Home Detention Curfew
Discussion
R_U_LOCAL said:
fluffnik said:
What do we achieve by gaoling 10 pence short?
Nothing.
We turn a taxpaying asset who poses no threat to the community at large and would be into a burden on the taxpayer.
Is there any joined up thinking in the "justice" system?
I think the motorcyclist who suffered life-changing injuries would disagree with you.
That may suit private vengence, it does nothing for public justice...
R_U_LOCAL said:
The sentance sounds about right to me.
The only good reason for a disposal as barbaric and expensive as prison is to protect the populace and their property.
A comunity service order and/or fine would serve much better in any case like this - even if there's death involved - restorative justice beats locking someone in an expensive box.
Prison only works in excluding a threat from society, in all other cases, like this, it is expensive, ineffective and barbaric.
fluffnik said:
R_U_LOCAL said:
fluffnik said:
What do we achieve by gaoling 10 pence short?
Nothing.
We turn a taxpaying asset who poses no threat to the community at large and would be into a burden on the taxpayer.
Is there any joined up thinking in the "justice" system?
I think the motorcyclist who suffered life-changing injuries would disagree with you.
That may suit private vengence, it does nothing for public justice...
R_U_LOCAL said:
The sentance sounds about right to me.
The only good reason for a disposal as barbaric and expensive as prison is to protect the populace and their property.
A comunity service order and/or fine would serve much better in any case like this - even if there's death involved - restorative justice beats locking someone in an expensive box.
Prison only works in excluding a threat from society, in all other cases, like this, it is expensive, ineffective and barbaric.
This stops him doing the same again for the next 12 months. If you were in the state this biker was in due to someone elses intentional recklessness I'm sure you'd not want any form of punishment. Sorry its a shame but he does deserve some form of punishment. He will probably be out on tag or day release very quickly.
fluffnik said:
R_U_LOCAL said:
fluffnik said:
What do we achieve by gaoling 10 pence short?
Nothing.
We turn a taxpaying asset who poses no threat to the community at large and would be into a burden on the taxpayer.
Is there any joined up thinking in the "justice" system?
I think the motorcyclist who suffered life-changing injuries would disagree with you.
That may suit private vengence, it does nothing for public justice...
R_U_LOCAL said:
The sentance sounds about right to me.
The only good reason for a disposal as barbaric and expensive as prison is to protect the populace and their property.
A comunity service order and/or fine would serve much better in any case like this - even if there's death involved - restorative justice beats locking someone in an expensive box.
Prison only works in excluding a threat from society, in all other cases, like this, it is expensive, ineffective and barbaric.
Are you suggesting that soemone who murders their wife should not be gaoled because they've no more wives to murder, so we're all safe?
For all the OPs admirable admissions of guilt, no end of community service orders or driving disqualifications will actually physically stop him from driving. A prison sentence does stop him from driving, and makes the roads somewhat safer for everyone whilst he's away. It'll also focus his mind somewhat when released, as having experienced prison, I'm doubly sure he won't want to go back, so I'd be more confident of him adhering to a driving disqualification.
No - the sentence is correct.
Edited by R_U_LOCAL on Saturday 21st April 20:58
Quinny said:
I wonder how different the sentance would have been if 10 pence short, had pleaded not guilty???
But was then found guilty.
Would he have got a longer sentance/ban???
Personally I think that because he owned up and admitted his mistake, and was truly sorry for the consequences, maybe he should have got a shorter sentance.
But was then found guilty.
Would he have got a longer sentance/ban???
Personally I think that because he owned up and admitted his mistake, and was truly sorry for the consequences, maybe he should have got a shorter sentance.
He would have had his gulity plea taken into account, it may well have been 18 months or so without it with maybe a slightly longer ban.
Quinny said:
I wonder how different the sentance would have been if 10 pence short, had pleaded not guilty???
But was then found guilty.
Would he have got a longer sentance/ban???
Personally I think that because he owned up and admitted his mistake, and was truly sorry for the consequences, maybe he should have got a shorter sentance.
But was then found guilty.
Would he have got a longer sentance/ban???
Personally I think that because he owned up and admitted his mistake, and was truly sorry for the consequences, maybe he should have got a shorter sentance.
The courts have to give credit for a guilty plea, so the 12 month sentence will be the reduced one. Having pleaded not guilty and going through a trial, he'd have been looking at 18 months - 2 years.
mr_annie_vxr said:
To be fair 12 months sounds about average for this knd of thing. Nothing compared to the lifetime against the motorcyclist. As for unintentional that effect may have been but it would appear the cause was due to deliberate acts. We should concentrate on punishing bad driving not speeding. Fluffnik you don't seem to like speed cameras or the punishment of clearly bad drivng. Do you think it should be a free for all on the roads?
Ohh, I think 10 Pence Short should be punished, just not in such an expensive, barbaric and almost certainly counterproductive way.
Ban him, yes; huge fine, probably; community service - say working with head injured folks, you betcha!
Goaling him will, at best, not enbitter and brutalise an already contrite person, a community sentence achieves that at worst.
I think we should retrain rather than punish bad drivers.
mr_annie_vxr said:
I'm sure ten pence short is a nice old chap but he made some choices and he and the completely innocent motorcyclist are paying for them.
...and thanks to a bankrupt justice administration everyone else is paying too.
mr_annie_vxr said:
I'd argue someone whose driving is so bad they seriously injure or kill someone and seriously damage property is a threat to society. Vehicles are lethal weapons that can cause the most enormous ammounts of destruction in the wrong hands.
The driving ban covers that, gaoling him just wastes money.
fluffnik said:
mr_annie_vxr said:
To be fair 12 months sounds about average for this knd of thing. Nothing compared to the lifetime against the motorcyclist. As for unintentional that effect may have been but it would appear the cause was due to deliberate acts. We should concentrate on punishing bad driving not speeding. Fluffnik you don't seem to like speed cameras or the punishment of clearly bad drivng. Do you think it should be a free for all on the roads?
Ohh, I think 10 Pence Short should be punished, just not in such an expensive, barbaric and almost certainly counterproductive way.
Ban him, yes; huge fine, probably; community service - say working with head injured folks, you betcha!
Goaling him will, at best, not enbitter and brutalise an already contrite person, a community sentence achieves that at worst.
I think we should retrain rather than punish bad drivers.
mr_annie_vxr said:
I'm sure ten pence short is a nice old chap but he made some choices and he and the completely innocent motorcyclist are paying for them.
...and thanks to a bankrupt justice administration everyone else is paying too.
Don't get me wrong old chap I understand where your coming from. Just its my experience that you have to deal with these offences in this manner or as Reg points out people tend not to adhere to their bans. You do also have to have some punishment for the injury and damage he has caused the individual. If that individual was totally against prison then maybe I'd understand. If his acts of recklessness had been on a one to one basis and he had hit this chap causing the injury (just as accidentaly) he would have been dealt with for GBH and received a longer term. Fact is mateys selfish acts impacted on a totally innocent third party. He will be out far sooner than the biker will apparently use his arm again.
mr_annie_vxr said:
This stops him doing the same again for the next 12 months. If you were in the state this biker was in due to someone elses intentional recklessness I'm sure you'd not want any form of punishment. Sorry its a shame but he does deserve some form of punishment. He will probably be out on tag or day release very quickly.
No, the driving ban stops him doing the same again for the next 36 months.
All the prison bit does is turn a tax payer into a tax liability - a fine and/or community sentence would serve society far better.
fluffnik said:
mr_annie_vxr said:
This stops him doing the same again for the next 12 months. If you were in the state this biker was in due to someone elses intentional recklessness I'm sure you'd not want any form of punishment. Sorry its a shame but he does deserve some form of punishment. He will probably be out on tag or day release very quickly.
No, the driving ban stops him doing the same again for the next 36 months.
All the prison bit does is turn a tax payer into a tax liability - a fine and/or community sentence would serve society far better.
That presumes he will adhere to it. Experience tells me many don't not for 3 years. You would be supprised how many decent people when banned drive. Dealt with a young mum recently who drove her kids to school every day for months after she was banned as it was only a short trip.
Quinny said:
Does the ban commence after the prison sentence??
If so if he gets out after say 6 months does it commence then or still after 12 months.
If this is the case then really he's been banned for 4 years not 3
If so if he gets out after say 6 months does it commence then or still after 12 months.
If this is the case then really he's been banned for 4 years not 3
3 years from date of conviction. Some people serve nearly their whole ban in prison.
fluffnik said:
mr_annie_vxr said:
I'd argue someone whose driving is so bad they seriously injure or kill someone and seriously damage property is a threat to society. Vehicles are lethal weapons that can cause the most enormous ammounts of destruction in the wrong hands.
The driving ban covers that, gaoling him just wastes money.
Driving bans don't stop people from driving.
Prison does, though.
Quinny said:
Does the ban commence after the prison sentence??
If so if he gets out after say 6 months does it commence then or still after 12 months.
If this is the case then really he's been banned for 4 years not 3
If so if he gets out after say 6 months does it commence then or still after 12 months.
If this is the case then really he's been banned for 4 years not 3
The disqualification starts at the time the sentence is passed, so if he comes out after 12 months, he'll have a 2 year ban after release, and if he gets out after 6 months, he'll be banned for 2 1/2 years after release.
Edited by R_U_LOCAL on Saturday 21st April 21:16
R_U_LOCAL said:
Are you suggesting that soemone who murders their wife should not be gaoled because they've no more wives to murder, so we're all safe?
That's malice aforethought, I don't necessarily have a problem with gaoling such a person.
Don't hold with mandatory life sentences though...
R_U_LOCAL said:
For all the OPs admirable admissions of guilt, no end of community service orders or driving disqualifications will actually physically stop him from driving. A prison sentence does stop him from driving, and makes the roads somewhat safer for everyone whilst he's away. It'll also focus his mind somewhat when released, as having experienced prison, I'm doubly sure he won't want to go back, so I'd be more confident of him adhering to a driving disqualification.
So; what stops him driving month 13-36?
Recidivism rates suggest that fear of prison is the wrong answer.
I think we could safely trust his compliance with the ban to contrition and good charachter, at least in the first instance.
R_U_LOCAL said:
No - the sentence is correct.
Can't agree, but then I don't think there are many libertarians in the police.
fluffnik said:
R_U_LOCAL said:
Are you suggesting that soemone who murders their wife should not be gaoled because they've no more wives to murder, so we're all safe?
That's malice aforethought, I don't necessarily have a problem with gaoling such a person.
Don't hold with mandatory life sentences though...
You seem to be confusing careless driving, which is simply a momentary lapse of concentration, with dangerous driving, which does require a degree of prior thought on the part of the defendent. They may not set out to cause anyone any injuries, but it would be obvious to them that driving in that way could result in someone becoming seriously injured. People who drive carelessly rarely recieve a custodial sentence, whereas those who drive dangerously have displayed a recklessness which usually deserves a more serious punishment.
fluffnik said:
R_U_LOCAL said:
For all the OPs admirable admissions of guilt, no end of community service orders or driving disqualifications will actually physically stop him from driving. A prison sentence does stop him from driving, and makes the roads somewhat safer for everyone whilst he's away. It'll also focus his mind somewhat when released, as having experienced prison, I'm doubly sure he won't want to go back, so I'd be more confident of him adhering to a driving disqualification.
So; what stops him driving month 13-36?
Recidivism rates suggest that fear of prison is the wrong answer.
I think we could safely trust his compliance with the ban to contrition and good charachter, at least in the first instance.
Why should the vast majority of law-abiding motoritst have to take that risk? I feel safer on the roads knowing he's in prison.
fluffnik said:
R_U_LOCAL said:
No - the sentence is correct.
Can't agree, but then I don't think there are many libertarians in the police.
When I say correct, that's only because we don't still have hanging or the birch.
mr_annie_vxr said:
fluffnik said:
...and thanks to a bankrupt justice administration everyone else is paying too.
Don't get me wrong old chap I understand where your coming from. Just its my experience that you have to deal with these offences in this manner or as Reg points out people tend not to adhere to their bans. You do also have to have some punishment for the injury and damage he has caused the individual.
If he breaches the ban then bust him further.
I'm also firmly of the opinion that one should punish based on culpability and malice rather than outcome...
mr_annie_vxr said:
If that individual was totally against prison then maybe I'd understand. If his acts of recklessness had been on a one to one basis and he had hit this chap causing the injury (just as accidentaly) he would have been dealt with for GBH and received a longer term. Fact is mateys selfish acts impacted on a totally innocent third party. He will be out far sooner than the biker will apparently use his arm again.
...and I view private vengence as having no place in public justice.
10 Pence Short could have been just as punnished at little or no cost to society.
R_U_LOCAL said:
fluffnik said:
R_U_LOCAL said:
Are you suggesting that soemone who murders their wife should not be gaoled because they've no more wives to murder, so we're all safe?
That's malice aforethought, I don't necessarily have a problem with gaoling such a person.
Don't hold with mandatory life sentences though...
You seem to be confusing careless driving, which is simply a momentary lapse of concentration, with dangerous driving, which does require a degree of prior thought on the part of the defendent.
More culpability, yes, but still no malice...
R_U_LOCAL said:
They may not set out to cause anyone any injuries, but it would be obvious to them that driving in that way could result in someone becoming seriously injured. People who drive carelessly rarely recieve a custodial sentence, whereas those who drive dangerously have displayed a recklessness which usually deserves a more serious punishment.
He deserves punished, I just don't think prison is a sensible choice in this (or a very great many) case(s).
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff