Rough Justice - For Whom?
Discussion
In the light of Redline-Dan receiving a 12 month ban for a silly mistake (for which he should thank his God that he is alive and no-one got hurt and really think about some extra training - he needs to for his own sake!), it would seem that the Dangerous Driving charge and resultant 12 month ban seems a tadge harsh when you consider....
...case as reported in "Manchester Evening News" last night.
A banned driver - 19 year old Matthew McG fled from the scene of an accident and turned up in A&E under a false name.
He lost control of his Peugoet 405 in Radcliffe, Bury - hitting a garden wall with such force that engined "ripped out of the chsssis. His 18 year old pal was thrown out of the car - exiting the back seat through the rear window and suffered multiple injuries after colliding with a lamp post 40 metres away. McG ran off - leaving his former school pal for dead.
After surgery at Hope Hospital, his friend, Simon, is just learning to talk again, and it is highly unlikely that this young man will ever be able to stand or regain use of his left arm.
McGlynn - has already been banned for perriod of three years for TWO PREVIOUS dangerous driving offences in April 2003 (thus unlicenced, untaxed....
) His defence lawyer said: "Matthew has no intention o driving again for a long time"
He was senteced to 15 months jail and a further ban for 2 years.
And Dan? Killed no-one - injured himself and his car...
And those banned under tot-up ... safe drivers caught by scamera.....
and thre's more .....
22 year old drink driver - 1.5 times above speed limit kills 18 year old girl and seriously injures the boyfriend as they cross road after Midnight Mass on Christmas morning last. he claims they ran out in fronto of him, then changes story to fact that he did not see them. He was driving at 54mph in 30 mph zone....
He is sentenced to 7 years prison and receives a whopping 15 year driving ban. Appeal judges decide that because he was "man enough" to plead guilty - the sentence was harsh. They reduce it to 6 years jail and cut the ban to 7 years.
And Cambridgeshire Safety Partners? .... I understand from the relative down there (who was actually involved in treating these casualties last Christmas)..
.....
a speed camera now marks the spot!
====================================
Punishment should fit the crime ....
I would venture to say that here are three cases which show a huge discrepancy in severity of punishment. Matthew's victim may be alive .... but what about his quality of life? Is 15 months porridge and a two year ban running 2004-2006 (given the 3 year ban also expires in 2006) sufficient?
Especially when you compare to the drunk driver whose documents were legal and who did not run away from the scene gets prison for 6 years and a 7 year ban on appeal? (Though initial one was fair from justice and victims' point of view)
Then let us look again at Dan's predicament....
Mad Moggie said:
.....Then let us look again at Dan's predicament....
I have posted this before.
There are two types of justice in this country.
It affects two sorts of people!
1. Those who are in fear of losing something they have like:-
Job,
House,
Car,
Family,
Liberty,
Reputation
2. Those who do not give a flying f
k about anything because they have nothing and if they lose what they do have, they will just go and steal it from those in the 1st category above. That is why there is such disparity in sentencing across the board of the criminal Justice system.
How can you punish someone who has nothing except for what he/she takes from society and does not care about anything anyway?
>> Edited by gone on Saturday 6th November 16:53
gone, I have read this before and I can see what you are saying and I agree that that is the way the whole justice system works in the uk, but I do not think it is right. Everybody has something you can take from them, even if it is only their freedom of movement, freedom of choice.
Perhaps we should be getting better at removal of these basic things from those that have nothing else, and spend some time making sure they do not do it again, a carrot and a stick perhaps.
Honestly I blame it on the yoghurt weavers!
cheers
Paul
Perhaps we should be getting better at removal of these basic things from those that have nothing else, and spend some time making sure they do not do it again, a carrot and a stick perhaps.
Honestly I blame it on the yoghurt weavers!
cheers
Paul
gone said:
How can you punish someone who has nothing except for what he/she takes from society and does not care about anything anyway?
Hanging, 10 years hard labour, 40 lashes of the whip, a damn good kicking... there are many ways but PLEASE give sentences that are appropriate to the crime. Jail for burglars, rather than speeding motorists would be a start.
gone said:
I have posted this before.
There are two types of justice in this country.
It affects two sorts of people!
2. Those who do not give a flying f
That is why there is such disparity in sentencing across the board of the criminal Justice system.
How can you punish someone who has nothing except for what he/she takes from society and does not care about anything anyway?
>> Edited by gone on Saturday 6th November 16:53
Should do for this lot. A nice gonad garotting is a fine idea.
Mad Moggie said:
22 year old drink driver - 1.5 times above speed limit kills 18 year old girl and seriously injures the boyfriend as they cross road after Midnight Mass on Christmas morning last. he claims they ran out in fronto of him, then changes story to fact that he did not see them. He was driving at 54mph in 30 mph zone....
He is sentenced to 7 years prison and receives a whopping 15 year driving ban. Appeal judges decide that because he was "man enough" to plead guilty - the sentence was harsh. They reduce it to 6 years jail and cut the ban to 7 years.
And Cambridgeshire Safety Partners? .... I understand from the relative down there (who was actually involved in treating these casualties last Christmas)..
.....
a speed camera now marks the spot!
A speed camera doesn't mark the spot (I live in the same town) and AFAIK it's the only time there's been such an accident. The site is in the middle of the Market Square and you normally can't drive at 1 mph, let along the 53 that this bloke managed. A14 cameras aside, Cambs Safety Cameras actually seem rather sensible about location. Mind you I stay off the major routes and stick to the B-roads...
As for the reduction in sentence for pleading guilty, this is rather common in legal circles. It used to be worth a guaranteed 50% reduction - so with 12 years as the maximum - 6 years detention is the net result. I'm not sure about the cut in the driving ban. 15 years strikes me as rather severe compared to the penalties I saw from judges. While it was nice to see the judges at Peterborough having the sphericals to give the sort of sentence the grieving family wanted to see, the weight of previous case law made it inevitable that a reduction would happen at the Appeal Court.
StressedDave said:
A speed camera doesn't mark the spot (I live in the same town) and AFAIK it's the only time there's been such an accident.
Have asked our guy down there - seems it was a mobile he has seen there when driving past on "more than one occasion" ... Have asked him if sure mobile and not ANPR? He still reckons it was mobile set up...
Accident occurred after midnight mass last Christmas - perhaps one of the few occasions whereby you could reach daft speed there. Do not know this town myself - but our guy lives some 19 miles away.
He also keeps off the A routes
His house is on a B route ..... StressedDave said:
As for the reduction in sentence for pleading guilty, this is rather common in legal circles. It used to be worth a guaranteed 50% reduction - so with 12 years as the maximum - 6 years detention is the net result. I'm not sure about the cut in the driving ban. 15 years strikes me as rather severe compared to the penalties I saw from judges. While it was nice to see the judges at Peterborough having the sphericals to give the sort of sentence the grieving family wanted to see, the weight of previous case law made it inevitable that a reduction would happen at the Appeal Court.
Onus must be to get sentence right in the first place. Appeals cost us money.
Perhaps harsh according to precedent law and court bindings (as I understand) from other courts and judgements....and most especially harsh (and still harsh) when you consider the light sentence handed down by Bolton Crown Court to Mr McGlynn (apparently a local chav) - who also pleaded guilty....for the third time within two years - according to the Bolton rag's version
Sentencing structure on motoring offences needs revision - because we are seeing punishments out of proportion to greater extent with the actual - should I [tactful mode] say "irresponsible 'error' verging on the criminal" as opposed to " absolute criminal" plus the "simple more or less 'harmless' errors also being punished out of proportion.
Of course a grieving family will want the key thrown away. Vengeance. Know what it feels like... No punishment would really be great enough.
But - we do need to see a structure whereby our judicial system shows society's absolute disapproval of completely reckless behaviour such as causing death by driving whilst drunk/and recklessly - as per these two cases and applies a universal non-deviant standard of redress.
Perhaps even the current system is adequate deterrent for the likes of me and thee - of course. One can never be sure how far tougher sentencing would deter the likes of the hardened DWD brigade such as the Manchester/Bolton case above - but ...perhaps ...who can say for sure..
Clearly an over-reliance on a speed camera is not addressing these problems of the hard core reckless element at all. All we seem to be doing is fining and ultimately banning fairly safe drivers ..
Mad Moggie said:
Have asked our guy down there - seems it was a mobile he has seen there when driving past on "more than one occasion" ... Have asked him if sure mobile and not ANPR? He still reckons it was mobile set up...
It's definitely ANPR - It's not on Cambridgeshires list of 'problem roads' that attract Scameras.
Mad Moggie said:
Onus must be to get sentence right in the first place. Appeals cost us money.
Perhaps harsh according to precedent law and court bindings (as I understand) from other courts and judgements....and most especially harsh (and still harsh) when you consider the light sentence handed down by Bolton Crown Court to Mr McGlynn (apparently a local chav) - who also pleaded guilty....for the third time within two years - according to the Bolton rag's version
Sentencing structure on motoring offences needs revision - because we are seeing punishments out of proportion to greater extent with the actual - should I [tactful mode] say "irresponsible 'error' verging on the criminal" as opposed to " absolute criminal" plus the "simple more or less 'harmless' errors also being punished out of proportion.
Of course a grieving family will want the key thrown away. Vengeance. Know what it feels like... No punishment would really be great enough.
But - we do need to see a structure whereby our judicial system shows society's absolute disapproval of completely reckless behaviour such as causing death by driving whilst drunk/and recklessly - as per these two cases and applies a universal non-deviant standard of redress.
Perhaps even the current system is adequate deterrent for the likes of me and thee - of course. One can never be sure how far tougher sentencing would deter the likes of the hardened DWD brigade such as the Manchester/Bolton case above - but ...perhaps ...who can say for sure..
Clearly an over-reliance on a speed camera is not addressing these problems of the hard core reckless element at all. All we seem to be doing is fining and ultimately banning fairly safe drivers ..
I doubt that stronger sentences would deter the criminally irresponsible drivers. From my experience, and to misquote Porridge - they treat prison as an occupational hazard rather than punishment. Given the low levels of policing, a ban is resolutely ignored because there is no way you can sit up on a disqualified drivers car 24/7 to make sure they don't drive. In the end only those with a respect for the law are actually going to abide by a ban.
Over-reliance on speed cameras is part of the issue. IIRC road policing is no longer considered to be a core part of the Police's duties. Where once there were large numbers of traffic cops to both enforce and educate the motorist, now we have indiscriminate enforcement. When you have a single car for a large northern seaside town, you know that only lip-service is being paid to casualty reduction - and that financial issues are coming to the fore. A good quality copper costs the thick end of £30k per annum (and no, I don't want to know exactly how much money Streetcop made on his less-than-eight the other day
) while a camera is self-financing. That £30k is considered better employed attempting to deal with 'minor' issues like anti-social behaviour than reducing the injury count on the road. Does banning 'fairly safe' drivers actually make any improvement to road safety? Frankly I doubt it. Most people don't drive with the expressed intention of having an accident and forcing them spend more of their concentration maintaining a speed and less on observing around them is hardly the best way of preventing accidents. The ruling parties idea to make speeding as unacceptable as drink-driving is never going to work. A London Coroner tried the idea about 5 years ago, bullying the CPS into running a couple of standard WDC cases as death by dangerous because the speed was in excess of 30 mph. Result? two expensive Crown Court cases and convictions of WDC - which could easily have been dealt with by Magistrates.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff