Discussion
Story, in The Sun granted, that a chap who ran over a young lad whilst drunk with no license got an 8 week custodial sentence.
How is the public supposed to have any faith at all in the justice system if you get 8 weeks for what is ostensibly murder and 6 months for a victimless crime?
This country astounds me.
How is the public supposed to have any faith at all in the justice system if you get 8 weeks for what is ostensibly murder and 6 months for a victimless crime?
This country astounds me.
mk6fiesta said:
So Jermaine Pennant got 3 months in prision, what did he do:
Driving while disqualified
Drink Driving
Driving while uninsured
hitting a lamp post
versus...........
Being in the country illegally
Drink Driving
Driving without a licence
Driving while uninsured
Killing a 12 year old boy as he crossed the road
now seeing as Pennant got 3 months for hitting a lampost, you'd expect at least 5 years for this guy
TRY 8 WEEKS!!!
Because he has spent 7 weeks in remand, he will be out in a few days to continue his 7 year fight to stay here, even though he has been turned down 4 times already.
Now thats the Great British Justice System at its best. Its a bloody disgrace
Agreed that all the circumstances stink BUT a report I read said that a reconstruction of the event had determined, to the satisfaction of the CPS which influenced the choice of charge, that it was likely that any driver even if fully legal would still have hit the boy and quite possibly killed him when he ran into the road.
The day that we end up with a legal system that always assumes guilt for one event based on consideration of circumstances that are not DIRECTLY relevant, we all have a problem.
If we ever get to the stage where our road law assumes guilt with malicious intent simply because someone driving a car is in collision with another person of any age who is a pedestrian at that moment, I will stop driving.
If the guy had run the boy down on a pedestrian crossing (with a few provisos about the boy's actions) or ploughed into him on the pavement it would be a different matter.
I am not sure that the sentence was appropriately long for all the crimes the driver committed (excluding the collision) but whether a more serious charge should have been brought, together with a more serious sentence possibility, is a matter for the CPS.
In Pennant's case I think it was a second offence as well? So the judiciary would be very put out having a nose thumbed at them.
Quite why the owner of the car seems not to have been prosecuted for allowing Pennant to take it I don't know. After all Pennant has not been done for theft has he?
If you take out the boy's death on the basis that the boy's actions directly contributed to his own death you have similar circumstances and similar sentences.
On the basis of the reports and the way society decides things are to be handled it seems quite a consistent situation. Whether it is right and proper is another matter.
Before anyone decides to flame me on this please read the post again carefully and if you think I have not made something clear in my interpretation of the situation let me know and I will try to make it clearer.
Ist like the CJ case... he was not speeding at time und accident could not have been avoided as the child simply ran into road.
But ist another reason why speed cams do not work - not scam would have saved these children either.
Und less chance of being copped whilst drunk, unilcenced, unisinsured, illegally here ... as we have less policemen on patrol as result of these scams... so more take chance on this basis.
Easiest answer ... less plastic pretzels; more traffic police und less or no scams....
But ist another reason why speed cams do not work - not scam would have saved these children either.
Und less chance of being copped whilst drunk, unilcenced, unisinsured, illegally here ... as we have less policemen on patrol as result of these scams... so more take chance on this basis.
Easiest answer ... less plastic pretzels; more traffic police und less or no scams....
Ist like the CJ case... he was not speeding at time und accident could not have been avoided as the child simply ran into road.
But ist another reason why speed cams do not work - not scam would have saved these children either.
Und less chance of being copped whilst drunk, unilcenced, unisinsured, illegally here ... as we have less policemen on patrol as result of these scams... so more take chance on this basis.
Easiest answer ... less plastic pretzels; more traffic police und less or no scams....
But ist another reason why speed cams do not work - not scam would have saved these children either.
Und less chance of being copped whilst drunk, unilcenced, unisinsured, illegally here ... as we have less policemen on patrol as result of these scams... so more take chance on this basis.
Easiest answer ... less plastic pretzels; more traffic police und less or no scams....
deeen said:
Were the parents of the 8 year old charged with neglect?
Maybe a different case? The report I was reading said 12 year old - right in the middle of the age group that seems most prone to KSI as children.
They probably go on to be prone to KSI as intoxicated young adults as well, according to the figures.
I happened to be following (as a pedestrian) some teenagers on their way home from school a few days ago. 5 lads and a girl. 2 of the lads were mucking about - narrow footpath alonside a narrow and fairly busy road. A couple of the lads were walking sometimes on the path and sometimes on the road. Didn't seem to be looking for any traffic. Then one pushed/punched another who stepped back into the road - again not looking. Just loutish behaviour though I suspect they were simply 'messing about'. But I think they would have been quite unconcerned even if they were alongside a steady queue of traffic.
Must be hormonal I think. Puts them in their own little world.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff