Killer drivers to receive life sentences
Discussion
JulianHJ said:
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?
I think you've just saved me some typing as that's put it more eloquently than I ever could have.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?
JulianHJ said:
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 point isn't that exceeding 95MPH necessarily poses any more risk than doing 69MPH. The point is that IF things go awry you will suffer a much harsher punishment than if the same happens at 69. There is some risk at any speed.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?
If you deliberately drive your car into someone or even open your door into them and they end up dying as a result, obviously you will suffer the same penalties as if you had killed them in a brawl or by throwing a brick at them. That is already the position, there is no exemption for motorists. What is changing to extended the definition of manslaughter to cover any transgression that's driving related. In principle ANY fatal collision could be regarded as manslaughter on the basis that if the driver hadn't been driving 'without due care and attention' it wouldn't have happened.
REALIST123 said:
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.
It has always been possible to put life as a possible sentence - charge the offender with culpable homicide/manslaughter. There certainly used to be an endorsement code for this.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.
Dr Jekyll said:
JulianHJ said:
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 point isn't that exceeding 95MPH necessarily poses any more risk than doing 69MPH. The point is that IF things go awry you will suffer a much harsher punishment than if the same happens at 69. There is some risk at any speed.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?
mygoldfishbowl said:
But does this cover riding/cycling? the article doesn't mention it.
It won't cover bicyclists as the wording is "A person who causes the death of another person by driving a mechanically propelled vehicle dangerously on a road or other public place is guilty of an offence". A bicycle is not a mechanically propelled vehicle (although I am curious to know how an e-bike would be viewed).In light of the Alliston case I suspect that the wording of the Road Traffic Act may be reviewed to widen it to cover cycling.
ralphrj said:
mygoldfishbowl said:
But does this cover riding/cycling? the article doesn't mention it.
It won't cover bicyclists as the wording is "A person who causes the death of another person by driving a mechanically propelled vehicle dangerously on a road or other public place is guilty of an offence". A bicycle is not a mechanically propelled vehicle (although I am curious to know how an e-bike would be viewed).In light of the Alliston case I suspect that the wording of the Road Traffic Act may be reviewed to widen it to cover cycling.
It’s easy to get motors that far exceed maximum power and speeds making them a motor vehicle.
The barrister has it spot on, it is a response to the baying mob mentality that has led to this.
We all want dangerous drivers to be punished but there is a world of difference between two chavs racing through a town centre mowing people down and a person who makes a mistake at an arbitery speed.
What you will understandably get is the families of victims wanting the CPS to push for a harsh sentence as they want revenge or their version of justice.
As others have said they will need rock solid evidence to get a jury to convict knowing it means a life sentence for some person,
As for the road safety person saying drivers are murdering people, they are not, murder is premeditated, no normal person could relate the two.
We all want dangerous drivers to be punished but there is a world of difference between two chavs racing through a town centre mowing people down and a person who makes a mistake at an arbitery speed.
What you will understandably get is the families of victims wanting the CPS to push for a harsh sentence as they want revenge or their version of justice.
As others have said they will need rock solid evidence to get a jury to convict knowing it means a life sentence for some person,
As for the road safety person saying drivers are murdering people, they are not, murder is premeditated, no normal person could relate the two.
daemon said:
"Barrister Matthew Scott told BBC Radio 5 live the change would not increase road safety.
: "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.
I can't agree with you both. It has been proven on many tests that being on the phone can be as lethal as being a drunk driver. My personal view on drunk drivers is that there is no excuse - If you can afford a drink you can afford a taxi (or don't do it). It's about time sentences were increased for causing death on the roads - but when have guilty ones been given anywhere near the maximum? So I don't think this move will make any difference.: "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.
What I'd like to see is (in some cases, even where death isn't involced, but they are habitual offenders) is a LIFETIME driving ban - that would have to be enforced to make it work...... maybe if then caught driving get slung in jail?
Fastpedeller said:
daemon said:
"Barrister Matthew Scott told BBC Radio 5 live the change would not increase road safety.
: "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.
I can't agree with you both. It has been proven on many tests that being on the phone can be as lethal as being a drunk driver. My personal view on drunk drivers is that there is no excuse - If you can afford a drink you can afford a taxi (or don't do it). It's about time sentences were increased for causing death on the roads - but when have guilty ones been given anywhere near the maximum? So I don't think this move will make any difference.: "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.
What I'd like to see is (in some cases, even where death isn't involced, but they are habitual offenders) is a LIFETIME driving ban - that would have to be enforced to make it work...... maybe if then caught driving get slung in jail?
Hysteria is alive and well, I see.
To err is a human frailty. Err on an empty road and you continue your life to its conclusion, do it when someone is in the way and you spend the rest of your life in jail.
Same mistake, vastly different consequences. Funny old world, isn't it?
Some aspects of law smack of state vengeance.
To err is a human frailty. Err on an empty road and you continue your life to its conclusion, do it when someone is in the way and you spend the rest of your life in jail.
Same mistake, vastly different consequences. Funny old world, isn't it?
Some aspects of law smack of state vengeance.
mybrainhurts said:
Hysteria is alive and well, I see.
To err is a human frailty. Err on an empty road and you continue your life to its conclusion, do it when someone is in the way and you spend the rest of your life in jail.
Same mistake, vastly different consequences. Funny old world, isn't it?
Some aspects of law smack of state vengeance.
It's a maximum sentence - not a minimum!To err is a human frailty. Err on an empty road and you continue your life to its conclusion, do it when someone is in the way and you spend the rest of your life in jail.
Same mistake, vastly different consequences. Funny old world, isn't it?
Some aspects of law smack of state vengeance.
The sentence is (hopefully) likely to fit the circumstances.
Fermit The Krog and Sexy Sarah said:
With the blind alley of the 'speed kills' mantra, I can't see this being a good thing.
Indeed, whilst some undoubtedly deserve the longer sentence, I fear this will just encourage yet harsher punishments/attitudes towards minor victimless offences such as speeding.All part of the anti motorist agenda and to be expected, I suppose.
Bankquay said:
All those folk riding unlawfull e-bikes need to be careful.
It’s easy to get motors that far exceed maximum power and speeds making them a motor vehicle.
This will have to be clamped down on. The e-bike is a great idea but the fact that some are moped power needs looking at.It’s easy to get motors that far exceed maximum power and speeds making them a motor vehicle.
OR
Bring our law in line with the EU wide law on this as most e-bikes are made for the EU market.
mybrainhurts said:
Hysteria is alive and well, I see.
To err is a human frailty. Err on an empty road and you continue your life to its conclusion, do it when someone is in the way and you spend the rest of your life in jail.
Same mistake, vastly different consequences. Funny old world, isn't it?
Some aspects of law smack of state vengeance.
I agree with this. It often occurs to me that in many 'death by' trials, the judge and all the lawyers in the room have made similar mistakes to the accused but been lucky not to hurt anyone. Some of them may even be more dangerous on the roads than the accused.To err is a human frailty. Err on an empty road and you continue your life to its conclusion, do it when someone is in the way and you spend the rest of your life in jail.
Same mistake, vastly different consequences. Funny old world, isn't it?
Some aspects of law smack of state vengeance.
How do you compare say a driver who has had a minor accident every 2 years (none leading to court) with one who drives accident free for 30 years and then makes a serious error which leads to a death? The latter looks like the safer driver to me, but he's the one looking at prison.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff