Is jail really the smart solution for speeding?
Discussion
yonex said:
jm doc said:
The contempt is entirely on the part of the judicial system and the laws which support it. Another dark day in the decline in rationality in this country.
This is exactly how I view it. It's a two or even three tier system, including the Scottish principals. Utterly ludicrous that;- A drunk driver (even repeat) would get a lighter sentence
- That spending tens of thousands is deemed appropriate in an open and shut case
- That the law in this country is so one dimensional regarding excess speed
You'd have to be made out of wood, and a huge hypocrite if you didn't in anyway see this as harsh IMO. There are obvious solutions which avoid pointless incarceration in a penal system which is absolutely bursting at the seams.
Edited by yonex on Wednesday 8th February 07:45
For me, in any extreme case where there is the potential to injure others, there should always be a custodial sentence at the top of the sentencing guidelines both for the deterrent factor, and to protect the wider public. And yes, that should certainly include drink-drivers too.
If the concern is to help the prison service from overcrowding, stop jailing people for non-violent 'financial' crimes and stick to financial penalties for those. I find the concept of jailing an MP for fiddling their expenses, a banker for fraud, or a Postman for steeling cheques more ridiculous when recovery of the money and financial ruin would be a more effective outcome than a few months in prison IMHO.
La Liga said:
R8Steve said:
albeit a conviction that involved no jail time, no driving ban and no penalty points for a faster speed so it would certainly still appear to be one rule for one...
Not if you actually consider the unique aspects of the matter. R8Steve said:
La Liga said:
R8Steve said:
albeit a conviction that involved no jail time, no driving ban and no penalty points for a faster speed so it would certainly still appear to be one rule for one...
Not if you actually consider the unique aspects of the matter. La Liga said:
R8Steve said:
La Liga said:
R8Steve said:
albeit a conviction that involved no jail time, no driving ban and no penalty points for a faster speed so it would certainly still appear to be one rule for one...
Not if you actually consider the unique aspects of the matter. Meanwhile the highland biker is stuck in a cell and banned for driving for 5 years for a lesser speed.
R8Steve said:
La Liga said:
R8Steve said:
La Liga said:
R8Steve said:
albeit a conviction that involved no jail time, no driving ban and no penalty points for a faster speed so it would certainly still appear to be one rule for one...
Not if you actually consider the unique aspects of the matter. Meanwhile the highland biker is stuck in a cell and banned for driving for 5 years for a lesser speed.
La Liga said:
R8Steve said:
La Liga said:
R8Steve said:
La Liga said:
R8Steve said:
albeit a conviction that involved no jail time, no driving ban and no penalty points for a faster speed so it would certainly still appear to be one rule for one...
Not if you actually consider the unique aspects of the matter. Meanwhile the highland biker is stuck in a cell and banned for driving for 5 years for a lesser speed.
The facts are that one police trained driver doing 159mph got no jail, ban or points and another championship motocross racer doing 149mph got jail and a 5 year ban.
Whatever way you look at it that is rather disproportionate.
For the record, i agree with the ban, the jail time is what i find completely OTT.
R8Steve said:
I would have thought that every case of dangerous driving was unique.
Not to the degree this one was with the mix of police exemptions, ambiguous policies on testing cars / training / testing, points of law being clarified, convictions / appeals acquittals / retrials / time time it took etc. If there's a comparable one which has featured non-police officers I'd be interested to know, as then a 'one rule' comparison may have some semblance of accuracy.
The Surveyor said:
yonex said:
jm doc said:
The contempt is entirely on the part of the judicial system and the laws which support it. Another dark day in the decline in rationality in this country.
This is exactly how I view it. It's a two or even three tier system, including the Scottish principals. Utterly ludicrous that;- A drunk driver (even repeat) would get a lighter sentence
- That spending tens of thousands is deemed appropriate in an open and shut case
- That the law in this country is so one dimensional regarding excess speed
You'd have to be made out of wood, and a huge hypocrite if you didn't in anyway see this as harsh IMO. There are obvious solutions which avoid pointless incarceration in a penal system which is absolutely bursting at the seams.
Edited by yonex on Wednesday 8th February 07:45
For me, in any extreme case where there is the potential to injure others, there should always be a custodial sentence at the top of the sentencing guidelines both for the deterrent factor, and to protect the wider public. And yes, that should certainly include drink-drivers too.
If the concern is to help the prison service from overcrowding, stop jailing people for non-violent 'financial' crimes and stick to financial penalties for those. I find the concept of jailing an MP for fiddling their expenses, a banker for fraud, or a Postman for steeling cheques more ridiculous when recovery of the money and financial ruin would be a more effective outcome than a few months in prison IMHO.
Speed per se is not deemed by the law as dangerous driving, a fact recognised by english courts, and since, at times, people drive much faster legally elsewhere demonstrating that it's completely safe, any rational consideration would dismiss that assertion. Irrationality continues to rule in Scotland, clearly.
Interesting that you are happy for people to steal from others, causing in some cases significant distress, but someone who causes no harm to anyone, and puts absolutely no one at any risk is jailed for upsetting the sensibilities of a few old crocks sitting in what is increasingly appearing to be a kangaroo court
jm doc said:
Well your lack of concern is no surprise given some of your posts on here....
Speed per se is not deemed by the law as dangerous driving, a fact recognised by english courts, and since, at times, people drive much faster legally elsewhere demonstrating that it's completely safe, any rational consideration would dismiss that assertion. Irrationality continues to rule in Scotland, clearly.
Interesting that you are happy for people to steal from others, causing in some cases significant distress, but someone who causes no harm to anyone, and puts absolutely no one at any risk is jailed for upsetting the sensibilities of a few old crocks sitting in what is increasingly appearing to be a kangaroo court
There is no magic number at which speed becomes unsafe, or below which it is safe. Safety is a matter of degree.Speed per se is not deemed by the law as dangerous driving, a fact recognised by english courts, and since, at times, people drive much faster legally elsewhere demonstrating that it's completely safe, any rational consideration would dismiss that assertion. Irrationality continues to rule in Scotland, clearly.
Interesting that you are happy for people to steal from others, causing in some cases significant distress, but someone who causes no harm to anyone, and puts absolutely no one at any risk is jailed for upsetting the sensibilities of a few old crocks sitting in what is increasingly appearing to be a kangaroo court
As for nobody else at any risk, that really isn't true. At that speed there is no way he could know that he wasn't putting anyone at risk.
The Surveyor said:
I personally am not too concerned over the sentence. It was extreme speed which is deemed by the law as Dangerous Driving, something that everybody knows carries a potential custodial sentence. He rolled the dice, didn't hurt anybody but got caught, he admitted it and received the potential custodial sentence.
For me, in any extreme case where there is the potential to injure others, there should always be a custodial sentence at the top of the sentencing guidelines both for the deterrent factor, and to protect the wider public. And yes, that should certainly include drink-drivers too.
If the concern is to help the prison service from overcrowding, stop jailing people for non-violent 'financial' crimes and stick to financial penalties for those. I find the concept of jailing an MP for fiddling their expenses, a banker for fraud, or a Postman for steeling cheques more ridiculous when recovery of the money and financial ruin would be a more effective outcome than a few months in prison IMHO.
But theft is surely the foundation of the criminal system? Is there a case to answer that an MP, banker or postman travelling on the A59 at 149MPH is in anyway more serious than fraud? What if that fraud leads to significant inconvenience or death, do we not have to factor that in?For me, in any extreme case where there is the potential to injure others, there should always be a custodial sentence at the top of the sentencing guidelines both for the deterrent factor, and to protect the wider public. And yes, that should certainly include drink-drivers too.
If the concern is to help the prison service from overcrowding, stop jailing people for non-violent 'financial' crimes and stick to financial penalties for those. I find the concept of jailing an MP for fiddling their expenses, a banker for fraud, or a Postman for steeling cheques more ridiculous when recovery of the money and financial ruin would be a more effective outcome than a few months in prison IMHO.
In any case. The world has clearly gone barking mad. We apparently live in a society which some think that 'speeding' is more serious than stealing. It isn't, it never will be and to suggest otherwise shows total contempt for society as a whole.
singlecoil said:
jm doc said:
Well your lack of concern is no surprise given some of your posts on here....
Speed per se is not deemed by the law as dangerous driving, a fact recognised by english courts, and since, at times, people drive much faster legally elsewhere demonstrating that it's completely safe, any rational consideration would dismiss that assertion. Irrationality continues to rule in Scotland, clearly.
Interesting that you are happy for people to steal from others, causing in some cases significant distress, but someone who causes no harm to anyone, and puts absolutely no one at any risk is jailed for upsetting the sensibilities of a few old crocks sitting in what is increasingly appearing to be a kangaroo court
There is no magic number at which speed becomes unsafe, or below which it is safe. Safety is a matter of degree.Speed per se is not deemed by the law as dangerous driving, a fact recognised by english courts, and since, at times, people drive much faster legally elsewhere demonstrating that it's completely safe, any rational consideration would dismiss that assertion. Irrationality continues to rule in Scotland, clearly.
Interesting that you are happy for people to steal from others, causing in some cases significant distress, but someone who causes no harm to anyone, and puts absolutely no one at any risk is jailed for upsetting the sensibilities of a few old crocks sitting in what is increasingly appearing to be a kangaroo court
As for nobody else at any risk, that really isn't true. At that speed there is no way he could know that he wasn't putting anyone at risk.
jm doc said:
Speed per se is not deemed by the law as dangerous driving, a fact recognised by english courts, and since, at times, people drive much faster legally elsewhere demonstrating that it's completely safe, any rational consideration would dismiss that assertion. Irrationality continues to rule in Scotland, clearly.
Any lack of concern is just a support for the current sentencing profile that includes a potential custodial sentence for Dangerous Driving. In this case the guy pushed his luck way beyond any sensible speeding, and to the level where if caught he would be banged-up. If you feel this guys speed on a public road was 'completely safe' then I think we can agree to disagree on that.jm doc said:
Interesting that you are happy for people to steal from others, .......
Read my post again 
jm doc said:
singlecoil said:
jm doc said:
Well your lack of concern is no surprise given some of your posts on here....
Speed per se is not deemed by the law as dangerous driving, a fact recognised by english courts, and since, at times, people drive much faster legally elsewhere demonstrating that it's completely safe, any rational consideration would dismiss that assertion. Irrationality continues to rule in Scotland, clearly.
Interesting that you are happy for people to steal from others, causing in some cases significant distress, but someone who causes no harm to anyone, and puts absolutely no one at any risk is jailed for upsetting the sensibilities of a few old crocks sitting in what is increasingly appearing to be a kangaroo court
There is no magic number at which speed becomes unsafe, or below which it is safe. Safety is a matter of degree.Speed per se is not deemed by the law as dangerous driving, a fact recognised by english courts, and since, at times, people drive much faster legally elsewhere demonstrating that it's completely safe, any rational consideration would dismiss that assertion. Irrationality continues to rule in Scotland, clearly.
Interesting that you are happy for people to steal from others, causing in some cases significant distress, but someone who causes no harm to anyone, and puts absolutely no one at any risk is jailed for upsetting the sensibilities of a few old crocks sitting in what is increasingly appearing to be a kangaroo court
As for nobody else at any risk, that really isn't true. At that speed there is no way he could know that he wasn't putting anyone at risk.
jm doc said:
As I understand it, the road was straight, empty and clear, and it was a brief burst of speed. I am not aware that anyone else was present.
The police would need to be there, unless of course he handed himself in as well as admitting the offence! Clearly he was travelling too fast for even the basic observation when 'pressing on'.yonex said:
In any case. The world has clearly gone barking mad. We apparently live in a society which some think that 'speeding' is more serious than stealing. It isn't, it never will be and to suggest otherwise shows total contempt for society as a whole.
Sorry to disappoint, but the world has been barking mad for centuries, you only have to try and explain religion to work that one out!As for your 'daily mail' interpretation of my earlier post, try looking at it this way... Dangerous Driving is where you are putting other road uses at a very real increased risk of actual physical harm, in extreme cases a custodial sentence should be considered, an MP fiddling their expenses should be dealt with by fines, recovery and public shaming not prison. Applying your same interpretation, do you not think that what this guy was doing, on the same roads we all share was not equally 'contempt for society as a whole'.
The Surveyor said:
... Dangerous Driving is where you are putting other road uses at a very real increased risk of actual physical harm, in extreme cases a custodial sentence should be considered....
Any idea why drinking and driving isn't also classed (and prosecuted) as dangerous driving as well, with similar punishments?Pete Eroleum said:
The Surveyor said:
... Dangerous Driving is where you are putting other road uses at a very real increased risk of actual physical harm, in extreme cases a custodial sentence should be considered....
Any idea why drinking and driving isn't also classed (and prosecuted) as dangerous driving as well, with similar punishments?The Surveyor said:
Sorry to disappoint, but the world has been barking mad for centuries, you only have to try and explain religion to work that one out!
As for your 'daily mail' interpretation of my earlier post, try looking at it this way... Dangerous Driving is where you are putting other road uses at a very real increased risk of actual physical harm, in extreme cases a custodial sentence should be considered, an MP fiddling their expenses should be dealt with by fines, recovery and public shaming not prison. Applying your same interpretation, do you not think that what this guy was doing, on the same roads we all share was not equally 'contempt for society as a whole'.
Maybe so, but I don't understand your logic. You can make the connection between a motorcyclist travelling at 66 metres a second and a 'very real increased rick of actual physical harm' but not fiddling expenses or stealing cheques, the latter which could mean someone vulnerable wouldn't be able to afford to keep the electricity on? Extreme cases, but that is what is being quoted?As for your 'daily mail' interpretation of my earlier post, try looking at it this way... Dangerous Driving is where you are putting other road uses at a very real increased risk of actual physical harm, in extreme cases a custodial sentence should be considered, an MP fiddling their expenses should be dealt with by fines, recovery and public shaming not prison. Applying your same interpretation, do you not think that what this guy was doing, on the same roads we all share was not equally 'contempt for society as a whole'.
And, no. I agree he was made a very silly choice but speed in isolation simply does not kill people. If it did, he would not have survived. In either case I simply cannot compute that 'stealing' is more serious to anybody than 'speeding'. I am correct in that is what you are suggesting here?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff