Prison?

[Pulse]

An interesting read, and certainly sobering. I thought it was worthwhile me bringing it back up to the top. It'll certainly reside in my mind when I go out for a more spirited drive (although to be honest, it doesn't happen very often, as I had an experience, that because if it, it changed the way I drive, too. In fact, I've had a few experiences)

Edited by Pulse on Monday 14th July 15:30

[Asterix]

I'm up to page 12 and will read the rest as and when I can.

Very interesting, incredibly moving and the most absorbing thread I'm yet to have read on any forum.

10p's writing is extremely lyrical and easy to fall into, understand and 'live' the emotions - well written.

[Bushmaster]

That 1960's murder - the good old days, when the streets were safe and no thugs attacked innocent passers-by...

[mel]

I'd be interested to hear 10p's view on the calls today that causing death by dangerous driving should carry a 5 year sentance. After all it's only "good luck" if that's the right phrase in this instance that that wasn't the charge.

[TonyHetherington]

mel said:

I'd be interested to hear 10p's view on the calls today that causing death by dangerous driving should carry a 5 year sentance. After all it's only "good luck" if that's the right phrase in this instance that that wasn't the charge.

I think it's Don that discusses the point well in SP&L; he says "should the crime be punished, or should the punishment be based on the outcome of that crime" (I paraphrase him).

Which, as you say Mel, if I drive dangerously should I get the same penalty as someone else who drove dangerously but happened to kill someone while doing so. We both commited the same crime - but one was lucky and the other not.

[BJG1]

I'm firmly in the camp that you punish the crime, not the outcome. It makes no logical nor moral sense to me to punish luck or chance. If anything, further punishment has already been inflicted on the perpetrator due to the outcome of their crime.

[ZR1cliff]

TonyHetherington said:

mel said:

I'd be interested to hear 10p's view on the calls today that causing death by dangerous driving should carry a 5 year sentance. After all it's only "good luck" if that's the right phrase in this instance that that wasn't the charge.

I think it's Don that discusses the point well in SP&L; he says "should the crime be punished, or should the punishment be based on the outcome of that crime" (I paraphrase him).

Which, as you say Mel, if I drive dangerously should I get the same penalty as someone else who drove dangerously but happened to kill someone while doing so. We both commited the same crime - but one was lucky and the other not.

Perhaps it should be based on intent and consequence. The other day a driver in his big exhaust hatchback accelerated down the road not far from my house, he was doing roughly 50-60 in a 30 and still accelerating. Down one side of that road are trees where young children play. If one of those kids had run out in the road it would have been all over for that child, and effectively the childs family. I stood and watched till the driver was out of sight, just incase he hit anyone, at least I could be a witness to nail the fool.

I was going to compare it to firing a gun in a public place but in reality there is more chance of someone being hit by a stray bullet if fired in public than a recklessly driven car, the consequences don't bear thinking about, hence why fire arms in public carry a stiff sentance. Such reckless selfish regard by the driver as he barreled up the road is not as bad, but lets face it, if he hits someone and kills them the intent, and consequence for the family are just the same. Dangerous driving,determined by the immediate danger to life in a built up area, should be punished with instant loss of license. Death or injury by the same type of dangerous driving should be punished by imprisonment.

Edited by ZR1cliff on Tuesday 15th July 23:16

[BlackMagic *tree]

10p short: I felt every word of that and almost cried as it brought back vivid memories of my sentence.

Very well written.

[Millionair]

BJG1 said:

I'm firmly in the camp that you punish the crime, not the outcome. It makes no logical nor moral sense to me to punish luck or chance. If anything, further punishment has already been inflicted on the perpetrator due to the outcome of their crime.

I don't agree

I believe that you should punish the crime, AFTEr taking in to consideration the outcome...for instance...

If a person punched somebody in the head during an argument, then that person fell down and struck his head on the ground and died.... you wouldn't just prosecute somebody for hitting another person (a crime that caries a relatively low punishment) you'd punish them for manslaughter. the outcome very much effects the punishment sometimes.

how about if a burglar breaks in to an old persons house... the old person has a heart attack due to shock and dies.... the burglar didn't intend the old person to die, they didn't even intend them to have a heart attack out of shock, but due solely to the burglars actions, the old person is now dead... would you just want the burglar done for robbery? and not the death of the old person?

[wiggy001]

Millionair said:

I don't agree

I believe that you should punish the crime, AFTEr taking in to consideration the outcome...for instance...

If a person punched somebody in the head during an argument, then that person fell down and struck his head on the ground and died.... you wouldn't just prosecute somebody for hitting another person (a crime that caries a relatively low punishment) you'd punish them for manslaughter. the outcome very much effects the punishment sometimes.

how about if a burglar breaks in to an old persons house... the old person has a heart attack due to shock and dies.... the burglar didn't intend the old person to die, they didn't even intend them to have a heart attack out of shock, but due solely to the burglars actions, the old person is now dead... would you just want the burglar done for robbery? and not the death of the old person?

Hence why I believe it should be the crime and the intention, as posted a few posts up.

In the first case above, manslaughter is correct. However, what if you was messing about with a mate and you jokingly hit him (not hard), he fell and died? No ill intention there but you still hit him, he fell and died as a result.

[postcode]

I've taken a bit of time out to read this thread, and the opinions contained within it, and to be honest, reading 10PS description of his time within the Prison System makes me realise how much his error has cost him.

As some people know from my posts on other sites, I work within the Prison Service at a Prison in the North East of Doncaster. There are many inmates in the Prison doing sentences for dangerous driving and the various different segments that the act covers, and I am certain that reading the diary that has been written would have some effect on them.

R.

[Bushmaster]

wiggy001 said:

Millionair said:

I don't agree

I believe that you should punish the crime, AFTEr taking in to consideration the outcome...for instance...

If a person punched somebody in the head during an argument, then that person fell down and struck his head on the ground and died.... you wouldn't just prosecute somebody for hitting another person (a crime that caries a relatively low punishment) you'd punish them for manslaughter. the outcome very much effects the punishment sometimes.

how about if a burglar breaks in to an old persons house... the old person has a heart attack due to shock and dies.... the burglar didn't intend the old person to die, they didn't even intend them to have a heart attack out of shock, but due solely to the burglars actions, the old person is now dead... would you just want the burglar done for robbery? and not the death of the old person?

Hence why I believe it should be the crime and the intention, as posted a few posts up.

In the first case above, manslaughter is correct. However, what if you was messing about with a mate and you jokingly hit him (not hard), he fell and died? No ill intention there but you still hit him, he fell and died as a result.

There is a defence in law known as eggshell skull syndrome that covers that. HTH. Carry on.

[10 Pence Short]

mel said:

I'd be interested to hear 10p's view on the calls today that causing death by dangerous driving should carry a 5 year sentance. After all it's only "good luck" if that's the right phrase in this instance that that wasn't the charge.

It's a difficult one to consider. On one hand you have to sentence based on culpability, but on the other you have to take into account the results of the offender's actions, too.

In my case, if I'd spun the car in the road and hit nothing, carrying on along the way, nothing at all would have happened to me- I'm 100% happy that none of the drivers I'd passed before I lost control would have reported me for any offence. No harm done and a valuable lesson learned. If I'd hit say, a fence, then the Police would have attended and maybe they'd be looking at a careless driving charge and I'd have 6 points on my licence and a fine. Hit and seriously injure another motorist and block the road, as I did, the Police then have access to more evidence and more witnesses and as we now know, they decided it was dangerous driving and my sentence reflected the severity of the innocent man's injuries. Take it a step further and consider what would have happened if the poor guy had died, and I'd have been facing 5 years or more as a sentence, rather than the 12 month one I actually received.

So looking at those four differing results from the same piece of driving, you have everything from no consequence to anybody, to one person dead and another spending 5 years in prison- the prosecuting and sentencing already relates to the consequences of as well as the culpability of the driving.

My worry, having had that moment where you truly believe you've just killed someone, is that in many cases of dangerous driving where a death occurs, the death may have been prevented by external factors. The speed and quality of the emergency healthcare can have a huge impact; a person might cause a crash 20 minutes from the nearest emergency healthcare and cause a death, they might cause an identical crash 10 minutes from healthcare and the victim survives. I have anecdotal evidence from a friend and paramedic with the local emergency services who alleges the paramedics attending my accident had to overrule the doctor on scene to prevent the biker from becoming a death on the roads- it was that close.

I appreciate that the main point is you don't drive dangerously in the first place and you don't cause the crash, but having been in that position, I know that I didn't think I was driving dangerously at the time, I didn't intend to crash and I had no 'choice' of where the crash took place. It was through sheer luck that I didn't kill somebody and I'm not still sat in my cell.

Sorry I can't be more clear about my opinion, but it's a hard balancing act to meter out justice to match the crime.

[djohnson]

Millionair said:

I believe that you should punish the crime, AFTEr taking in to consideration the outcome...for instance...

However isn't the consequence often just a matter of chance? If I join the motorway without looking and don't hit anything I've comitted the same act as someone who joins a motorway without looking and causes a fatal accident. The difference in outcome is just chance. Why should the latter driver get 5 years and the former nothing at all when the only difference is chance?

[matchmaker]

I met a middle-aged guy who was doing 2 years for causing death by dangerous driving. He'd hit a pedestrian who walked out in front of him. So far, bad enough. Pedestrian seriously injured, died in hospital. BUT - the drivers fault? We don't know as he made the mistake of driving off. Had he remained at the scene, dialed 999 and tended the injured victim, the outcome might have been different for both.

But as he drove off (in a panic - there was no suggestion of drink) things changed completely.

Another chap (in a different prison) was doing 18 months for another S1. Excessive speed on a single track country road, rolled into a ditch, killed his passenger. No alcohol, just very bad driving.

He was distraught.

It was his 6 year old son he killed.

[crofty1984]

10P, did you ever see about publishing/giving talks in schools/etc?
I know you were thinking about it. Hope so, it'd be a valuable lesson for a lot of people.

[will_]

djohnson said:

Millionair said:

I believe that you should punish the crime, AFTEr taking in to consideration the outcome...for instance...

However isn't the consequence often just a matter of chance? If I join the motorway without looking and don't hit anything I've comitted the same act as someone who joins a motorway without looking and causes a fatal accident. The difference in outcome is just chance. Why should the latter driver get 5 years and the former nothing at all when the only difference is chance?

Because the difference is that someone has died and the punishment needs to reflect that, both to reflect the seriousness of the consequences of the action and so that the family of the victim feel that some sort "justice" has been done.

You can't have a criminal justice system that ignores the consequences of the action (regardless of luck) that also acurately reflects the harm caused and provides a form of balance, which is what (in part) it is designed to do.

The reason that, to date, death caused by careless driving has been treated leniently compared to other "causing death" charges is because it is so easy to kill someone on the roads by committing a minor error, which we have all done. It is therefore arguably less 'criminal' than punching someone who then dies.

[02curtisb]

Hi 10pence

A very sobering story but I am interested in why you pleaded guilty to dangerous driving.

[Silent1]

02curtisb said:

Hi 10pence

A very sobering story but I am interested in why you pleaded guilty to dangerous driving.

Have you read it all?

[stormrider2]

very hard hitting story 10ps.

im a 17 year old driver, and i admit i can drive like a dick at times. storys like this make me realise how easy it is to lose everything though.

my friend crashed his car on a roundabout, we werent going too fast or anything, it was just a damp roundabout (which is also a notorious bad spot for crashes) and he lost it, putting the car on its roof. we were lucky enough not to be hurt but if it was a meter or two back we would have hit a lamppost and electricity box causing alot more damage.

it made me realise how easy it could be to lose control, it also calmed me down a bit too.

this story hit it even further.

hopefully it'll have the same effect on other young drivers.