Another Loony DD sentence.
Discussion
In Bedfordshire. Drunk woman kills Granny and severely injures another, 2 times over the limit.
Sentence, 21 months in jail (!) and 3 year driving ban.
She is a WPC (not that that has anything to do with it IMO).
I have a major problem with this.
Some bloke in Cambridgeshire driving stupidly crashed his car into one of the big ditches and drowned 2 of his passengers. He got 12 years.
This seems to be equally negligent. It's madness.
I've seen cases where people have killed other people through rubbish driving and got much worse sentences than this - or even simply accidents.
Surely being drunk is far worse ; anyone can drive badly - lets be honest we all make mistakes, but DD is a quite deliberate thing.
Sentence, 21 months in jail (!) and 3 year driving ban.
She is a WPC (not that that has anything to do with it IMO).
I have a major problem with this.
Some bloke in Cambridgeshire driving stupidly crashed his car into one of the big ditches and drowned 2 of his passengers. He got 12 years.
This seems to be equally negligent. It's madness.
I've seen cases where people have killed other people through rubbish driving and got much worse sentences than this - or even simply accidents.
Surely being drunk is far worse ; anyone can drive badly - lets be honest we all make mistakes, but DD is a quite deliberate thing.
Don't know all the cirumstances, but drink driving should be punishable much more than it already is.
Is killing while under influence of alcohol manslaughter?
Seems pretty poor that someone who may have made a genuine mistake driving too fast gets 12 years, yet someone who premeditated driving drunk and then killed and injured gets just under 2 years...
So nice that our system defends the idiots and drunkards from large sentences, yet punishes the people who had genuine accidents even worse. What message does that put across?
Dave
Is killing while under influence of alcohol manslaughter?
Seems pretty poor that someone who may have made a genuine mistake driving too fast gets 12 years, yet someone who premeditated driving drunk and then killed and injured gets just under 2 years...
So nice that our system defends the idiots and drunkards from large sentences, yet punishes the people who had genuine accidents even worse. What message does that put across?
Dave
In the Scotsman this morning...
Drunk driver killed 2 people while banned for 18 months for drink driving. Had had 12 pints, plus several vodkas, and drove down the motorway.
He had been sentenced to 3 years, but on appeal by the prosecution this was increased to 7 years.
Sounds fine to me.
Drunk driver killed 2 people while banned for 18 months for drink driving. Had had 12 pints, plus several vodkas, and drove down the motorway.
He had been sentenced to 3 years, but on appeal by the prosecution this was increased to 7 years.
Sounds fine to me.
Size Nine Elm said:
In the Scotsman this morning...
Drunk driver killed 2 people while banned for 18 months for drink driving. Had had 12 pints, plus several vodkas, and drove down the motorway.
He had been sentenced to 3 years, but on appeal by the prosecution this was increased to 7 years.
Sounds fine to me.
Sounds like premeditated manslaughter...at least 7 years.
Trouble is there is inconsistancy in the courts when deciding on punishments.
But in the cases already listed there could have been several mittigating or aggrivating factors in each case such as, Alcohol levels, manor of driving, road conditions etc that would have contributed to the accident and the final sentance.
Gareth
But in the cases already listed there could have been several mittigating or aggrivating factors in each case such as, Alcohol levels, manor of driving, road conditions etc that would have contributed to the accident and the final sentance.
Gareth
Yeah twice the limit is negligence thats for sure. I have a problem with the fact that the state excersises this power without responsibilty though. Spending vast sums on crap like cameras and humps while neglecting to design out jaywalking pedestrians. I am far more worried about sober death crashes and over zealous police and magistrates.
autismuk said:
She is a WPC (not that that has anything to do with it IMO).
On the contrary that has everything to do with it... As a WPC she was sworn to uphold the law and should have known better. I am sure that at some stage she has seen the suffering that goes with RTA deaths and DD in particular.
On a broader note, one of my own parents was killed when I was still in school by a DD and in that case (won't go into it in detail) the DD got off on a technicality. This affected my family and me for years. In my situation the police were very apologetic for the fact that DD managed to escape on a technicality but there was nothing they could do - it had been caused by a procedural error shortly after the accident. Needless to say I have a very dim view of the courts and legal system in general (how on earth can a barrister defend someone who they know is guilty of killing someone and then sleep at night?).
DD should carry bigger and mandatory sentences if death is caused. It s effectively at least manslaughter in my eyes and should carry an appropriate sentence.
Rant over....
quasimodo said:
She is a WPC (not that that has anything to do with it IMO).
On the contrary that has everything to do with it... As a WPC she was sworn to uphold the law and should have known better. I am sure that at some stage she has seen the suffering that goes with RTA deaths and DD in particular.
On a broader note, one of my own parents was killed when I was still in school by a DD and in that case (won't go into it in detail) the DD got off on a technicality. This affected my family and me for years. In my situation the police were very apologetic for the fact that DD managed to escape on a technicality but there was nothing they could do - it had been caused by a procedural error shortly after the accident. Needless to say I have a very dim view of the courts and legal system in general (how on earth can a barrister defend someone who they know is guilty of killing someone and then sleep at night?).
DD should carry bigger and mandatory sentences if death is caused. It s effectively at least manslaughter in my eyes and should carry an appropriate sentence.
Rant over....
Personally she should. Legally she shouldn't.
I disagree - the WPC SHOULD, under law, be treated more harshly, because of her job and her "expert knowledge" of the effects and consequences of DD.
As an accountant I would be held to a much higher standard in any financial wrong-doing case than would a layman, because the law would expect me to know better than a layman what I was doing. Why should a police(wo)man be any different?!?
As an accountant I would be held to a much higher standard in any financial wrong-doing case than would a layman, because the law would expect me to know better than a layman what I was doing. Why should a police(wo)man be any different?!?
havoc said:
I disagree - the WPC SHOULD, under law, be treated more harshly, because of her job and her "expert knowledge" of the effects and consequences of DD.
As an accountant I would be held to a much higher standard in any financial wrong-doing case than would a layman, because the law would expect me to know better than a layman what I was doing. Why should a police(wo)man be any different?!?
Agreed.
quasimodo said:
I disagree - the WPC SHOULD, under law, be treated more harshly, because of her job and her "expert knowledge" of the effects and consequences of DD.
As an accountant I would be held to a much higher standard in any financial wrong-doing case than would a layman, because the law would expect me to know better than a layman what I was doing. Why should a police(wo)man be any different?!?
Agreed.
Still disagree. I think you should be less able to claim mitigation - but a crime is a crime, surely. Aren't we on the slippery slope otherwise ?
autismuk said:I think that's what we're getting at - if you've broken the law and have NO excuse for not knowing about it, or about the consequences, you can expect no mitigation.
Still disagree. I think you should be less able to claim mitigation - but a crime is a crime, surely. Aren't we on the slippery slope otherwise ?
So the WPC should expect more severe punishment than an ordinary MoP.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff