Killer drivers to receive life sentences
Discussion
Just seen this too. Not sure what to think yet.
Every needless death is awful, obviously. How much will this change behaviour of those persistent dangerous drivers though? Given those drivers already ignore the law.
Eg mobile phones, driving tired,under effect of drugs etc, as well as your common variety speed and just choosing to drive dangerously.
I press on a bit from time to time, and I never go out expecting it to 'go wrong'.
But if I cocked up and someone died and I was say, the wrong side of 95 on the m-way, could I really conceive the next 15-25 years in prison?
That would change my behaviour, definitely.
I guess i'm just used to there being some inherent risk associated with being a road user, so having the punishment set at the same bar as pre mediated murder, rape, gbh etc seems a bit startling.
Still, I suppose this is the whole point - a life is still ruined somewhere. I wouldn't carry a running chainsaw though a town centre. Why should I take a car through at 50?
It would also put a lot of focus on what constitutes 'dangerous'.
Eg that cyclist with no front brake could be potentially facing life if that happened ?
Ian
Every needless death is awful, obviously. How much will this change behaviour of those persistent dangerous drivers though? Given those drivers already ignore the law.
Eg mobile phones, driving tired,under effect of drugs etc, as well as your common variety speed and just choosing to drive dangerously.
I press on a bit from time to time, and I never go out expecting it to 'go wrong'.
But if I cocked up and someone died and I was say, the wrong side of 95 on the m-way, could I really conceive the next 15-25 years in prison?
That would change my behaviour, definitely.
I guess i'm just used to there being some inherent risk associated with being a road user, so having the punishment set at the same bar as pre mediated murder, rape, gbh etc seems a bit startling.
Still, I suppose this is the whole point - a life is still ruined somewhere. I wouldn't carry a running chainsaw though a town centre. Why should I take a car through at 50?
It would also put a lot of focus on what constitutes 'dangerous'.
Eg that cyclist with no front brake could be potentially facing life if that happened ?
Ian
Edited by Ian Geary on Sunday 15th October 12:35
Ian Geary said:
Just seen this too. Not sure what to think yet.
Every needless death is awful, obviously. How much will this change behaviour of those persistent dangerous drivers though? Given those drivers already ignore the law.
Eg mobile phones, driving tired,under effect of drugs etc, as well as your common variety speed etc.
I press on a bit from time to time, and I never go out expecting it to 'go wrong'.
But if I cocked up and someone died and I was say, the wrong side of 95 on the m-way, could I really conceive the next 15-25 years in prison?
That would change my behaviour definitely.
I guess i'm just used to there being some inherent risk associated with being a road user, so having the punishment set at the same bar as pre mediated murder, rape, gbh etc seems a bit startling.
Still, I suppose this is the whole point - a life is still ruined somewhere.
It would also put a lot of focus on what constitutes 'dangerous'.
Eg that cyclist with no front brake could be potentially facing life if that happened ?
Ian
I think it's accepted there is inherent risk associated with being a road user, but what they are attempting to do is clearly state that engaging in activities that are outlawed (because there is considered to be unacceptable risk in them) & then that resulting in another's death, is going to be severely dealt with.Every needless death is awful, obviously. How much will this change behaviour of those persistent dangerous drivers though? Given those drivers already ignore the law.
Eg mobile phones, driving tired,under effect of drugs etc, as well as your common variety speed etc.
I press on a bit from time to time, and I never go out expecting it to 'go wrong'.
But if I cocked up and someone died and I was say, the wrong side of 95 on the m-way, could I really conceive the next 15-25 years in prison?
That would change my behaviour definitely.
I guess i'm just used to there being some inherent risk associated with being a road user, so having the punishment set at the same bar as pre mediated murder, rape, gbh etc seems a bit startling.
Still, I suppose this is the whole point - a life is still ruined somewhere.
It would also put a lot of focus on what constitutes 'dangerous'.
Eg that cyclist with no front brake could be potentially facing life if that happened ?
Ian
i.e. You stuck two fingers up to the rules & somebody died whilst you were doing it, expect your life to be
too.With the blind alley of the 'speed kills' mantra, I can't see this being a good thing.
Sure, if someone does something downright reckless and someone gets killed, but I fear that this shall be dragged up every time a death occurs, whilst someone has been travelling above an arbitrary number.
Sure, if someone does something downright reckless and someone gets killed, but I fear that this shall be dragged up every time a death occurs, whilst someone has been travelling above an arbitrary number.
hairyben said:
Isnt it a bit nailing the stable door shut after the horse has bolted though?
Its my opinion that driving standards including law obdience have regressed in recent years, and without pro active effort I dont see that trend reversing
Of course it is but your statement makes no sense.Its my opinion that driving standards including law obdience have regressed in recent years, and without pro active effort I dont see that trend reversing
What if you kept putting a horse in the stable and every time one f
ked off you kept putting another one in.Do you think it’s a good idea not to nail the door shut when you suddenly realise, hey this big hole is where all my horses are going! Shut the ferkin’ Door and you might just keep your horse.
Increase the penalty and that might just concentrate the mind, it has in at least one poster above, and me. What really would nail it shut is increasing the likelihood of being detected. If they brought in hanging for death by dangerous driving then some or a lot of drivers would still drive outside the law because they see no chance of being caught.
So stiffer penalties for this? Yes. If you take or ruin someone’s life by breaking the law then having yours and perhaps your families comparably ruined is just.
Edited by Bankquay on Sunday 15th October 12:56
Bankquay said:
Of course it is but your statement makes no sense.
What if you kept putting a horse in the stable and every time one fked off you kept putting another one in.
Do you think it’s a good idea not to nail the door shut when you suddenly realise, hey this big hole is where all my horses are going! Shut the ferkin’ Door and you might just keep your horse.
Increase the penalty and that might just concentrate the mind, it has in at least one poster above, and me. What really would nail it shut is increasing the likelihood of being detected. If they brought in hanging for death by dangerous driving then some or a lot of drivers would still drive outside the law because they see no chance of being caught.
So stiffer penalties for this? Yes. If you take or ruin someone’s life by breaking the law then having yours and perhaps your families comparably ruined is just.
Nobody thinks they will have the accident though, they dont associate what theyre doing as being dangerous enough to cause an accident, whether the jail term is 6 months or 15 years is irrelevant to them. Look at how widespread and obvious cellphone usage still is, despite the 6 point threat, they dont think its dangerous and they dont think theyll be caught anyway.What if you kept putting a horse in the stable and every time one f
ked off you kept putting another one in.Do you think it’s a good idea not to nail the door shut when you suddenly realise, hey this big hole is where all my horses are going! Shut the ferkin’ Door and you might just keep your horse.
Increase the penalty and that might just concentrate the mind, it has in at least one poster above, and me. What really would nail it shut is increasing the likelihood of being detected. If they brought in hanging for death by dangerous driving then some or a lot of drivers would still drive outside the law because they see no chance of being caught.
So stiffer penalties for this? Yes. If you take or ruin someone’s life by breaking the law then having yours and perhaps your families comparably ruined is just.
Edited by Bankquay on Sunday 15th October 12:56
The average length of a life sentence is about 15 years. The maximum for DBDD is 14 years. (I stand to be corrected)
So it's been possible to sentence someone to pretty much a life sentence anyway.
Seems wrong to equate killing someone through stupidity with premeditated murder, though I agree that the most serious cases of DBDD sometimes seem to be dealt with leniently.
So it's been possible to sentence someone to pretty much a life sentence anyway.
Seems wrong to equate killing someone through stupidity with premeditated murder, though I agree that the most serious cases of DBDD sometimes seem to be dealt with leniently.
There was someone on the radio this morning talking about if from a legal point of view and didn't like it.
Ian Brady went out specifically to hunt young people down then torture and murder them. He got life, which is fine my most people.
A small mistake (mistake remember, not act of malace) on the roads can lead to someone dying my accident.
It now looks to me like if you make a mistake on the roads, and don't kid yourself that you don't do it, you could well be treated like Ian Brady.
Ian Brady went out specifically to hunt young people down then torture and murder them. He got life, which is fine my most people.
A small mistake (mistake remember, not act of malace) on the roads can lead to someone dying my accident.
It now looks to me like if you make a mistake on the roads, and don't kid yourself that you don't do it, you could well be treated like Ian Brady.
Excellent news.
The article quite clearly states it's putting the offences on par with manslaughter, which in effect it is if you kill someone on the roads through a severe lack of judgement / wilfully poor driving. It's a loophole which time and again we've seen offenders getting away with scandalously short or even non-custodial sentences for killing someone.
For those that worry about something going awry at the wrong side of 95MPH, which results in someone else's death, hopefully this will encourage you to moderate your driving if you really think you pose that much of a risk. No doubt this sentiment will provoke all sorts of negative responses, but if you're a good enough driver that you can maintain such speed or other actions deemed dangerous or careless without posing a risk to anyone then you've got nothing to worry about.
Ultimately, if you kill someone because you're drunk, on drugs or your standard of driving falls so far below normal standards, why shouldn't you face the same penalties as the guys who accidentally kill someone in a high street brawl, for example?
The article quite clearly states it's putting the offences on par with manslaughter, which in effect it is if you kill someone on the roads through a severe lack of judgement / wilfully poor driving. It's a loophole which time and again we've seen offenders getting away with scandalously short or even non-custodial sentences for killing someone.
For those that worry about something going awry at the wrong side of 95MPH, which results in someone else's death, hopefully this will encourage you to moderate your driving if you really think you pose that much of a risk. No doubt this sentiment will provoke all sorts of negative responses, but if you're a good enough driver that you can maintain such speed or other actions deemed dangerous or careless without posing a risk to anyone then you've got nothing to worry about.
Ultimately, if you kill someone because you're drunk, on drugs or your standard of driving falls so far below normal standards, why shouldn't you face the same penalties as the guys who accidentally kill someone in a high street brawl, for example?
Edited by JulianHJ on Sunday 15th October 14:21
I think the point is this will be the highest/worst case situation, and will be part of accepting a lesser offence. Why should driving not be subject to murder, manslaughter, or lesser offence (causing death by negligence). We accept those charges may (not always will) apply with regards children's deaths and deaths in the workplace or hospitals, why not with driving/riding?
Pica-Pica said:
I think the point is this will be the highest/worst case situation, and will be part of accepting a lesser offence. Why should driving not be subject to murder, manslaughter, or lesser offence (causing death by negligence). We accept those charges may (not always will) apply with regards children's deaths and deaths in the workplace or hospitals, why not with driving/riding?
But does this cover riding/cycling? the article doesn't mention it. Does this really have anything to do with deterring normal drivers from being dheads.? If so then it fails as even dheads don't set out to kill anyone.
Perhaps this legislation has been brought in to make it easy for the courts to deal with terrorists using vehicles to deliberately kill people.
heads.? If so then it fails as even dheads don't set out to kill anyone.Perhaps this legislation has been brought in to make it easy for the courts to deal with terrorists using vehicles to deliberately kill people.
stevensdrs said:
Does this really have anything to do with deterring normal drivers from being dheads.? If so then it fails as even dheads don't set out to kill anyone.
Perhaps this legislation has been brought in to make it easy for the courts to deal with terrorists using vehicles to deliberately kill people.
I don't think so - you could be charged with murder today if you set out to kill someone with a vehicle. heads.? If so then it fails as even dheads don't set out to kill anyone.Perhaps this legislation has been brought in to make it easy for the courts to deal with terrorists using vehicles to deliberately kill people.
This new law is primarily driven by the laughable sentences recently highlighted in the media for those who've killed whilst driving like d
heads. It's a loophole that needs to be closed.Look at the actual use and interpretation of a life sentence.
So 105 mph on the M4, blow out & kill another motorist.
Life with parole after 3 years... But you remain on licence for ever, any transgression, especially motoring will see you recalled.
Life does not automatically mean 10-20.
However if doing 60 mph through a town centre and mounting the kerb and killing someone then 10 years may be appropriate.
The maximum tariff should be high and will also deter the use of vehicles by Jihadi wannbe morons who may try to mow down a street of people but if they don't get the result they want, and cause a major terrorist outrage, they can try and explain it away as speeding.
I don't think anyone would have minded that Polish Lorry driver who was on his phone being given a life sentence with a minimum of 10 years.
As for the cyclist...
I believe that if you use any vehicle on the highway then it must be capable of doing so safely. Fixed gear bikes with no brake are cycling's equivalent of massively slammed cars with stretched tires. Used by the same kind of people.
If you have extremely modified your car and killed someone you'd have the book thrown at you.
If he had been riding a normal bike along the road and the lady had stood out in front of him he would not have gone to jail.
Same for a car driver.
So 105 mph on the M4, blow out & kill another motorist.
Life with parole after 3 years... But you remain on licence for ever, any transgression, especially motoring will see you recalled.
Life does not automatically mean 10-20.
However if doing 60 mph through a town centre and mounting the kerb and killing someone then 10 years may be appropriate.
The maximum tariff should be high and will also deter the use of vehicles by Jihadi wannbe morons who may try to mow down a street of people but if they don't get the result they want, and cause a major terrorist outrage, they can try and explain it away as speeding.
I don't think anyone would have minded that Polish Lorry driver who was on his phone being given a life sentence with a minimum of 10 years.
As for the cyclist...
I believe that if you use any vehicle on the highway then it must be capable of doing so safely. Fixed gear bikes with no brake are cycling's equivalent of massively slammed cars with stretched tires. Used by the same kind of people.
If you have extremely modified your car and killed someone you'd have the book thrown at you.
If he had been riding a normal bike along the road and the lady had stood out in front of him he would not have gone to jail.
Same for a car driver.
"Barrister Matthew Scott told BBC Radio 5 live the change would not increase road safety.
Mr Scott argued that the announcement was a "crowd-pleasing gesture" and that life sentences "should be reserved for the most serious offences".
He told BBC Radio 5 live: "Bad though it is and wrong though it is, taking out a mobile phone while driving without any intention to cause death, I don't consider that is the sort of behaviour that could possibly justify a life sentence.""
I wholly agree with him.
Mr Scott argued that the announcement was a "crowd-pleasing gesture" and that life sentences "should be reserved for the most serious offences".
He told BBC Radio 5 live: "Bad though it is and wrong though it is, taking out a mobile phone while driving without any intention to cause death, I don't consider that is the sort of behaviour that could possibly justify a life sentence.""
I wholly agree with him.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff