14 years? Doubt it........
Discussion
What’s the betting this doesn’t get the maximum sentence if proved.....
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-5313...
We have a possible terrorist/homophobic/mentally ill killing of 3 people and yet, we have someone, who, if proved guilty, will be responsible for the killing of 3 strangers but, will probably receive a fraction of the sentence of the other.
I’m struggling to remember when someone has received the maximum for killing while driving but “because terrorist” then big sentences are handed out.
Yes, I know, one sets out to kill, the other kills as a consequence but both arguably have the same responsibilities but when will we ever see life sentences with a minimum for these drink drivers.
Utterly appalling and my absolute thoughts and sympathy goes to all in the family......
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-5313...
We have a possible terrorist/homophobic/mentally ill killing of 3 people and yet, we have someone, who, if proved guilty, will be responsible for the killing of 3 strangers but, will probably receive a fraction of the sentence of the other.
I’m struggling to remember when someone has received the maximum for killing while driving but “because terrorist” then big sentences are handed out.
Yes, I know, one sets out to kill, the other kills as a consequence but both arguably have the same responsibilities but when will we ever see life sentences with a minimum for these drink drivers.
Utterly appalling and my absolute thoughts and sympathy goes to all in the family......
Johnnytheboy said:
Sentencing should reflect intent.
So the intent of the driver was to go home, there was clearly no intent to kill, however should it not be the case that if you choose to drink and drive you take responsibility for the consequence rather than the intent? By your view there should be no sentence at all as there was no intent? Or, the sentence should be lenient as there was no intent to kill, it was just an unfortunate consequence?
My point is that there should be an option to life sentence, not just as an immediate punishment but as an ongoing one, a chance of recall might show intent which could achieve stopping repeat offenders who, might, eventually kill someone.
I’m not saying that about this case in particular, but, as I said, I bet my house the driver won’t get the full sentence for killing a dad and his family.
There will be, as disgusting as it is, “mitigating circumstances” and quite how anyone can argue hardship as a consequence of getting behind the wheel drunk is beyond me, as is the acceptance by a court of such excuses.
Don’t get me wrong, it’s not this particular case that gets me annoyed, it’s the comparative sentence when it comes to a “terrorist” getting the best part of 40 years because he wanted to kill but the driver of this car might get less than 10, out in 6 or less just because he didn’t “mean” to kill people, bottom line for me is if you drink and drive, you accept you can kill people as a consequence and as such, are a killer.......
agtlaw said:
If D pleads guilty then he definitely won't get the maximum.
That’s the problem for me. I don’t understand why the sentences are so lenient all the time.
As an example from my own life, some 22 years ago one of my friends was caught up in an arson attack on a small block of flats. The lad who did it was caught at the scene.
He admitted it, he had some serious mental issues and struggled socially. It was the fifth time he’d set a fire and the second that involved people having to be evacuated.
His own defence actually agreed to a conviction of arson with intent to endanger life so he could be given a life sentence as it was the best thing to try and control his actions, he ended up being given life with a minimum of 4 years.
Why on earth is there not a life tariff to “death by drink/drug driving” because a very apparent consequence of your actions will be that events will outside your “control” but you’ve knowingly given up “control” by drinking and then driving, causing someone death being most serious of those possibilities?
Intent is everything in my opinion.
Killing someone by accident does not make you a bad person, it merely shows that you were negligent.
If the driver had left five minutes earlier, he would have harmed no-one but himself and the shrubbery, but because he left when he did, those three people happened to be walking past. All of his actions, thoughts and intentions are the same aside from the time of departure, yet this will make the difference between two years maximum and a potential sentence of fourteen years. This has always struck me as one of the most unfair parts of the British justice system - the idea that the outcome of a crime, which is almost entirely due to chance, carries more weight than the actual morals of the perpetrator.
Another example - two men get into a fight, and one lands a stonking great punch to the jaw. In one situation, the victim could walk away with nothing but a sore head and the perpetrator will go on his merry way, nothing more, yet if the victim slipped, cracked his head and died he would be looking at decades in jail. The man has thrown the same punch in the same circumstances, yet his punishment varies from a slap on the wrist to spending the prime of his life in a jail cell, entirely depending on the vagaries of fate.
Meanwhile, someone who mugs an innocent old lady, has thought about the consequences of their actions and decided that they don't give a s
t about the other person and would happily traumatise someone for personal gain. In my mind, they are more deserving of a 14 year prison sentence than the drink driver and the one-punch killer combined.
And no, I have never killed someone, accidentally or otherwise.
Killing someone by accident does not make you a bad person, it merely shows that you were negligent.
If the driver had left five minutes earlier, he would have harmed no-one but himself and the shrubbery, but because he left when he did, those three people happened to be walking past. All of his actions, thoughts and intentions are the same aside from the time of departure, yet this will make the difference between two years maximum and a potential sentence of fourteen years. This has always struck me as one of the most unfair parts of the British justice system - the idea that the outcome of a crime, which is almost entirely due to chance, carries more weight than the actual morals of the perpetrator.
Another example - two men get into a fight, and one lands a stonking great punch to the jaw. In one situation, the victim could walk away with nothing but a sore head and the perpetrator will go on his merry way, nothing more, yet if the victim slipped, cracked his head and died he would be looking at decades in jail. The man has thrown the same punch in the same circumstances, yet his punishment varies from a slap on the wrist to spending the prime of his life in a jail cell, entirely depending on the vagaries of fate.
Meanwhile, someone who mugs an innocent old lady, has thought about the consequences of their actions and decided that they don't give a s
t about the other person and would happily traumatise someone for personal gain. In my mind, they are more deserving of a 14 year prison sentence than the drink driver and the one-punch killer combined.And no, I have never killed someone, accidentally or otherwise.
BritishBlitz87 said:
Intent is everything in my opinion.
Killing someone by accident does not make you a bad person, it merely shows that you were negligent.
If the driver had left five minutes earlier, he would have harmed no-one but himself and the shrubbery, but because he left when he did, those three people happened to be walking past. All of his actions, thoughts and intentions are the same aside from the time of departure, yet this will make the difference between two years maximum and a potential sentence of fourteen years. This has always struck me as one of the most unfair parts of the British justice system - the idea that the outcome of a crime, which is almost entirely due to chance, carries more weight than the actual morals of the perpetrator.
Another example - two men get into a fight, and one lands a stonking great punch to the jaw. In one situation, the victim could walk away with nothing but a sore head and the perpetrator will go on his merry way, nothing more, yet if the victim slipped, cracked his head and died he would be looking at decades in jail. The man has thrown the same punch in the same circumstances, yet his punishment varies from a slap on the wrist to spending the prime of his life in a jail cell, entirely depending on the vagaries of fate.
Meanwhile, someone who mugs an innocent old lady, has thought about the consequences of their actions and decided that they don't give a st about the other person and would happily traumatise someone for personal gain. In my mind, they are more deserving of a 14 year prison sentence than the drink driver and the one-punch killer combined.
And no, I have never killed someone, accidentally or otherwise.
This represents my views pretty closely. Sentencing to me should be very closely related to intent. My personal opinion is that prison should only be available for crimes with malicious intent involved, and not a possibility where the consequences have occurred through chance. But I realise I’m at quite an extreme end of the spectrum on that.Killing someone by accident does not make you a bad person, it merely shows that you were negligent.
If the driver had left five minutes earlier, he would have harmed no-one but himself and the shrubbery, but because he left when he did, those three people happened to be walking past. All of his actions, thoughts and intentions are the same aside from the time of departure, yet this will make the difference between two years maximum and a potential sentence of fourteen years. This has always struck me as one of the most unfair parts of the British justice system - the idea that the outcome of a crime, which is almost entirely due to chance, carries more weight than the actual morals of the perpetrator.
Another example - two men get into a fight, and one lands a stonking great punch to the jaw. In one situation, the victim could walk away with nothing but a sore head and the perpetrator will go on his merry way, nothing more, yet if the victim slipped, cracked his head and died he would be looking at decades in jail. The man has thrown the same punch in the same circumstances, yet his punishment varies from a slap on the wrist to spending the prime of his life in a jail cell, entirely depending on the vagaries of fate.
Meanwhile, someone who mugs an innocent old lady, has thought about the consequences of their actions and decided that they don't give a s
t about the other person and would happily traumatise someone for personal gain. In my mind, they are more deserving of a 14 year prison sentence than the drink driver and the one-punch killer combined.And no, I have never killed someone, accidentally or otherwise.
pip t said:
BritishBlitz87 said:
Intent is everything in my opinion.
Killing someone by accident does not make you a bad person, it merely shows that you were negligent.
If the driver had left five minutes earlier, he would have harmed no-one but himself and the shrubbery, but because he left when he did, those three people happened to be walking past. All of his actions, thoughts and intentions are the same aside from the time of departure, yet this will make the difference between two years maximum and a potential sentence of fourteen years. This has always struck me as one of the most unfair parts of the British justice system - the idea that the outcome of a crime, which is almost entirely due to chance, carries more weight than the actual morals of the perpetrator.
Another example - two men get into a fight, and one lands a stonking great punch to the jaw. In one situation, the victim could walk away with nothing but a sore head and the perpetrator will go on his merry way, nothing more, yet if the victim slipped, cracked his head and died he would be looking at decades in jail. The man has thrown the same punch in the same circumstances, yet his punishment varies from a slap on the wrist to spending the prime of his life in a jail cell, entirely depending on the vagaries of fate.
Meanwhile, someone who mugs an innocent old lady, has thought about the consequences of their actions and decided that they don't give a st about the other person and would happily traumatise someone for personal gain. In my mind, they are more deserving of a 14 year prison sentence than the drink driver and the one-punch killer combined.
And no, I have never killed someone, accidentally or otherwise.
This represents my views pretty closely. Sentencing to me should be very closely related to intent. My personal opinion is that prison should only be available for crimes with malicious intent involved, and not a possibility where the consequences have occurred through chance. But I realise I’m at quite an extreme end of the spectrum on that.Killing someone by accident does not make you a bad person, it merely shows that you were negligent.
If the driver had left five minutes earlier, he would have harmed no-one but himself and the shrubbery, but because he left when he did, those three people happened to be walking past. All of his actions, thoughts and intentions are the same aside from the time of departure, yet this will make the difference between two years maximum and a potential sentence of fourteen years. This has always struck me as one of the most unfair parts of the British justice system - the idea that the outcome of a crime, which is almost entirely due to chance, carries more weight than the actual morals of the perpetrator.
Another example - two men get into a fight, and one lands a stonking great punch to the jaw. In one situation, the victim could walk away with nothing but a sore head and the perpetrator will go on his merry way, nothing more, yet if the victim slipped, cracked his head and died he would be looking at decades in jail. The man has thrown the same punch in the same circumstances, yet his punishment varies from a slap on the wrist to spending the prime of his life in a jail cell, entirely depending on the vagaries of fate.
Meanwhile, someone who mugs an innocent old lady, has thought about the consequences of their actions and decided that they don't give a s
t about the other person and would happily traumatise someone for personal gain. In my mind, they are more deserving of a 14 year prison sentence than the drink driver and the one-punch killer combined.And no, I have never killed someone, accidentally or otherwise.
Why shouldn't the impact of someone's actions have any effect on the penalty that they receive? Why should the "bad luck" only be suffered by the victim if it has been caused by the offender?
If you want to deter reckless behaviour then it's obviously worth reminding them of the consequences of reckless behaviour by others. But you also have to remind them it was recklessness that was the problem. Long prison sentences encourage a view of 'I might not always concentrate on my driving as I should, but I obviously don't drive like that bloke because he's gone to prison.'
A bit like telling someone who hires a chain saw to cut logs he needs to be careful because some bloke who ran amok with one ended up in jail for murder. Far better to give an example of someone who hired one to cut logs, wasn't careful and chopped someone's head off.
If you're bothered about 'bad luck' being suffered by the victim rather than the offender, then the victim should sue. Civil courts are for restitution.
A bit like telling someone who hires a chain saw to cut logs he needs to be careful because some bloke who ran amok with one ended up in jail for murder. Far better to give an example of someone who hired one to cut logs, wasn't careful and chopped someone's head off.
If you're bothered about 'bad luck' being suffered by the victim rather than the offender, then the victim should sue. Civil courts are for restitution.
will_ said:
pip t said:
BritishBlitz87 said:
Intent is everything in my opinion.
Killing someone by accident does not make you a bad person, it merely shows that you were negligent.
If the driver had left five minutes earlier, he would have harmed no-one but himself and the shrubbery, but because he left when he did, those three people happened to be walking past. All of his actions, thoughts and intentions are the same aside from the time of departure, yet this will make the difference between two years maximum and a potential sentence of fourteen years. This has always struck me as one of the most unfair parts of the British justice system - the idea that the outcome of a crime, which is almost entirely due to chance, carries more weight than the actual morals of the perpetrator.
Another example - two men get into a fight, and one lands a stonking great punch to the jaw. In one situation, the victim could walk away with nothing but a sore head and the perpetrator will go on his merry way, nothing more, yet if the victim slipped, cracked his head and died he would be looking at decades in jail. The man has thrown the same punch in the same circumstances, yet his punishment varies from a slap on the wrist to spending the prime of his life in a jail cell, entirely depending on the vagaries of fate.
Meanwhile, someone who mugs an innocent old lady, has thought about the consequences of their actions and decided that they don't give a st about the other person and would happily traumatise someone for personal gain. In my mind, they are more deserving of a 14 year prison sentence than the drink driver and the one-punch killer combined.
And no, I have never killed someone, accidentally or otherwise.
This represents my views pretty closely. Sentencing to me should be very closely related to intent. My personal opinion is that prison should only be available for crimes with malicious intent involved, and not a possibility where the consequences have occurred through chance. But I realise I’m at quite an extreme end of the spectrum on that.Killing someone by accident does not make you a bad person, it merely shows that you were negligent.
If the driver had left five minutes earlier, he would have harmed no-one but himself and the shrubbery, but because he left when he did, those three people happened to be walking past. All of his actions, thoughts and intentions are the same aside from the time of departure, yet this will make the difference between two years maximum and a potential sentence of fourteen years. This has always struck me as one of the most unfair parts of the British justice system - the idea that the outcome of a crime, which is almost entirely due to chance, carries more weight than the actual morals of the perpetrator.
Another example - two men get into a fight, and one lands a stonking great punch to the jaw. In one situation, the victim could walk away with nothing but a sore head and the perpetrator will go on his merry way, nothing more, yet if the victim slipped, cracked his head and died he would be looking at decades in jail. The man has thrown the same punch in the same circumstances, yet his punishment varies from a slap on the wrist to spending the prime of his life in a jail cell, entirely depending on the vagaries of fate.
Meanwhile, someone who mugs an innocent old lady, has thought about the consequences of their actions and decided that they don't give a s
t about the other person and would happily traumatise someone for personal gain. In my mind, they are more deserving of a 14 year prison sentence than the drink driver and the one-punch killer combined.And no, I have never killed someone, accidentally or otherwise.
Why shouldn't the impact of someone's actions have any effect on the penalty that they receive? Why should the "bad luck" only be suffered by the victim if it has been caused by the offender?
As I said, I'm completely aware my views are at the extreme end of the scale on this one, and I'm not really expecting the majority to agree with me, or indeed win anyone over.
It should also be remembered that there are many other punishments available other than prison. There's fines, meaningful community service etc. Prison is actually a pretty costly and wasteful punishment if you think about it. You're locking someone up. Where society needs to be protected from someone with malicious intentions, that makes complete sense. Where there is no need to 'protect society' from someone, that someone could be made to contribute something for the good of society, and do something constructive, rather than wasting away time and money in the confines of a prison.
Dr Jekyll said:
If you want to deter reckless behaviour then it's obviously worth reminding them of the consequences of reckless behaviour by others. But you also have to remind them it was recklessness that was the problem. Long prison sentences encourage a view of 'I might not always concentrate on my driving as I should, but I obviously don't drive like that bloke because he's gone to prison.'
A bit like telling someone who hires a chain saw to cut logs he needs to be careful because some bloke who ran amok with one ended up in jail for murder. Far better to give an example of someone who hired one to cut logs, wasn't careful and chopped someone's head off.
If you're bothered about 'bad luck' being suffered by the victim rather than the offender, then the victim should sue. Civil courts are for restitution.
We're discussing here the criminal position, not the civil one. You can't conflate the two.A bit like telling someone who hires a chain saw to cut logs he needs to be careful because some bloke who ran amok with one ended up in jail for murder. Far better to give an example of someone who hired one to cut logs, wasn't careful and chopped someone's head off.
If you're bothered about 'bad luck' being suffered by the victim rather than the offender, then the victim should sue. Civil courts are for restitution.
I'm bothered about bad luck being visited upon the victim, whereas the offender (without whom the bad luck wouldn't be relevant) gets off lightly.
If you elect to throw a punch, you have to accept that a possible consequence is that your victim might die, if you didn't intend for that to happen. Of course if the victim doesn't die, the penalty is different, but not for any difference in intent, but to reflect a difference in impact. If the punch doesn't even make contact, the same occurrs.
It would be somewhat odd if the consequences of an action had no effect on the punishment. At which end of the scale would you punish, for example, a (deliberate or reckless) drink-driver? At the 12-month ban end of the penalty regime, or the life in prison end?
You can deter behaviour by having an adequately serious/sufficient punishment.
pip t said:
Because in my view, the 'bad luck' hasn't been caused by the offender, unless the offender intended it. It's been caused by exactly that - luck/ chance/ unfortunate coincidence - whatever you prefer to call it.
So the victim is the only person to suffer the consequences of the bad luck? Is that fair as between the parties?pip t said:
As I said, I'm completely aware my views are at the extreme end of the scale on this one, and I'm not really expecting the majority to agree with me, or indeed win anyone over.
It should also be remembered that there are many other punishments available other than prison. There's fines, meaningful community service etc. Prison is actually a pretty costly and wasteful punishment if you think about it. You're locking someone up. Where society needs to be protected from someone with malicious intentions, that makes complete sense. Where there is no need to 'protect society' from someone, that someone could be made to contribute something for the good of society, and do something constructive, rather than wasting away time and money in the confines of a prison.
Sure, but I disagree with the general proposition that prison can only be used to protect society or should never be used to reflect the impact of someone's actions regardless of intent. It should also be remembered that there are many other punishments available other than prison. There's fines, meaningful community service etc. Prison is actually a pretty costly and wasteful punishment if you think about it. You're locking someone up. Where society needs to be protected from someone with malicious intentions, that makes complete sense. Where there is no need to 'protect society' from someone, that someone could be made to contribute something for the good of society, and do something constructive, rather than wasting away time and money in the confines of a prison.
La Liga said:
Countdown said:
166 MM Barchetta said:
Utterly appalling and my absolute thoughts and sympathy goes to all in the family......
Agreed. My bet is that, with an early "Guilty" plea, he'll be out in 2/3 years.BritishBlitz87 said:
Intent is everything in my opinion.
Killing someone by accident does not make you a bad person, it merely shows that you were negligent.
If the driver had left five minutes earlier, he would have harmed no-one but himself and the shrubbery, but because he left when he did, those three people happened to be walking past. All of his actions, thoughts and intentions are the same aside from the time of departure, yet this will make the difference between two years maximum and a potential sentence of fourteen years. This has always struck me as one of the most unfair parts of the British justice system - the idea that the outcome of a crime, which is almost entirely due to chance, carries more weight than the actual morals of the perpetrator.
Another example - two men get into a fight, and one lands a stonking great punch to the jaw. In one situation, the victim could walk away with nothing but a sore head and the perpetrator will go on his merry way, nothing more, yet if the victim slipped, cracked his head and died he would be looking at decades in jail. The man has thrown the same punch in the same circumstances, yet his punishment varies from a slap on the wrist to spending the prime of his life in a jail cell, entirely depending on the vagaries of fate.
Meanwhile, someone who mugs an innocent old lady, has thought about the consequences of their actions and decided that they don't give a st about the other person and would happily traumatise someone for personal gain. In my mind, they are more deserving of a 14 year prison sentence than the drink driver and the one-punch killer combined.
And no, I have never killed someone, accidentally or otherwise.
Driving drunk dramatically increases the risk that you will injure or kill someone. It is also illegal. The driver in the case clearly showed intent to break the law and to accept the risk of injuring or killing people through his actions. He should be sentenced accordingly. Killing someone by accident does not make you a bad person, it merely shows that you were negligent.
If the driver had left five minutes earlier, he would have harmed no-one but himself and the shrubbery, but because he left when he did, those three people happened to be walking past. All of his actions, thoughts and intentions are the same aside from the time of departure, yet this will make the difference between two years maximum and a potential sentence of fourteen years. This has always struck me as one of the most unfair parts of the British justice system - the idea that the outcome of a crime, which is almost entirely due to chance, carries more weight than the actual morals of the perpetrator.
Another example - two men get into a fight, and one lands a stonking great punch to the jaw. In one situation, the victim could walk away with nothing but a sore head and the perpetrator will go on his merry way, nothing more, yet if the victim slipped, cracked his head and died he would be looking at decades in jail. The man has thrown the same punch in the same circumstances, yet his punishment varies from a slap on the wrist to spending the prime of his life in a jail cell, entirely depending on the vagaries of fate.
Meanwhile, someone who mugs an innocent old lady, has thought about the consequences of their actions and decided that they don't give a s
t about the other person and would happily traumatise someone for personal gain. In my mind, they are more deserving of a 14 year prison sentence than the drink driver and the one-punch killer combined.And no, I have never killed someone, accidentally or otherwise.
Another key point is that sentencing is not just about punishment of the perpetrator but also acts as a deterrent for others who might commit the crime. A long sentence might seem unfair for the perpetrator but could deter others from following his path.
People do weigh up the likelihood of being caught and the potential punishment when committing crimes (probably not fully or rationally).
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff