreseeable, and if the outcome was a crash or not makes no dfference to the degree of culpable intent. Looking at the speedo for a speed check - culpable? What punishment fits if a crash ensues?

What makes you think the offence of careless driving requires any intent?

Because the law says so? The offence of driving without due care and attention (careless driving) under section 3 of the RTA 1988 is committed when the defendant allows their driving to fall below the standard expected of a competent and careful driver as per section 3ZA(2) of the RTA 1988. See also here:

http://www.motorlawyers.co.uk/offences/careless_dr...

"allowing your standard of driving to fall below that of a prudent motorist"

So, don't allow it. How hard can it be (rhetorical question).

This illustrates a fundamental misunderstanding of mens rea. Careless driving is an absolute offence based upon an objective question; did your driving fall below the standard etc.? There is no requirement to prove intent.

The only caveat to the above is in circumstances where either the driver or vehicle are impaired, the driver knows about it and it's the cause of the below par driving.

[turbobloke]

tenpenceshort said:

turbobloke said:

tenpenceshort said:

turbobloke said:

You've gone straight to the outcome, so it won't wash.

A minor lapse in concentration may be at a level where a collision could not be expected or foreseeable, and if the outcome was a crash or not makes no dfference to the degree of culpable intent. Looking at the speedo for a speed check - culpable? What punishment fits if a crash ensues?

What makes you think the offence of careless driving requires any intent?

Because the law says so? The offence of driving without due care and attention (careless driving) under section 3 of the RTA 1988 is committed when the defendant allows their driving to fall below the standard expected of a competent and careful driver as per section 3ZA(2) of the RTA 1988. See also here:

http://www.motorlawyers.co.uk/offences/careless_dr...

"allowing your standard of driving to fall below that of a prudent motorist"

So, don't allow it. How hard can it be (rhetorical question).

This illustrates a fundamental misunderstanding of mens rea. Careless driving is an absolute offence based upon an objective question; did your driving fall below the standard etc.? There is no requirement to prove intent.

By whom? I merely consulted a gov.uk type of web page and a legal beagle web page, whadda those guys know!

And intent to do what? Achieve a foreseeable outcome with intent, or drive at a standard below that expected with outcome a mere matter of good or ill fortune?

Committing an act of careless driving entails allowing your driving standard to lapse. This implies an act of allowing! Don't allow it, no offence. The key point is that the act of allowing does not and cannot foresee, at that minor level of lapse, that a collision may or may not result or that a fatality may or may not result. The presence of mens rea would imply something different.

BTW are you in this for the 5 minute argument or the full half hour?

Still no comment on the continued existence of manslaughter when apparently mens rea can be sidelined and outcomes matter most.

Edited by turbobloke on Sunday 31st August 11:33

[turbobloke]

La Liga in the George Galloway thread said:

It doesn't matter what Galloway is. It matters what the motives, intentions and demonstrations of the accused were.

Exactly.

If only it remained so in terms of all motoring offences.

[tenpenceshort]

Repeating your point over and over doesn't add any weight to it.

You are trying to paint with too broad a brush. Some offences require intent, some do not. There is not a one size fits all approach.

I know you appreciate evidence and authorities, so I'll quote you a small part from Wilkinson's Road Traffic Offences;

Wilkinsons p5.43 said:

"Both offences [Careless and Dangerous Driving] are absolute in the sense that it is unnecessary to show that the defendant's mind was conscious of the consequences of his actions...

...it will be the nature of the the defendant's driving viewed objectively which will determine whether or not a dangerous [or careless] driving offence has been committed, and proof of mens rea will not be required"

My personal opinion is that 'death by' offences are unfair and place too great a burden on the outcome versus the culpability (note I say culpability rather than intent). They are a response to society deeming historically light sentences inappropriate, in cases where a death has occurred, and it's proven (to the criminal standard) to be someone's fault. It seems that my opinion and that of society differs, and I am not on the winning side.

[wolves_wanderer]

turbobloke said:

wolves_wanderer said:

turbobloke said:

tenpenceshort said:

turbobloke said:

... a reasonable person would know that a single punch can be fatal. If you punch somebody there is clearly a possibility of serious injury or death so people need to take this into account before landing a haymaker.

A reasonable person would know a single collision on the road can be fatal....

You've gone straight to the outcome, so it won't wash.

A minor lapse in concentration may be at a level where a collision could not be expected or foreseeable, and if the outcome was a crash or not makes no dfference to the degree of culpable intent. Looking at the speedo for a speed check - culpable? What punishment fits if a crash ensues?

but we all know that a minor lapse in concentration can lead to a crash and a crash can lead to death, you are contradicting yourself.

We don't know that, and you've dodged the question on behalf of tenpenceshort to escape that fact.

A driver carries out a speedo check, as good drivers do. Because of the enforcement culture the speedo checks may be more frequent these days. Immediately after a speedo check, a fatal crash ensues. You're saying that the speedo check should not take place because taking your eyes off the road for a split second at a random moment might lead to a fatal accident. That's carp.

Article said:

Elderly Man Died After Car Hit Him

As he came along the High Street in Coedpoeth, the driver slowed down because he knew it was a speed trap area. "I checked my speed, looked up again and saw a figure in front of me and slammed on the brakes. He just seemed to be stood there, I didn't see where the pedestrian came from," he said.

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Elderly+man+died+after+car+hit+him.-a0108459995

Outcome: death, sadly. Outcomes matter more than intent? Not a chance.

So how long should the ban term be for being caught up in this predictable event? Jail time maybe?

Seeing as we have jumped from mobile phone use to speedo checking...I wouldn't be keen to check my speedo [how long does it take you guys anyway, are you staring at it?!] where old men are apparently jumping into the road. Checking your speedo can still be careless driving in my opinion if you do it in a daft place or at a daft time.

[turbobloke]

tenpenceshort said:

Repeating your point over and over doesn't add any weight to it.

I was modelling that on yout approach

We disagree, it seems, but as my approach can still account for the separate offences of murder and manslaughter and is in keeping with the principles of natural justice, I'll continue to hold a position in terms of motoring offences where criminalising safe bahaviour is unjust and where charges and potential sentencing resting on fate (pure chance outcomes which did not arise from wilful intent and could not be foreseen) is also unjust.

Dangerous driving is there to catch all the bad drivers whose lapse is at a level where any reasonable person would know there's a risk of serious injury or death resulting, it needs to be used more as opposed to elevating minor lapses via pure chance outcomes.