Using mobile, kills cyclist - sentenced to 5 years.

[Zeeky]

Looking at the speedo, is no more a lapse in concentration than looking in your rear view mirror or laterally. If you find you cannot give sufficient attention to hazards in front of you because you need to keep looking at your speedo., incompetence aside, this is usually a consequence of driving too fast. Slow down and give yourself more time to take in your observations.

[tenpenceshort]

turbobloke said:

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.

Death By driving offences are examples of manslaughter that have been codified to take into account the specific nature of road deaths, where intent to harm is not normally present and the offence takes place in the sphere of a very specific and regulated activity. It is still open to prosecute drivers for manslaughter in some cases.

Also, there don't need to be road traffic offences looking at intent to harm, as these are already codified as offences against the person or as homicide. Intending to harm or kill someone with a car is not a road traffic offence but an offence in its own right that happens to involve a vehicle.

Your position appears to be that unless intent can be proven, it is unfair to punish people for accidental lapses that happen to result in serious injury or death. At the opposite end the law says that there are specific offences, along with heavily enhanced punishments, to cater for such outcomes.

My position is somewhere in the middle, as I believe there should be singular offences without need for the 'death by' element, with sufficient sentencing power to take into account the facts of each case.

What I think is misconceived is the notion that intent to harm must be present when punishing road traffic offenders responsible for death or injury, as the intent to do so is rarely going to be present and even if it were it would be almost impossible to prove.

[heebeegeetee]

turbobloke said:

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Elderly+man+died+aft...

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?

This isn't washing for me. The driver should have speed checked when it was safe to do so and he should have been travelling at the correct speed for a High Street.

A speed trap should have had nothing to do with it, but anyway this driver decided to put his wellbeing before others and killed as a result.

Unless there is evidence to show otherwise, this driver killed because he wasn't watching where he was going and thus killed through bad driving.

[tenpenceshort]

heebeegeetee said:

This isn't washing for me. The driver should have speed checked when it was safe to do so and he should have been travelling at the correct speed for a High Street.

A speed trap should have had nothing to do with it, but anyway this driver decided to put his wellbeing before others and killed as a result.

Unless there is evidence to show otherwise, this driver killed because he wasn't watching where he was going and thus killed through bad driving.

You might note he was not prosecuted and the verdict at the inquest was "accidental death". It was not considered that the driver's driving fell below the standard expected.

[heebeegeetee]

tenpenceshort said:

You might note he was not prosecuted and the verdict at the inquest was "accidental death". It was not considered that the driver's driving fell below the standard expected.

Fair enough, but the driver did admit to not looking where he was going. He took his eyes off the road to save himself from a speed trap which shouldn't have had any affect on him anyway, especially in a Hight Street.

Don't get me wrong, I'm terrible for not paying attention to speed limits.

It does seem though, the list of excuses I could use should I ever hurt anyone is endless, including 'I wasn't watching where I was going' to 'I couldn't see where I was going but I carried on anyway' (low sun).

[robinessex]

Back on topic. I can set my mobile up to behave just like a Sat Nav. And I can make receive calls/txts on my Sat Nav. Now I'm really bloody confused.

[Randy Winkman]

Zeeky said:

Looking at the speedo, is no more a lapse in concentration than looking in your rear view mirror or laterally. If you find you cannot give sufficient attention to hazards in front of you because you need to keep looking at your speedo., incompetence aside, this is usually a consequence of driving too fast. Slow down and give yourself more time to take in your observations.

Well said. I've always thought that the "looking at the speedo" argument was silly.

[will_]

singlecoil said:

I understand why it is happening, but I'm by no means happy about it. I had previously understood that what was in the mind of the perpetrator at the time of the crime was the most important consideration in deciding the punishment, but now it's starting to look as if luck has taken the place of mens rea.

Why should only the victim suffer the bad luck if the outcome is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the offender's action?

I can see no reason why people should not be held accountable for the consequences of their actions.

[will_]

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?

Should we punish intent or results?

Because serious consequences require serious punishment?

Why should the consequences be ignored?

Why can't we punish to reflect the action and the consequence (indeed, this is what we do)?

If you take no account of the consequence, how would you (for example) punish a punch to the face to reflect the fact that this could have no effect or at all, or might lead to someone's death?

[singlecoil]

will_ said:

singlecoil said:

I understand why it is happening, but I'm by no means happy about it. I had previously understood that what was in the mind of the perpetrator at the time of the crime was the most important consideration in deciding the punishment, but now it's starting to look as if luck has taken the place of mens rea.

Why should only the victim suffer the bad luck if the outcome is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the offender's action?

I can see no reason why people should not be held accountable for the consequences of their actions.

You've incorrectly assumed that I mean that a person who has caused injury or death should be treated leniently. You also seemed to have missed my (and some others here) central point that the system seems to be moving towards one where the punishment is based on luck. Any such system is going to be a bad one. In effect you are saying that it's alright to drive badly as long as you don't hit someone.

[Johnnytheboy]

will_ 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?

Should we punish intent or results?

Because serious consequences require serious punishment?

Why should the consequences be ignored?

Why can't we punish to reflect the action and the consequence (indeed, this is what we do)?

If you take no account of the consequence, how would you (for example) punish a punch to the face to reflect the fact that this could have no effect or at all, or might lead to someone's death?

So you punish someone less because they are less good at punching?

[wolves_wanderer]

Johnnytheboy said:

will_ 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?

Should we punish intent or results?

Because serious consequences require serious punishment?

Why should the consequences be ignored?

Why can't we punish to reflect the action and the consequence (indeed, this is what we do)?

If you take no account of the consequence, how would you (for example) punish a punch to the face to reflect the fact that this could have no effect or at all, or might lead to someone's death?

So you punish someone less because they are less good at punching?

You punish someone less if they don't kill someone, it seems obvious. There are some fking odd points of view on here.

[Derek Smith]

From the point of view of a decision to prosecute for driving without due care (WDC) then intent, or at least some form of mens rea, is important. For the penalty, it is even more important, at least from a defendant's point of view. WDC is a serious motoring offence and many CPS lawyers feel that culpability includes some degree of guilty.

Therefore I would assume, and perhaps hope, that consideration is given to the charge in such cases.

Many forces do not prosecute for minor low-speed errors of judgement and many a file has MLEJ added at the bottom.

Therefore some degree of deliberate action or inaction is required by the driver in many forces and CPS.

If the mind did not go with the act then I would assume that if the CPS decided to fly with it then there would be considerable mitigation planned.

[singlecoil]

wolves_wanderer said:

Johnnytheboy said:

will_ 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?

Should we punish intent or results?

Because serious consequences require serious punishment?

Why should the consequences be ignored?

Why can't we punish to reflect the action and the consequence (indeed, this is what we do)?

If you take no account of the consequence, how would you (for example) punish a punch to the face to reflect the fact that this could have no effect or at all, or might lead to someone's death?

So you punish someone less because they are less good at punching?

You punish someone less if they don't kill someone, it seems obvious. There are some fking odd points of view on here.

There are indeed! Yours especially.

[turbobloke]

wolves_wanderer said:

Johnnytheboy said:

will_ 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?

Should we punish intent or results?

Because serious consequences require serious punishment?

Why should the consequences be ignored?

Why can't we punish to reflect the action and the consequence (indeed, this is what we do)?

If you take no account of the consequence, how would you (for example) punish a punch to the face to reflect the fact that this could have no effect or at all, or might lead to someone's death?

So you punish someone less because they are less good at punching?

You punish someone less if they don't kill someone, it seems obvious. There are some fking odd points of view on here.

Quite. You said it!

The reason why we should not charge and punish based on outcome as a main decider is that the outcome can in some instances be randon, chance, out of the control of the person involved, or lacking intent, mens rea. See under 'murder' and 'manslaughter' where the outcome is the same but the charge and so on are different. Punching was covered earlier...a reasonable person should know that a punch can be fatal. There is clear intent when a punch is delivered.

There are events involving driving which we've also considered, where the outcomes from two drivers committing the same degree of lapse in standard can be either nothing worth speaking of, or a fatality - the different outcomes being nothing to do with any difference in the degree to which the driving fell short of the expected standard, nothing to do with intent, and everything to do with chance. In those circumstances, charging and then punishing one driver more severely than the other because of a random outcome is not just.

It's all up there in the thread already. So, either accept that for some bizarre and illogical reason we should charge and punish people in effect by the throw of some dice, or acknowledge that this approach had no place even in medieval witch-hunts (e.g. trial by ordeal) and certainly has no place in a modern justice system worthy of the name. Unfortunately for some motorists it's already here.

[wolves_wanderer]

singlecoil said:

wolves_wanderer said:

Johnnytheboy said:

will_ 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?

Should we punish intent or results?

Because serious consequences require serious punishment?

Why should the consequences be ignored?

Why can't we punish to reflect the action and the consequence (indeed, this is what we do)?

If you take no account of the consequence, how would you (for example) punish a punch to the face to reflect the fact that this could have no effect or at all, or might lead to someone's death?

So you punish someone less because they are less good at punching?

You punish someone less if they don't kill someone, it seems obvious. There are some fking odd points of view on here.

There are indeed! Yours especially.

From you that is a compliment

[wolves_wanderer]

turbobloke said:

wolves_wanderer said:

Johnnytheboy said:

will_ 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?

Should we punish intent or results?

Because serious consequences require serious punishment?

Why should the consequences be ignored?

Why can't we punish to reflect the action and the consequence (indeed, this is what we do)?

If you take no account of the consequence, how would you (for example) punish a punch to the face to reflect the fact that this could have no effect or at all, or might lead to someone's death?

So you punish someone less because they are less good at punching?

You punish someone less if they don't kill someone, it seems obvious. There are some fking odd points of view on here.

Quite. You said it!

The reason why we should not charge and punish based on outcome as a main decider is that the outcome can in some instances be randon, chance, out of the control of the person involved, or lacking intent, mens rea. See under 'murder' and 'manslaughter' where the outcome is the same but the charge and so on are different. Punching was covered earlier...a reasonable person should know that a punch can be fatal. There is clear intent when a punch is delivered.

There are events involving driving which we've also considered, where the outcomes from two drivers committing the same degree of lapse in standard can be either nothing worth speaking of, or a fatality - the different outcomes being nothing to do with any difference in the degree to which the driving fell short of the expected standard, nothing to do with intent, and everything to do with chance. In those circumstances, charging and then punishing one driver more severely than the other because of a random outcome is not just.

It's all up there in the thread already. So, either accept that for some bizarre and illogical reason we should charge and punish people in effect by the throw of some dice, or acknowledge that this approach had no place even in medieval witch-hunts (e.g. trial by ordeal) and certainly has no place in a modern justice system worthy of the name. Unfortunately for some motorists it's already here.

And the thread goes full circle. Punching someone runs the risk of killing them, careless driving runs the risk of killing the poor sap you crash into. Fortunately the most normal people understand that the consequences of your bad behaviour are relevant to the magnitude of your punishment.

[tenpenceshort]

Derek Smith said:

From the point of view of a decision to prosecute for driving without due care (WDC) then intent, or at least some form of mens rea, is important. For the penalty, it is even more important, at least from a defendant's point of view. WDC is a serious motoring offence and many CPS lawyers feel that culpability includes some degree of guilty.

Therefore I would assume, and perhaps hope, that consideration is given to the charge in such cases.

Many forces do not prosecute for minor low-speed errors of judgement and many a file has MLEJ added at the bottom.

Therefore some degree of deliberate action or inaction is required by the driver in many forces and CPS.

If the mind did not go with the act then I would assume that if the CPS decided to fly with it then there would be considerable mitigation planned.

The offences of careless or dangerous do not (aside from rare circumstances) require any mens rea; they are absolute. This misunderstanding seems to be a consistent one here.

[Nigel Worc's]

tenpenceshort said:

The offences of careless or dangerous do not (aside from rare circumstances) require any mens rea; they are absolute. This misunderstanding seems to be a consistent one here.

You've got me confused 10p, not difficult I admit.

Speeding is absolute.

dwdcaa, and dangerous, I thought were opinion based offences that require evidence.

[singlecoil]

wolves_wanderer said:

And the thread goes full circle. Punching someone runs the risk of killing them, careless driving runs the risk of killing the poor sap you crash into. Fortunately the most normal people understand that the consequences of your bad behaviour are relevant to the magnitude of your punishment.

You have stated the position that exists at the moment, but you have not provided a basis in logic for it.

What would your thinking be on the following scenario?

It's a large roundabout on the outskirts of town, early on a winter's morning. The tarmac is a bit slippy but no-one has skidded yet. A car comes around the roundabout and, as it heads for its exit, the driver accelerates a bit too hard. He starts to skid. After that the car is out of control, and his actions become irrelevant. Whatever he has done wrong has already happened, and there is nothing he can do about it now.

What should his punishment be?