Killer drivers to receive life sentences
Discussion
vonhosen said:
Looks like it's mostly a change of sentencing powers for existing offences (so using existing laws).
Nothing has actually changed. Everything is pending. New offences will be created and that will require legislation. The consultation response was published today:
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/drivin...
I’ll comment further when I’ve had time to read it. I sent a response to the consultation document a few months ago.
As much as it would pain me to lose a loved one if hit by a car, if it was a genuine accident (no drink or drugs involved) then for that driver to get life seems well OTT. Imagine if you were out and about driving, minding your own business, got involved in an accident where someone dies then find yourself in prison for life! Madness.
TX.
TX.
JulianHJ said:
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?
Because it is not the same thing at all. In a high street brawl you have made a conscious decision to "wade in" vs driving along in your car moving from one destination to another when an accident happens. Punching someone is not an accident.Edited by JulianHJ on Sunday 15th October 14:21
TX.
daemon said:
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.
I see the argument and I'm not unsympathetic, BUT...I wholly agree with him.
...where else, in regular life, do people with NO repeat/regular training or assessment get to control something carrying so much kinetic energy, and the damage that can cause?!?
If that person was using some sort of machinery at work - a forklift, a large machine tool, a crane etc., they'd be operating under clear regs and have to undertake regular refresher training. There would be safety notices around and so on...
Yet we see driving as a 'right' (even the so-called professional drivers, who often are less emotionally suited to the job than many 'amateurs'), and more than that, we think we're so good we can ignore any of the rules we don't like.
I'm no angel - far from it as regards rural speed - but I DO try my level best to give 100% attention to driving, and if I can't (e.g. young son in the car) I wind my speed back and my trailing distances up, just to give that extra leeway. Yet so many people DON'T do that, and the punishments at the moment are pitifully low for the loss of a life caused by someone who arrogantly didn't care enough about anyone else to concentrate on the most important task they were doing that day...
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?
Terminator X said:
As much as it would pain me to lose a loved one if hit by a car, if it was a genuine accident (no drink or drugs involved) then for that driver to get life seems well OTT. Imagine if you were out and about driving, minding your own business, got involved in an accident where someone dies then find yourself in prison for life! Madness.
TX.
TX.
Absolutely crazy.
havoc said:
daemon said:
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.
I see the argument and I'm not unsympathetic, BUT...I wholly agree with him.
...where else, in regular life, do people with NO repeat/regular training or assessment get to control something carrying so much kinetic energy, and the damage that can cause?!?
If that person was using some sort of machinery at work - a forklift, a large machine tool, a crane etc., they'd be operating under clear regs and have to undertake regular refresher training. There would be safety notices around and so on...
Yet we see driving as a 'right' (even the so-called professional drivers, who often are less emotionally suited to the job than many 'amateurs'), and more than that, we think we're so good we can ignore any of the rules we don't like.
I'm no angel - far from it as regards rural speed - but I DO try my level best to give 100% attention to driving, and if I can't (e.g. young son in the car) I wind my speed back and my trailing distances up, just to give that extra leeway. Yet so many people DON'T do that, and the punishments at the moment are pitifully low for the loss of a life caused by someone who arrogantly didn't care enough about anyone else to concentrate on the most important task they were doing that day...
daemon said:
Terminator X said:
As much as it would pain me to lose a loved one if hit by a car, if it was a genuine accident (no drink or drugs involved) then for that driver to get life seems well OTT. Imagine if you were out and about driving, minding your own business, got involved in an accident where someone dies then find yourself in prison for life! Madness.
TX.
TX.
Absolutely crazy.
Zod said:
Vipers said:
Zod said:
We have perfectly adequate homicide laws that provide remedies for negligent or reckless behaviour that results in the death of another. This proposal is just a sop to road safety campaigners.
Really?Drivers who kill someone in the most serious cases of dangerous and careless driving will now face life sentences.
Causing death by dangerous driving, or death by careless driving while drunk or on drugs, will carry the top-level punishment.
Jail terms in cases involving mobile phones, speeding or street racing will now be the equivalent of manslaughter, the Ministry of Justice said.
Road safety charity Brake said it was a "major victory" for victims' families.
It follows criticism that sentences for those convicted over road deaths were too lenient.
Terminator X said:
JulianHJ said:
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?
Because it is not the same thing at all. In a high street brawl you have made a conscious decision to "wade in" vs driving along in your car moving from one destination to another when an accident happens. Punching someone is not an accident.Edited by JulianHJ on Sunday 15th October 14:21
TX.
Hopefully in court these cases are looked at carefully as individual cases with unique circumstances.
I have to say I think it won't make much difference, I'd like to think it will. I lost a friend due to a guy who was driving on the hard shoulder (had been for several miles) - the driver was initially charged with manslaughter but eventually faced a lesser charge and was sentenced to 9 mths. The victims daughter (5 at the time) doesn't have many memories of her daddy. Tragic case which could have been so easily avoided by some fool in a hurry.
daemon said:
Terminator X said:
As much as it would pain me to lose a loved one if hit by a car, if it was a genuine accident (no drink or drugs involved) then for that driver to get life seems well OTT. Imagine if you were out and about driving, minding your own business, got involved in an accident where someone dies then find yourself in prison for life! Madness.
TX.
TX.
Absolutely crazy.
Randy Winkman said:
daemon said:
Terminator X said:
As much as it would pain me to lose a loved one if hit by a car, if it was a genuine accident (no drink or drugs involved) then for that driver to get life seems well OTT. Imagine if you were out and about driving, minding your own business, got involved in an accident where someone dies then find yourself in prison for life! Madness.
TX.
TX.
Absolutely crazy.
daemon said:
Agreed, BUT - we dont have repeat training or refreshers and we're letting people drive until perhaps well in to their 80s or 90s and is this new "punishment" actually going to prevent any deaths or just make Daily Mail readers feel a bit better when they read about the retribution?
Probably a bit of both. More the former, initially, until a few stories go around of otherwise-blameless people going down for years for being stupid enough to check their phone, or [steady now] break the speed limit*.Unless refresher training was made mandatory, even that wouldn't help...and even then, the recidivists would 'play to pass', then go straight back to their old habits.
So there is no right answer. I just hope this law IS used with wisdom by judges...
* I'm a firm believer that speeding, per-se, should NOT be a crime. Driving too fast for the conditions should be the crime, but that's almost impossible to legislate. So simple speeding, where it's not very high or where there are no other aggravating factors, should be a non-endorsable offence and only DWDCAA should be endorsable AND linked to this new law.
Randy Winkman said:
Have you two read article and honestly think that sort of thing is likely? The first sentence includes the words "most serious cases".
I have yes thanks. I was originally reiterating the concerns of one of the barristers involved - i suspect he has more insight into it than just "reading the article"daemon said:
"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.""
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.""
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?
Can't disagree with too much of this...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
daemon said:
Randy Winkman said:
Have you two read article and honestly think that sort of thing is likely? The first sentence includes the words "most serious cases".
I have yes thanks. I was originally reiterating the concerns of one of the barristers involved - i suspect he has more insight into it than just "reading the article"daemon said:
"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.""
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 just watched an episode of police interceptors , a passenger in a car was paralysed after his "mate" started driving like a dick, lost control on a roundabout went through a fence
The driver got out and ran off but not before dragging his seriously injured mate across the car to make it look like he was driving
He got 3 years 6 months so perhaps this law change might stop people like that but I doubt it because he didn't think he was going to crash
The driver got out and ran off but not before dragging his seriously injured mate across the car to make it look like he was driving
He got 3 years 6 months so perhaps this law change might stop people like that but I doubt it because he didn't think he was going to crash
wack said:
I just watched an episode of police interceptors , a passenger in a car was paralysed after his "mate" started driving like a dick, lost control on a roundabout went through a fence
The driver got out and ran off but not before dragging his seriously injured mate across the car to make it look like he was driving
He got 3 years 6 months so perhaps this law change might stop people like that but I doubt it because he didn't think he was going to crash
Hopefully the wording "Drivers who kill someone in the most serious cases of dangerous and careless driving will now face life sentenances" will kick in.The driver got out and ran off but not before dragging his seriously injured mate across the car to make it look like he was driving
He got 3 years 6 months so perhaps this law change might stop people like that but I doubt it because he didn't think he was going to crash
However as we all know, it doesn't matter what you do, some smart arsed lawyer will do what he is paid to do and find a way to wriggle out of it, as they do.
Randy Winkman said:
Perhaps the barrister should have tried to find out a bit more before giving a quote. I doubt he even "read the article". The change is to the maximum sentence, the idea clearly isn't to send people to prison for life for making a mistake.
Yeah thats right - a barrister in law allowed himself to go on to Radio 5 and give an interview on the subject without being wholly aware of the detail around the change or even reading the article. Clearly nothing at stake for him professionally by doing so. 
Of course it might have been a mis-print by the BBC. Perhaps he was a barista?
Edited by daemon on Tuesday 17th October 09:54
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff