Is jail really the smart solution for speeding?
Discussion
TooMany2cvs said:
Yes, he was. It may well also not have had an MOT or tax, since it had apparently been sitting in a barn for eight years.
But was he ALSO driving dangerously?
Would doing 149mph along that bit of single carriageway road, with several turnings and entrances, fall far below the standard that would be expected of a competent and careful driver? Yes/no
Would doing 149mph along that bit of single carriageway road, with several turnings and entrances, be obviously dangerous to a competent and careful driver? Yes/no
Are you seriously telling me you could answer "no" to those with a straight face?
None of us have the facts. But as predicted you are picking up on the detail that I don't feel it is automatically a danger, beyond to himself. This is a secondary issue to locking the guy up for a longer period of time than other well defined criminal acts.But was he ALSO driving dangerously?
Would doing 149mph along that bit of single carriageway road, with several turnings and entrances, fall far below the standard that would be expected of a competent and careful driver? Yes/no
Would doing 149mph along that bit of single carriageway road, with several turnings and entrances, be obviously dangerous to a competent and careful driver? Yes/no
Are you seriously telling me you could answer "no" to those with a straight face?
Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 10th February 10:08
Can we could move on from the Daily Mail faux outrage now?
I have already answered your questions, and they are not really relevant as I probably have a more liberal view on speeding than others?
The question was, and still is;
Is jail really the smart solution for speeding?
I don't think it is, for the reasons already outlined. I have also offered alternatives. Yet here we are again caught up in the details.
The question was, and still is;
Is jail really the smart solution for speeding?
I don't think it is, for the reasons already outlined. I have also offered alternatives. Yet here we are again caught up in the details.
It's fairly clear in my mind, no matter how many times you want to try and put words in my mouth of attempt to turn this into a conversation about what you feel the thread topic is about. It seems I am surrounded by people who never speed, quite remarkable given the nature of this site. This topic was unfortunately moved into this sub forum which is full of people who enforce these daft rules, therefore they are completely brainwashed with the system. On a straight piece of road, single carriageway or any other to be honest 149mph is pretty quick, 66m/sec to be precise. So, no, it's not very sensible and no, I don't condone and no, I don't feel a 'dangerous driving' charge really covers what he did. Irresponsible, reckless, etc. The 'dangerous driving' charge just seems totally ambiguous to me, mainly used as in this case to provide the vehicle for a custodial sentence. Did he set out to put others lives in danger?, he didn't force anyone off the road and as far as we know nobody was injured? The assumption is a bit of an ass. But like I said it appears that not many people here seem to travel beyond the posted limits so I can understand that it all seems a bit much.
So. Do you think that is a fit and fair punishment. Yes or no?
So. Do you think that is a fit and fair punishment. Yes or no?
Who_Goes_Blue said:
singlecoil said:
You only get to ask questions when you have answered the question you have been asked, which is, is there any speed along that road that you would consider dangerous?
You`ve been forum policed Yonex - now be a good boy and answer the question
60mph could be dangerous in the right (wrong) circumstances! How dangerous is 149mph on a clear road with no traffic exactly, he had better tell me.
vonhosen said:
No you do.
If it was speeding the charge would have been speeding & incarceration wouldn't have been on the cards.
it was dangerous driving so incarceration was on then cards.
It's not just me. Unfortunately it is difficult to look at different options when one has the mind that the way things are is all that they could ever possibly be. If it was speeding the charge would have been speeding & incarceration wouldn't have been on the cards.
it was dangerous driving so incarceration was on then cards.
In my world it's speeding. Dangerous driving, for me, would involve actively injuring someone/thing.
Nobody can give me a sensible answer to why a jail term is proportional to this offence. This is obviously b cause the law is an ass.
vonhosen said:
So, not at all legal, reasonable or proportionate.
A little bit like locking up someone for speeding, whilst a would-be robber is spared jail by soft judges* handing out a ten-month suspended sentence?But it's not a fair world. The law should make it so. But it doesn't.
*That was Judge Witold Pawlak if you should wish to google
zarjaz1991 said:
xjay1337 said:
Absolute b
ks.
I can't even begin to tell you how wrong you are.
Don't then.ks. I can't even begin to tell you how wrong you are.
Instead, simply explain to me why the law should offer protection to burglars, but not householders being burgled.
Your simplistic 'solution' about how there should be no investigation shows a total lack of appreciation for the realities of crime.
zarjaz1991 said:
The police could still investigate a burglary. If they discover it's a bit iffy, then normal procedure would apply.
One minute you're saying no investigations, now you're saying an investigation. That's the problem with stupid suggestions. They don't hold up to any scrutiny.
zarjaz1991 said:
That still involves the arrest and detention of someone, for no other reason than they were unfortunate enough to have been burgled.
Not always, it depends on the circumstances. Circumstances aren't always clear when first arriving on a scene and making assumptions isn't clever.
Heaveho, are you saying you were both prosecuted? You would have got worse but the police scripted your statement correctly? You caused quite serious injuries but were bound over?
I'm not sure I'm clear on what you're saying happened to you.
For example, the law in terms of using force when being burgled is actually higher than it is in another circumstances. Obviously you're already aware of that...
I'm not sure I'm clear on what you're saying happened to you.
zarjaz1991 said:
I do not recall saying there should be no investigation, however this usually seems to mean arresting and detaining the householder, which is frankly not on.
You have a short memory. I've highlighted where you wrote it fewer than 10 hours ago. zarjaz1991 said:
If a hosueholder, in the process of defending their property, kills the intruder, the law should say "fair enough, he shouldn't have been there in the first place". No investigations, no arresting of the householder with glee, no keeping the householder in prison on remand or even keeping them on bail, fearing for their liberty for months on end. None of that. It should be "hard luck, don't break into house then if you don;t like it".
zarjaz1991 said:
I repeat what I said earlier...the law as it stands offers zero protection to householders while offering substantial protection to the burglar.
Repeat it all you like. That doesn't change the fact it's on par with your wider knowledge of policing / the criminal justice system i.e. it's total garbage and inaccurate. For example, the law in terms of using force when being burgled is actually higher than it is in another circumstances. Obviously you're already aware of that...
Cliff notes.
Because.
Because the law is a total ass. Because we, as drivers, accept it. Because apparently drink driving is more socially acceptable than speeding, or lots of speeding which is 'dangerous driving'.
And obviously there is no other option but to pass custodial sentences, why?
Because.
What a fantastic system.
Because.
Because the law is a total ass. Because we, as drivers, accept it. Because apparently drink driving is more socially acceptable than speeding, or lots of speeding which is 'dangerous driving'.
And obviously there is no other option but to pass custodial sentences, why?
Because.
What a fantastic system.
singlecoil said:
vonhosen said:
yonex said:
Cliff notes.
Because.
Because the law is a total ass. Because we, as drivers, accept it. Because apparently drink driving is more socially acceptable than speeding, or lots of speeding which is 'dangerous driving'.
And obviously there is no other option but to pass custodial sentences, why?
Because.
What a fantastic system.
No, lots of speeding is lots of relatively minor offences.Because.
Because the law is a total ass. Because we, as drivers, accept it. Because apparently drink driving is more socially acceptable than speeding, or lots of speeding which is 'dangerous driving'.
And obviously there is no other option but to pass custodial sentences, why?
Because.
What a fantastic system.
Speeding is not less socially acceptable than drink/drive. Drink drive is dealt with more seriously.
The 149mph was not speeding, it was dangerous driving (which can occur as a result of inappropriate speed for the circumstances above or below the limit).
Dangerous driving is a more serious offence than drink/drive, which in turn is a more serious offence than speeding.
More to the point, what can be done other than this draconian form of punishment which benefits nobody were my initial thoughts. Waste of everyone's time, money and no real deterrent or rehabilitation.
vonhosen said:
The limit doesn't try to look at the individual & their degree of impairment. It is a blunt control measure, just like the speed limit is.
That's not quite true though is it. Being prosecuted for speeding and drink driving are a bit different. Specifically you can be prosecuted for speeding in one instance and dangerous driving in another? Drink driving is absolute. If you are over the limit you are not deemed drunk, just unfit to drive, that is a simple law to understand. Speeding is arbitrary, one judges take on it is wholly different from the other? Maybe 45% over is a ban, maybe you can bargain. The whole thing is as clear as mud.Derek Smith said:
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.
The OP asked for opinions; I've given mine. The fact that I disagree with the court is the point of the post. Imprisonment is a costly exercise, and on many levels. It should only be used when needed, even perhaps essential. In this case I can see no argument that it would.
You suggest that there is a public interest defence to a police driver driving dangerously. That one is also a point of view that might not be shared by courts.
You ask if the person had any other convictions. We don’t know. I thought you understood that. But we do know he wasn’t disqualified as that would, almost certainly, have been included.
You suggest “The more pertinent question is how many people caught at such a speed on a such a road in Scotland, where charged/convicted with dangerous driving, aren't imprisoned?” Habitually unreasonable sentencing is not an excuse for continuation.
You seem to be running down the offence of burglary. It is, by any reasonable definition (other than that of the law) an offence against the person when it is a dwelling. It is not a passive offence. It is so much more of a selfish offence than you seem to be suggesting. I assume you’ve been to recent house breaks, seen the damage, seen the response of the householders, seen the devastation it causes them.
Is prison the smart solution for speeding?
In any thread such as this the reasoning cannot be esoteric but based on what has been presented and reasonable deduction. My conclusion is that there are many, many other ways to punish, most of which have a more positive effect on the offender’s recidivism rate. The evidence is available and overwhelming. On top of that, the person can still remain a productive member of society, provide for family and keep out of debt.
Prison should, as I said, be reserved for those where it is productive. I am not against imprisonment. Indeed, one of the things I have against our present system is that we are not giving a high enough tariff where it could be effective, for the protection of the public as much as anything.
For offences such as this there are, as I said, much more productive punishments.
Absolutely correct. The OP asked for opinions; I've given mine. The fact that I disagree with the court is the point of the post. Imprisonment is a costly exercise, and on many levels. It should only be used when needed, even perhaps essential. In this case I can see no argument that it would.
You suggest that there is a public interest defence to a police driver driving dangerously. That one is also a point of view that might not be shared by courts.
You ask if the person had any other convictions. We don’t know. I thought you understood that. But we do know he wasn’t disqualified as that would, almost certainly, have been included.
You suggest “The more pertinent question is how many people caught at such a speed on a such a road in Scotland, where charged/convicted with dangerous driving, aren't imprisoned?” Habitually unreasonable sentencing is not an excuse for continuation.
You seem to be running down the offence of burglary. It is, by any reasonable definition (other than that of the law) an offence against the person when it is a dwelling. It is not a passive offence. It is so much more of a selfish offence than you seem to be suggesting. I assume you’ve been to recent house breaks, seen the damage, seen the response of the householders, seen the devastation it causes them.
Is prison the smart solution for speeding?
In any thread such as this the reasoning cannot be esoteric but based on what has been presented and reasonable deduction. My conclusion is that there are many, many other ways to punish, most of which have a more positive effect on the offender’s recidivism rate. The evidence is available and overwhelming. On top of that, the person can still remain a productive member of society, provide for family and keep out of debt.
Prison should, as I said, be reserved for those where it is productive. I am not against imprisonment. Indeed, one of the things I have against our present system is that we are not giving a high enough tariff where it could be effective, for the protection of the public as much as anything.
For offences such as this there are, as I said, much more productive punishments.
vonhosen said:
No because the dangerous driving in relation to inappropriate speed has nothing to do with the speed limit. it can be above it or below it. It relates to that speed in the circumstances at the time.
You aren't judged unfit to drive because you are over the drink/drive limit. No assessment has to be made in respect of it.
You've crossed a line in the sand that's all, just as when you exceed the speed limit no assessment is made in relation to the individual circumstances, you've crossed the line in the sand.
And that line for dangerous driving. Define it absolutely for me, without leaving room for any ambiguity. I'll do the same for driving whilst intoxicated. You aren't judged unfit to drive because you are over the drink/drive limit. No assessment has to be made in respect of it.
You've crossed a line in the sand that's all, just as when you exceed the speed limit no assessment is made in relation to the individual circumstances, you've crossed the line in the sand.
Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 13th February 17:16
https://www.gov.uk/drink-drive-limit
Over to you.
There you go. An arbitrary 'catch all' for use to firm up a sentence. Which is exactly what I said from the start, which has little if anything to do with other than excess speed. The net outcome being a total loss for everyone. Therefore not the most sensible way to carry on. It's almost two wrongs make a right with some of you!
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff