Suspended sentence for 95 year old driver who killed a man.

[4x4Tyke]

ferrariF50lover said:

This makes no more sense from you than it did from the last chap a few minutes ago.

I would put this even more strongly. If they are a decent person, driving dangerously by incapacity is because they don't realise it. So, they will not be deterred because of the incapacity. If they are not a decent person it will make no difference any way.

[InitialDave]

The Surveyor said:

Are you suggesting the courts take a 'don't lock up a killer if they're sorry and promise not to do it again' policy?

Well:

4x4Tyke said:

I think this is a what is the purpose of prison thread.

• Prevention, the life time ban seem to satisfy this.
• Rehabilitation, the life time ban makes this unnecessary, they won't be driving again.
• Deterrence, this only works if similar drivers take notice, the same incapacity will likely prevent this.
• Punishment, in this case, prison is punitive.

I'm pro-prison, even pro-punitive sentences when it comes to protecting the public from dangerous people, but I really don't see what purpose is served by a prison sentence in this case.

[lyonspride]

4x4Tyke said:

If they are a decent person, driving dangerously by incapacity is because they don't realise it

I don't buy that, being overtaken constantly, horn usage, general impatience around you, suggests your doing something wrong. Failure to see this is simply not possible, therefore continuing to drive is pure arrogance, something many elderly have by the bucket load...... As being elderly in this country seems to be a licence to do whatever the fk you like..

[InitialDave]

lyonspride said:

I don't buy that, being overtaken constantly, horn usage, general impatience around you, suggests your doing something wrong. Failure to see this is simply not possible, therefore continuing to drive is pure arrogance, something many elderly have by the bucket load...... As being elderly in this country seems to be a licence to do whatever the fk you like..

And someone else being put in prison will cause them to consider their situation? I doubt it. Far more likely to view it as "wouldn't happen to me, I'm a careful driver" *Trundles through 30-20-30-50-60 sequence of limits at 38mph*

[heebeegeetee]

IroningMan said:

So if I cause a fatal collision I should just be able to hold my hand up, say it was an honest mistake, and walk away? Not sure I'm comfortable with that. Contrast with a certain cyclist's sentence earlier this year, for example.

Drivers have been 'getting away' with killing motorcyclists and cyclists for decades, I would suggest. Cases like this: http://road.cc/content/news/73826-taxi-driver-fine...

[vonhosen]

IroningMan said:

So if I cause a fatal collision I should just be able to hold my hand up, say it was an honest mistake, and walk away? Not sure I'm comfortable with that. Contrast with a certain cyclist's sentence earlier this year, for example.

That rather depends on the individual circumstances pertaining to your fatal collision, as it did to his.

[surveyor_101]

4x4Tyke said:

I think this is a what is the purpose of prison thread.

• Prevention, the life time ban seem to satisfy this.
• Rehabilitation, the life time ban makes this unnecessary, they won't be driving again.
• Deterrence, this only works if similar drivers take notice, the same incapacity will likely prevent this.
• Punishment, in this case, prison is punitive.

I'm pro-prison, even pro-punitive sentences when it comes to protecting the public from dangerous people, but I really don't see what purpose is served by a prison sentence in this case.

Ok but what is the deterrent?

[The Surveyor]

InitialDave said:

lyonspride said:

I don't buy that, being overtaken constantly, horn usage, general impatience around you, suggests your doing something wrong. Failure to see this is simply not possible, therefore continuing to drive is pure arrogance, something many elderly have by the bucket load...... As being elderly in this country seems to be a licence to do whatever the fk you like..

And someone else being put in prison will cause them to consider their situation? I doubt it. Far more likely to view it as "wouldn't happen to me, I'm a careful driver" *Trundles through 30-20-30-50-60 sequence of limits at 38mph*

It's the 'wouldn't happen to me' drink drivers who used to drive home after a skin-full a few decades ago who now get a taxi, that's a message that's come from a combination of potential punishment and drink-driving no longer being socially acceptable. The stubborn elderly who really shouldn't be driving, and who's family and friends all know shouldn't be driving need a similar deterrent and letting this lady off (effectively) is putting out the total opposite message.

All drivers should face the same punishment if their negligent driving causes somebodies death, they certainly shouldn't receive more lenient treatment when their negligence is due to them being old.

[4x4Tyke]

surveyor_101 said:

Ok but what is the deterrent?

If you mean what would work as a deterrent with these sort of drivers, I don't really have an idea.

I'm just pretty confident prison won't, for the reasons set out.

[vonhosen]

The Surveyor said:

All drivers should face the same punishment if their negligent driving causes somebodies death, they certainly shouldn't receive more lenient treatment when their negligence is due to them being old.

I disagree, otherwise (for instance) someone who has done so for the 5th time (with a long history of offending) & a high degree of culpability receives the same punishment as someone who has for the 1st time with a low degree of culpability (& of previous good character).
Each case should be dealt with according to the individual circumstances of that case & with consistency in reference to the sentencing guidelines.

[The Surveyor]

vonhosen said:

The Surveyor said:

All drivers should face the same punishment if their negligent driving causes somebodies death, they certainly shouldn't receive more lenient treatment when their negligence is due to them being old.

I disagree, otherwise (for instance) someone who has done so for the 5th time (with a long history of offending) & a high degree of culpability receives the same punishment as someone who has for the 1st time with a low degree of culpability (& of previous good character).
Each case should be dealt with according to the individual circumstances of that case & with consistency in reference to the sentencing guidelines.

I was meaning within the sentencing guidelines, and for a similar offence. Multiple offending being very different to a single offence.

Are you comfortable that this lady walked free for this offence?

[surveyor]

I think this is a tough case all round.

Horrific for the deceased persons family. I can understand that they want some sort of retribution. Equally is there any sort of rehabilitation point in sending a 92 year old to prison who has already had her keys hung up.

I think there a lot of wrong answers. But probably no right answers.

[vonhosen]

The Surveyor said:

vonhosen said:

The Surveyor said:

All drivers should face the same punishment if their negligent driving causes somebodies death, they certainly shouldn't receive more lenient treatment when their negligence is due to them being old.

I disagree, otherwise (for instance) someone who has done so for the 5th time (with a long history of offending) & a high degree of culpability receives the same punishment as someone who has for the 1st time with a low degree of culpability (& of previous good character).
Each case should be dealt with according to the individual circumstances of that case & with consistency in reference to the sentencing guidelines.

I was meaning within the sentencing guidelines, and for a similar offence. Multiple offending being very different to a single offence.

Are you comfortable that this lady walked free for this offence?

I'm comfortable to leave it to the courts to look at each individual case on it's merits & sentence as per the guidelines.
There is an appeal process also available should the sentencing be out of kilter.

[captain_cynic]

The Surveyor said:

A sad case all-round but for me the sentence has been suspended because of her age as anybody else doing the same whilst impaired for any other reason than being a bit old and confused would be locked up. If she was still fit to be driving, she is still fit to spend time in prison.

1. The suspended sentence was because the death was not intentional.

2. The fact that she has now been banned permanently says she is not fit to be driving. I'd suggest that maybe we need mandatory re-testing of elderly drivers but that would be suicide for any politician who suggested it.

3. Also it costs £65,000 per year to lock someone up... For a 95 yr old I imagine it would be more expensive.

Imagine how much it would cost if we actually locked up everyone the average Daily Mail reader wanted to lock up, we may as well rename ourselves the Prison of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

[heebeegeetee]

The Surveyor said:

I was meaning within the sentencing guidelines, and for a similar offence. Multiple offending being very different to a single offence.

Are you comfortable that this lady walked free for this offence?

I do always feel uncomfortable that there seems to be more concern to jail 'outlier' killers than the 'normal everyday' type. The regular "our type" of motorist who may make an innocent mistake doesn't seem to attract the level of attention that say, the elderly do, or dare I say it, a cyclist might (witnessing the recent case which may even go on to produce changes in the law). Hundreds of 'smidsys' walk free every year. You can plough a cyclist down and blame the sun, you'll be all but let off scot free.

The family of the deceased in this case were reported to be extremely distressed, indeed had to be helped from court. This is understandable, but what if the next day one of them (perhaps while distracted by this case) goes on to make an innocent mistake and ends up killing someone - would they think that they then should go to prison? I suspect not.

[The Surveyor]

captain_cynic said:

The Surveyor said:

A sad case all-round but for me the sentence has been suspended because of her age as anybody else doing the same whilst impaired for any other reason than being a bit old and confused would be locked up. If she was still fit to be driving, she is still fit to spend time in prison.

1. The suspended sentence was because the death was not intentional.

2. The fact that she has now been banned permanently says she is not fit to be driving. I'd suggest that maybe we need mandatory re-testing of elderly drivers but that would be suicide for any politician who suggested it.

3. Also it costs £65,000 per year to lock someone up... For a 95 yr old I imagine it would be more expensive.

Imagine how much it would cost if we actually locked up everyone the average Daily Mail reader wanted to lock up, we may as well rename ourselves the Prison of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

I think you are being over cynical Captain, I'm certainly not suggesting we take a tougher approach as I think the existing sentencing guidelines are a logical balance, its the lack of balance in their application.

My issue here is that on the face of it, this lady caused a death due to her failure to react normally to a normal small error, on the basis of her age. Like most Death by Dangerous Driving cases the driver didn't intend to kill but she did and that was totally due to her negligence, but here the courts then decide to impose a more lenient sentence on the basis that she's apologetic and old.

[The Surveyor]

vonhosen said:

I'm comfortable to leave it to the courts to look at each individual case on it's merits & sentence as per the guidelines.
There is an appeal process also available should the sentencing be out of kilter.

Why do we need an appeal process if we're comfortable that the courts look at each individual cases on their merit?

[CABC]

lyonspride said:

The difference is young drivers typically kill/injure themselves and/or their passengers, they don't tend to go ploughing through bus stops, along footpaths and through shop fronts.

Statistically more injuries are caused by elderly drivers per mile, stats from the former minister of transport and published on the BBC news website.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ipm/2008/09/some_statis...

Of course there are better stats on this from other countries, but too many people would argue that (for example) stats on American elderly drivers isn't comparable to the UK or Australia or Germany, etc.

Knowing your unfit to drive, but doing so out of pure ignorance, is no different to drink driving, which carries VERY heavy penalties if you happen to harm or kill someone.

Edited by lyonspride on Friday 5th January 12:43

interesting.
to be pedantic the article states more accidents per mile. we don't know how serious these accidents were (maybe lower speed and normally less serious?). And of course the elderly drive less miles.
As this Christmas demonstrated, plenty of young crashes can involve multiple fatalities. And I'm not sure the families of the passengers would see it as more acceptable their son/daughter were willing passengers in the speeding car. Especially not when it's the girlfriend rather than a bunch of lads egging each other on.

I can see black boxes becoming more widely used.

[Andehh]

Everyone debating punishing her, does need to remember she was an innocent old lady who just killed someone. She needs to now live with that & know the shame it brings on her, her family and her entire 'social' life. Her punishment will be severe & the strain of it will likely kill her earlier.

[The Surveyor]

heebeegeetee said:

......, but what if the next day one of them (perhaps while distracted by this case) goes on to make an innocent mistake and ends up killing someone .........

Understood and I largely agree, the only thing here is I just don't see what this lady did as being as trivial as an 'innocent mistake'. We all know as you get old, there are things you can no longer do, and things which become more difficult. Eye-sight and reactions times diminish and 'IF' there is any suspicion that this lady knew she shouldn't be driving, it was worse than just an innocent mistake. For me, it's more like somebody who knows you shouldn't drive after a few beers, but who still does and then kills somebody.

Her acceptance of the dangerous driving (rather than careless driving) charge would suggest she knew she shouldn't have been behind the wheel.