Killer drivers to receive life sentences

[Zed 44]

Amazing. This is Pistonheads where "speed matters" or at least it used to. Some of you sound like you ought to belong to BRAKE. Perhaps you ought to campaign for people to drive to the speed limit and not 43mph everywhere or against lane blocking on motorways or making people aware that the double white line on a motorway slip is not an invitation to join the motorway at a crawl or any other number of bad driving habits. And as an organisation, surely you should be campaigning for higher speed limits with all the improvements in car technology and safety.

[JulianHJ]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4987788/Dr...

8 months. Reasonable?

- Ignored pleas from his family
- Fled the scene
- Lied about his involvement

I’d be very happy to see him get life. This was no moment of inattention or minor lapse of judgement. He didn’t set out to kill but he knew the risks, was repeatedly warned by his loved ones and did it anyway.

[TurboHatchback]

I don't see the problem with this, it applies to causing death by dangerous driving not any accidental death. I just don't get the argument that 'normal' drivers driving in a sane manner could get caught up in it. You would have to be driving in a manner which would attract a dangerous driving charge even if no incident occured, then be at fault in a fatal accident specifically caused by that dangerous driving.

I also don't think it will reduce the number of deaths at all, I imagine the sort of person that kills people in this way either doesn't understand that their driving is dangerous or just doesn't give a toss about anything. I'd still support it however in case it did have any deterrent effect and because I feel it offers the opportunity for more appropriate justice.

[revvingit]

A lot of people - including the people behind the new sentences - seem to be making the wrong comparison by looking at murder laws. Comparing dangerous driving to murder is daft, but dangerous driving is very much manslaughter. If I build a house and skirt some regulations here and there I'm liable for manslaughter if one of those is the cause of the houses burning down.

Driving without due care and attention should be compared to manslaughter - so ten years at most not to murder. Although I'm not really against even tougher sentences for knobhead drivers who've no respect for pedestrians or cyclists I don't think these are inherently fair.

[Guybrush]

Many people seem to be getting all emotionally wrapped up with punishment based on outcome of an event.

Generations of our legal framework with regards punishments appears always to have been based on the intention behind a crime, not the outcome. I think there's a danger we are becoming less 'intelligent' with regards to our reasoning on this and are resorting to emotion-based rage and punishment.

[Zod]

Guybrush said:

Many people seem to be getting all emotionally wrapped up with punishment based on outcome of an event.

Generations of our legal framework with regards punishments appears always to have been based on the intention behind a crime, not the outcome. I think there's a danger we are becoming less 'intelligent' with regards to our reasoning on this and are resorting to emotion-based rage and punishment.

Exactly.

[daemon]

Guybrush said:

Many people seem to be getting all emotionally wrapped up with punishment based on outcome of an event.

Generations of our legal framework with regards punishments appears always to have been based on the intention behind a crime, not the outcome. I think there's a danger we are becoming less 'intelligent' with regards to our reasoning on this and are resorting to emotion-based rage and punishment.

[IroningMan]

Zod said:

Guybrush said:

Many people seem to be getting all emotionally wrapped up with punishment based on outcome of an event.

Generations of our legal framework with regards punishments appears always to have been based on the intention behind a crime, not the outcome. I think there's a danger we are becoming less 'intelligent' with regards to our reasoning on this and are resorting to emotion-based rage and punishment.

Exactly.

Surely knowledge of the potential risks is a factor?

Should driving a car at 80mph down a crowded High Street be treated any more leniently than firing a gun down the same street?

[Zod]

IroningMan said:

Zod said:

Guybrush said:

Many people seem to be getting all emotionally wrapped up with punishment based on outcome of an event.

Generations of our legal framework with regards punishments appears always to have been based on the intention behind a crime, not the outcome. I think there's a danger we are becoming less 'intelligent' with regards to our reasoning on this and are resorting to emotion-based rage and punishment.

Exactly.

Surely knowledge of the potential risks is a factor?

Should driving a car at 80mph down a crowded High Street be treated any more leniently than firing a gun down the same street?

That is the point; we have existing laws that deal with negligent or reckless behaviour that results in the death of others.

[havoc]

Zod said:

That is the point; we have existing laws that deal with negligent or reckless behaviour that results in the death of others.

But only death by dangerous driving carries a high penalty, and the threshold for proving DD is quite high.

This is (a) a sop to the Daily Wail readers, agreed; and (b) another lever that can be used when the standard of driving isn't quite DD but certainly DWDCAA, and other circumstances / attitude test warrant a longer stretch 'for the public good'.


As others have said, I DO hope it is used with wisdom by the judiciary...