Man Deliberately crashes car into woman.
Discussion
This one is local to me, used to knock around with the Ladies BIL back in the day.
To sum up the article, the guy was High on Crack, Drunk, had no tyre on his car, already crashed a couple of times, on the phone to his friend saying he’s going to crash again to kill himself.
The British justice system has awarded him 10 years and 8 months for the crime. What on Earth is going on?
https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/news/west-yorkshire...
To sum up the article, the guy was High on Crack, Drunk, had no tyre on his car, already crashed a couple of times, on the phone to his friend saying he’s going to crash again to kill himself.
The British justice system has awarded him 10 years and 8 months for the crime. What on Earth is going on?
https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/news/west-yorkshire...
Edited by Leptons on Friday 4th October 08:33
Probably about right.
If he had been stone cold sober, the outcome would have been the same but he would have known exactly what he was doing.
I think that would have commended a higher tariff.
Very sad indeed for the victim’s family.
Crack destroys lives, here’s the proof if there was any doubt.
If he had been stone cold sober, the outcome would have been the same but he would have known exactly what he was doing.
I think that would have commended a higher tariff.
Very sad indeed for the victim’s family.
Crack destroys lives, here’s the proof if there was any doubt.
Driving your car at another car, at high speed in a big car, in an attempt to kill yourself,
and killing the occupant of the smaller car, is not murder seemingly ?
A car is as good a murder weapon as a gun, knife or blunt instrument would a reasonable person say ?
I get a bit weary of the justice system being more understanding, I'd prefer it to be more judgemental if I'm honest.
and killing the occupant of the smaller car, is not murder seemingly ?
A car is as good a murder weapon as a gun, knife or blunt instrument would a reasonable person say ?
I get a bit weary of the justice system being more understanding, I'd prefer it to be more judgemental if I'm honest.
Really hits home what could happen.
Sadly I see all sorts of dangerous, potential killers on our roads who aren't on crack. Some of the dangerous driving I witness daily just because someone wants to be somewhere 5 minutes ago - the selfishness and putting other drivers at risk is astounding.
Sadly I see all sorts of dangerous, potential killers on our roads who aren't on crack. Some of the dangerous driving I witness daily just because someone wants to be somewhere 5 minutes ago - the selfishness and putting other drivers at risk is astounding.
Exige77 said:
Probably about right.
If he had been stone cold sober, the outcome would have been the same but he would have known exactly what he was doing.
I think that would have commended a higher tariff.
Very sad indeed for the victim’s family.
Crack destroys lives, here’s the proof if there was any doubt.
Good to know that driving pissed and off your head is mitigation.If he had been stone cold sober, the outcome would have been the same but he would have known exactly what he was doing.
I think that would have commended a higher tariff.
Very sad indeed for the victim’s family.
Crack destroys lives, here’s the proof if there was any doubt.
My, the room suddenly felt a little dusty after reading parts of that article.
I noticed that although he got 10 years only half is custodial WTF??? It's cases like this where life and hard labour should be the answer. I'd be happy for it to be if he refuses to work he gets 2 bowls of life sustaining sludge - if he works he can get better fare
I noticed that although he got 10 years only half is custodial WTF??? It's cases like this where life and hard labour should be the answer. I'd be happy for it to be if he refuses to work he gets 2 bowls of life sustaining sludge - if he works he can get better fare
Exige77 said:
Probably about right.
If he had been stone cold sober, the outcome would have been the same but he would have known exactly what he was doing.
I think that would have commended a higher tariff.
Very sad indeed for the victim’s family.
Crack destroys lives, here’s the proof if there was any doubt.
The mind boggles.If he had been stone cold sober, the outcome would have been the same but he would have known exactly what he was doing.
I think that would have commended a higher tariff.
Very sad indeed for the victim’s family.
Crack destroys lives, here’s the proof if there was any doubt.
I’m sure it’s a great relief to the family that he was so f
ked up he didn’t know what he was doing. Murder requires the intention to cause GBH or intent to kill someone else.
That wasn't his intention which is why it wasn't murder.
I don't think he would have received a higher sentence if sober. The commission of offence whilst under the influence of alcohol or drugs is an aggravating factor, for example.
If it was manslaughter by gross negligence the sentence is right at the top end. If it was manslaughter by an unlawful act it's one step below the top.
That wasn't his intention which is why it wasn't murder.
I don't think he would have received a higher sentence if sober. The commission of offence whilst under the influence of alcohol or drugs is an aggravating factor, for example.
If it was manslaughter by gross negligence the sentence is right at the top end. If it was manslaughter by an unlawful act it's one step below the top.
Leptons said:
What about an act you carry out where you know you will probably kill someone else?
A general principle for intent is that the more likely the accused foresaw the outcome, the more likely they intended it. However, a jury can only infer intention from this principle if they consider that death / GBH was a 'virtual certainty' and the defendant knew this.
Sometimes the margins are fine.
Intention / gross negligence / recklessness can become blurred and overlap.
What we have to remember is that it needs proving beyond reasonable doubt.
Yertis said:
kiethton said:
You what? - the UK already has the flexibility to set its own range of sentences.....
Isn't it the case though, that those sentences can be appealed and ultimately overturned in the european courts? That wold end post Brexit.Happy to be corrected if I'm wrong.
So if we wanted to double the sentence for manslaughter, for example, someone subject to that sentence would need to challenge it under:
- Right to life
- Prohibition of torture
- Prohibition of slavery and forced labour
- Right to liberty and security
- Right to a fair trial
- No punishment without law
- Right to respect for private and family life
Etc.
Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (no one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment) was the basis of the challenge for whole life sentences i.e. prisoners serving whole life sentences were looking for it to be ruled unlawful.
The ultimate conclusion from that was the UK was allowed to impose whole life sentences in certain circumstances.
I'd infer from that that if we wished to sentence more harshly we wouldn't be limited in doing so for serious offences.
I am also not sure if Brexit removes us from the ECHR.
If BV reads this he'll be able to clarify and say whether I am on the right track as he knows this area of law inside out.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff