How does sentancing work?
Discussion
See I was watching a show the other night where a disqualified driver crashed his car at high speed by driving like a cock and killed his 17yo passenger (I think he may have been drinking as well cant remember). He'd been disqualified for driving badly in the 1st place.
The show says the maximum sentance for the offence is 14 years. (Death by Dangerous). Yet in the end the lad only got 5 years....In my opinion killing someone by driving badly when disqualified for driving badly is a maximum prison term.
In my mind the Judge should start at the maximum sentance for an offence and if there are good reasons then reduce the sentance as appropriate. Is this how they work? Or do they start with £1 fine and work their way up depending on how bad the offence was?
The show says the maximum sentance for the offence is 14 years. (Death by Dangerous). Yet in the end the lad only got 5 years....In my opinion killing someone by driving badly when disqualified for driving badly is a maximum prison term.
In my mind the Judge should start at the maximum sentance for an offence and if there are good reasons then reduce the sentance as appropriate. Is this how they work? Or do they start with £1 fine and work their way up depending on how bad the offence was?
Jasandjules said:
There are sentencing guidelines that they need to adhere to, if they impose a much harsher sentence than a similar case elsewhere then the scrote will appeal and get it reduced anyways.
Well thats crap system. As the scrotes in each case appeal the sentances will get shorter and shorter. Now if the guidelines were set by the members of pistonheads that I might live with.Anti Social behavior: 2 Kicks in the face. Repeat offence: = 2 kicks in the face + neutered + 2 years inside with bread + water only.
michaeljclark said:
I watched that program too.
The idiot that killed the female passenger got off lightly they should have thrown away the key - I hope it haunts his tiny little chavvy brain for the rest of his miserable, waste of space life
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/6756831.stmThe idiot that killed the female passenger got off lightly they should have thrown away the key - I hope it haunts his tiny little chavvy brain for the rest of his miserable, waste of space life
I remember this happening, got caught in the massive tailback it caused on the A38. The driver had a reputation amongst some locals I know for being an utter knob.
Munter said:
Jasandjules said:
There are sentencing guidelines that they need to adhere to, if they impose a much harsher sentence than a similar case elsewhere then the scrote will appeal and get it reduced anyways.
Well thats crap system. As the scrotes in each case appeal the sentances will get shorter and shorter. Now if the guidelines were set by the members of pistonheads that I might live with.Anti Social behavior: 2 Kicks in the face. Repeat offence: = 2 kicks in the face + neutered + 2 years inside with bread + water only.
NobleGuy said:
Well, the govt close down prisons to avoid paying for them, and the judges are forced to either let the scrotes walk or give them finger-in-the-air sentences such that they won't be too much of a burden on the system. I reckon the UK needs Edward Woodward back as The Equalizer....
i thought ewar woowar worked in yankieshire?biglepton said:
If it's the programme I watched, didn't he plead guilty?
The coppers had nothing on him bar DC&A, but he put his hands up and admitted dangerous driving.
yeah he pleaded guilty. the police took a long time to investigate and check the car over looking for any signs of who was driving. why did they not just ask him, if he said yes (which he did) it was him then fair enough get him locked up, if he said no then do further investigation (sp).The coppers had nothing on him bar DC&A, but he put his hands up and admitted dangerous driving.
seems a bit of a waste of police time to investigate when they hadn't even asked him!
spunky-mon said:
biglepton said:
If it's the programme I watched, didn't he plead guilty?
The coppers had nothing on him bar DC&A, but he put his hands up and admitted dangerous driving.
yeah he pleaded guilty. the police took a long time to investigate and check the car over looking for any signs of who was driving. why did they not just ask him, if he said yes (which he did) it was him then fair enough get him locked up, if he said no then do further investigation (sp).The coppers had nothing on him bar DC&A, but he put his hands up and admitted dangerous driving.
seems a bit of a waste of police time to investigate when they hadn't even asked him!
Well there is no real reason in public interest to lock this guy away for 14 years is there? I mean he had no intention to kill, this is just a recklessness and not an evil recklessness in that. This was an accident, caused by fault or bravado but an accident none the less. It should be a point of moot as to wheater a 5 year sentence should even be applied. Under 24 the courts will take a more lenient sentencing option because the whole point is not to screw up this guys life for ever, Just imagine the economic advancement alone he would have made if he had not been jailed, just think of the cost of keeping him in prison, consider how much tax he would have paid in that time. Is this person a danger to the public, no, he had an accident caused by a recklessley done lawful act of driving with a willing passenger who most likely has driven with him before and should have contemplated the risks before accepting the ride. There is no public interest requirement to be satisfied here. A killer is one thing, a person causing a reckless death is another.
bi9_jk said:
Well there is no real reason in public interest to lock this guy away for 14 years is there? I mean he had no intention to kill, this is just a recklessness and not an evil recklessness in that. This was an accident, caused by fault or bravado but an accident none the less. It should be a point of moot as to wheater a 5 year sentence should even be applied. Under 24 the courts will take a more lenient sentencing option because the whole point is not to screw up this guys life for ever, Just imagine the economic advancement alone he would have made if he had not been jailed, just think of the cost of keeping him in prison, consider how much tax he would have paid in that time. Is this person a danger to the public, no, he had an accident caused by a recklessley done lawful act of driving with a willing passenger who most likely has driven with him before and should have contemplated the risks before accepting the ride. There is no public interest requirement to be satisfied here. A killer is one thing, a person causing a reckless death is another.
My point is, he already knew he shouldn't be driving and then did so in a reckless manner. He didn't just risk himself and his passenger but everybody else on that road. The likelyhood of him paying any significant tax I would say is minimal. He's as far as I can tell exactly the type of person we need to remove from the breeding population.Frik said:
I agree with that.
I'm going to stick my neck out now and say that not many other people will.
I do.I'm going to stick my neck out now and say that not many other people will.
I don't see any point in imprisoning anyone who acted without malice aforethought.
The fact that the driver voluntarily characterised his behaviour as dangerous strongly suggests he is contrite; he's learnt a lesson, why waste a lot of our money teaching it again?
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff