Is it about time the judicary/MPs got into the real world
Discussion
Just thinking of the two kids killed yesterday.
When is this country going to man up and really hit these selfish buggers where it hurts?
Ban for life for any DD infringement... it isnt as though you didnt know It is a deliberate act
Life sentence 30yrs min for any Drunk driver where a death is involved
Or is it just me?
When is this country going to man up and really hit these selfish buggers where it hurts?
Ban for life for any DD infringement... it isnt as though you didnt know It is a deliberate act
Life sentence 30yrs min for any Drunk driver where a death is involved
Or is it just me?
silverfoxcc said:
Just thinking of the two kids killed yesterday.
When is this country going to man up and really hit these selfish buggers where it hurts?
Ban for life for any DD infringement... it isnt as though you didnt know It is a deliberate act
Life sentence 30yrs min for any Drunk driver where a death is involved
Or is it just me?
The reason such offences as death by dangerous driving were enacted, with lower maximum penalties, was because juries were reluctant to convict a driver of manslaughter, which clearly it is, as there was the feeling that 'It could have been me'. This is despite the victim, the dead person, could have been them or theirs as well. When is this country going to man up and really hit these selfish buggers where it hurts?
Ban for life for any DD infringement... it isnt as though you didnt know It is a deliberate act
Life sentence 30yrs min for any Drunk driver where a death is involved
Or is it just me?
One of the major 'irritations' of prosecutions is that the jury makes up its own mind. You can go to court with an utterly clear case of death by reckless yet a jury, seeing the well presented young man in the dock, who was utterly devastated by the death of his cousin, whom he looked up to as an elder brother, together with the fact that he would always blame himself for his 'brother's' death (too bloody right. He killed him then ran away from the scene, leaving his 'brother' alive but in need of urgent medical attention), will refuse to convict on reckless, precedent notwithstanding.
It is a shame that the original interview was not recorded. No 'Oh I'm so sorry. It was that I blamed myself' then.
It is one of the great ironies of crime and punishment that harsh penalties do not put off potential offenders, but they do have an effect on juries.
I'm a supporter of trial by jury. It is one of the major safeguards of our judicial system, but it can be milked by those without shame.
According to this:
https://fullfact.org/crime/how-long-do-murderers-s...
Average sentence for a convicted murderer seems to be 16 years.
Do you really think that a drink-driver (slightly over the limit from the night before) who kills a pedestrian who ran straight out in front of him should spend twice as much time in prison as someone who commits a premeditated murder?
https://fullfact.org/crime/how-long-do-murderers-s...
Average sentence for a convicted murderer seems to be 16 years.
Do you really think that a drink-driver (slightly over the limit from the night before) who kills a pedestrian who ran straight out in front of him should spend twice as much time in prison as someone who commits a premeditated murder?
I feel they system is pretty good overall, but where it falls down is the sentencing is never really the full one that can be handed down.
I understand why a judge needs to have a range as to me there is a difference between a person who has made a stupid error with catastrophic results and one who habitually ignores rules takes chances everyday and causes a death.
In the same way a person just over the DD limit the day after a night out is not the same as a person who cannot stand up and still driving.
But Derek is right Juries are swayed by clever barristers and appearance of accused.
I understand why a judge needs to have a range as to me there is a difference between a person who has made a stupid error with catastrophic results and one who habitually ignores rules takes chances everyday and causes a death.
In the same way a person just over the DD limit the day after a night out is not the same as a person who cannot stand up and still driving.
But Derek is right Juries are swayed by clever barristers and appearance of accused.
The severity of the punishment serves2 purposes,retribution for society and deterrence.
The society in the UK have a reasonable retributioni think others won’t of course.
As far as deterrence is concerned, and this is the area the OP may be addressing, the severity of punishment has limited effect on deterring potential offenders as its severity increases. It isn’t too long ago we hung thieves for stealing bread even when the offenders were minors. Bread was still stolen and thieves as young as 5 were hanged.
At the moment causing a death while driving dangerously, carelessly or while drunk is put to a jury. There are still people who do it but most reasonable people are deterred. Quite why some are not needs a psychiatrist to explain. What I can say though is if the chance of detection was greater fewer people would offend...that is apart from those blessed with the most primitive of mind.
Judges, I would omit MPs, are not sitting on in the big leather chair at the end of the room because they are out of touch with the real world, they are usually not primitive thinkers I would hazard. Those who want to chop heads off for stealing bread are not suitable to pronounce sentence, the head-choppers are allowed a place on the jury though. Leave the scale of punishment to the to judges select from.
The scale of punishment is regarded differently by different people. Personally I would be devastated by an accusation that ended up in a court, a week, month or year in prison is a horrific thought. For others a prison sentence is a badge of honour and promotes them in their own world. Is that the real world the OP alludes to? If so longer sentences are unlikely to be of any deterrent effect.
It is difficult to accept the obviously guilty getting a not guilty verdict from a jury that was only half awake and when they were they heard a fabricated tale of woe and a saintly character reference. Maybe we should consider trained and professional jurors who sit on seats that deliver an electric shock if the juror’s eyes shut for longer than 2 seconds. I’d like to see that.
The society in the UK have a reasonable retributioni think others won’t of course.
As far as deterrence is concerned, and this is the area the OP may be addressing, the severity of punishment has limited effect on deterring potential offenders as its severity increases. It isn’t too long ago we hung thieves for stealing bread even when the offenders were minors. Bread was still stolen and thieves as young as 5 were hanged.
At the moment causing a death while driving dangerously, carelessly or while drunk is put to a jury. There are still people who do it but most reasonable people are deterred. Quite why some are not needs a psychiatrist to explain. What I can say though is if the chance of detection was greater fewer people would offend...that is apart from those blessed with the most primitive of mind.
Judges, I would omit MPs, are not sitting on in the big leather chair at the end of the room because they are out of touch with the real world, they are usually not primitive thinkers I would hazard. Those who want to chop heads off for stealing bread are not suitable to pronounce sentence, the head-choppers are allowed a place on the jury though. Leave the scale of punishment to the to judges select from.
The scale of punishment is regarded differently by different people. Personally I would be devastated by an accusation that ended up in a court, a week, month or year in prison is a horrific thought. For others a prison sentence is a badge of honour and promotes them in their own world. Is that the real world the OP alludes to? If so longer sentences are unlikely to be of any deterrent effect.
It is difficult to accept the obviously guilty getting a not guilty verdict from a jury that was only half awake and when they were they heard a fabricated tale of woe and a saintly character reference. Maybe we should consider trained and professional jurors who sit on seats that deliver an electric shock if the juror’s eyes shut for longer than 2 seconds. I’d like to see that.
ghe13rte said:
The severity of the punishment serves2 purposes,retribution for society and deterrence.
The society in the UK have a reasonable retributioni think others won’t of course.
As far as deterrence is concerned, and this is the area the OP may be addressing, the severity of punishment has limited effect on deterring potential offenders as its severity increases. It isn’t too long ago we hung thieves for stealing bread even when the offenders were minors. Bread was still stolen and thieves as young as 5 were hanged.
At the moment causing a death while driving dangerously, carelessly or while drunk is put to a jury. There are still people who do it but most reasonable people are deterred. Quite why some are not needs a psychiatrist to explain. What I can say though is if the chance of detection was greater fewer people would offend...that is apart from those blessed with the most primitive of mind.
Judges, I would omit MPs, are not sitting on in the big leather chair at the end of the room because they are out of touch with the real world, they are usually not primitive thinkers I would hazard. Those who want to chop heads off for stealing bread are not suitable to pronounce sentence, the head-choppers are allowed a place on the jury though. Leave the scale of punishment to the to judges select from.
The scale of punishment is regarded differently by different people. Personally I would be devastated by an accusation that ended up in a court, a week, month or year in prison is a horrific thought. For others a prison sentence is a badge of honour and promotes them in their own world. Is that the real world the OP alludes to? If so longer sentences are unlikely to be of any deterrent effect.
It is difficult to accept the obviously guilty getting a not guilty verdict from a jury that was only half awake and when they were they heard a fabricated tale of woe and a saintly character reference. Maybe we should consider trained and professional jurors who sit on seats that deliver an electric shock if the juror’s eyes shut for longer than 2 seconds. I’d like to see that.
Despite seeing a few, less than a handful in fact over the years, of people obviously guilty of serious crimes being found NG against all logic, I still think our current system of trial by jury is the only sensible option. It has its faults, but then so do all the alternatives. One of the most famous trials in my time where a jury was dispensed with gave rise to what many think, and many includes me and a considerable number of the NoK, travesty of justice. Whilst that doesn't 'prove my point' as it is only one, I feel it was predictable. Not that I predicted it but others did.The society in the UK have a reasonable retributioni think others won’t of course.
As far as deterrence is concerned, and this is the area the OP may be addressing, the severity of punishment has limited effect on deterring potential offenders as its severity increases. It isn’t too long ago we hung thieves for stealing bread even when the offenders were minors. Bread was still stolen and thieves as young as 5 were hanged.
At the moment causing a death while driving dangerously, carelessly or while drunk is put to a jury. There are still people who do it but most reasonable people are deterred. Quite why some are not needs a psychiatrist to explain. What I can say though is if the chance of detection was greater fewer people would offend...that is apart from those blessed with the most primitive of mind.
Judges, I would omit MPs, are not sitting on in the big leather chair at the end of the room because they are out of touch with the real world, they are usually not primitive thinkers I would hazard. Those who want to chop heads off for stealing bread are not suitable to pronounce sentence, the head-choppers are allowed a place on the jury though. Leave the scale of punishment to the to judges select from.
The scale of punishment is regarded differently by different people. Personally I would be devastated by an accusation that ended up in a court, a week, month or year in prison is a horrific thought. For others a prison sentence is a badge of honour and promotes them in their own world. Is that the real world the OP alludes to? If so longer sentences are unlikely to be of any deterrent effect.
It is difficult to accept the obviously guilty getting a not guilty verdict from a jury that was only half awake and when they were they heard a fabricated tale of woe and a saintly character reference. Maybe we should consider trained and professional jurors who sit on seats that deliver an electric shock if the juror’s eyes shut for longer than 2 seconds. I’d like to see that.
All the research, from all sides of the argument, leads to the conclusion that harsher sentences do not deter to any measurable extent. The problem is that most offenders either react without thought or think they will get away with it. The only measurable deterrence is that the person will be found out and prosecuted.
There was a comedy sketch on TV a few years ago when, following a crime, a TV crew asked the NoK what he thought should be the sentence. He's aghast. He says: I'm the last person you should ask. And the argument goes on. Very apt.
I don't drive sober and sensibly because I don't want to do time for death by dangerous.
In the 80s there was a series of accidents in fog, one particularly bad one on the M25. The cause was quite obvious; people were driving too fast for the conditions. The knee-jerk reaction was to increase penalties for speeding in fog. One MP on Question Time pointed out that the drivers were ignoring the fact that they might die a horrible death, perhaps be burnt alive, or suffer life changing injuries, but they still went too fast. A few extra quid out of their pockets was hardly the same level. He was shouted down.
There is no one answer of course, apart from significant reform of our penal system. MPs run scared though. They don't want to be thought soft on crime due to the click-bait media response.
On a personal note, I worked with the resident judges of Sussex for a couple of years and found both, Judges Wrintmore and Gower, to be extremely astute. I was impressed. I believed I could trust their judgement, so to speak, on such matters. Two remarkable men who could have earned a lot more money. I think that the idea of service was strong in them. We were well served in Sussex and I would assume they were not unique in the role.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff