Lad killed by US wrong side driver, who's done a bunk...

[Krikkit]

To play devil's advocate for a moment, what would be gained by a trial and incarceration for the driver? Other than the spending to prosecute it of course.

She's killed someone through her fault exclusively, she'll live with and no doubt be tormented by that for the rest of her days. A couple of years in prison wouldn't make any odds to me in that situation.

[Jasandjules]

57Ford said:

Whether or not she’s covered by diplomatic immunity should be an irrelevance. Surely DI wasn’t intended to cover stuff like this.

You may be surprised how many people are killed, by accident or design, by "diplomats"....

[RemyMartin81D]

Krikkit said:

To play devil's advocate for a moment, what would be gained by a trial and incarceration for the driver? Other than the spending to prosecute it of course.

She's killed someone through her fault exclusively, she'll live with and no doubt be tormented by that for the rest of her days. A couple of years in prison wouldn't make any odds to me in that situation.

Crazy train of thought, lets abolish manslaughter charges as they will be tormented and surely thats torture enough FFS.

[Short Grain]

Pinoyuk said:

Thesprucegoose said:

They know who she is, she was cooperating with inquiries and wasn't thought that she would leave, but her whole family left the country suddenly.

Then lets hope she is named publicly

What will the Yanks be able to do if she is named on FB or Twitter? Sue for defamation of a Yank who alledgedly killed someone, wether by accident or through being Drunk in Charge?

Sue a random MoP for Defamation of Character or some such excuse when the Yank being 'Defamed' is potentially guilty of Manslaughter? Even DT would see the stty irony in that!! What would the Good Old USofA do if the situation was reversed?!

Is there a lawfull injuction preventing her being named?

Must be awful for the family seeing someone get away with alledgedly killing their son!!!

All IMHO of course!! IANAL!!

Edited by Short Grain on Saturday 5th October 21:54

[borcy]

Short Grain said:

Pinoyuk said:

Thesprucegoose said:

They know who she is, she was cooperating with inquiries and wasn't thought that she would leave, but her whole family left the country suddenly.

Then lets hope she is named publicly

What will the Yanks be able to do if she is named on FB or Twitter? Sue for defamation of a Yank who alledgedly killed someone, wether by accident or through being Drunk in Charge?

Sue a random MoP for Defamation of Character or some such excuse when the Yank being 'Defamed' is potentially guilty of Manslaughter? Even DT would see the stty irony in that!! What would the Good Old USofA do if the situation was reversed?!

Is there a lawfull injuction preventing her being named?

Must be awful for the family seeing someone get away with alledgedly killing their son!!!

All IMHO of course!! IANAL!!

Edited by Short Grain on Saturday 5th October 21:54

Why do you think they'd care if she's named?

[Derek Smith]

Krikkit said:

To play devil's advocate for a moment, what would be gained by a trial and incarceration for the driver? Other than the spending to prosecute it of course.

She's killed someone through her fault exclusively, she'll live with and no doubt be tormented by that for the rest of her days. A couple of years in prison wouldn't make any odds to me in that situation.

The western catholic church no longer uses a devil's advocate. I'm not sure his, always his of course, MO would be useful in this situation.

Yours is a simple enough question, although it is in two parts, the former being the usefulness of trials, the second being the efficacy of incarceration.

Homicide is one of the more serious group of offences. There is a belief that if such offences are not prosecuted, there would be nothing to stop those who lacked a moral base from killing others for their own purposes or of behaving in a manner that might put the lives of others at risk. (There a bit more to it than this.)

We don't know, at this stage, what her culpability is. Homicide is divided into various types which have different requirements for prosecution. We should not assume that this homicide is manslaughter. It could be any number of other forms of culpable homicide, from death by careless to the ultimate one of murder. If one behaves in a reckless manner, when driving a car or not, which causes the death of another it can be murder despite there being not particular desire to kill that person or another.

No one knows until it is tested in court.

Assumptions from limited evidence can lead to problems.

Further, with motoring offences, the sanction of banning a person from driving is normally an option. There can be conditions to the person regaining their licence to drive.

The trial is required to come to a conclusion as to what illegal action, if any, the person is guilty of.

Punishment is another matter, and there is much on the internet which shows that, in the main, it is of limited value with regards recidivism, and is uneconomic. If the offender might commit the offence again then there is the welcomed relief of him being out of the way of the general public and unable to commit offences outside of the walled arena that is a prison.

Soapbox time. This is something I believe in.

I'm firmly of the opinion that imprisonment is used in cases where it is neither required nor useful. I am firmly of the opinion that it is not used enough against those who recommit heinous offences. I know of one offender who committed a series of sexual offences against women, was repeatedly sentenced to short periods in prison, then committed a whole series of horrific sexual assaults on a young woman. He was given 7 years (3.5 in fact, less time served on remand) and committed further offences on release. He was again imprisoned but released after 3 years. An expensive surveillance was set up on him, with three DCs on him at any one time. It went on for weeks, costing almost as much as a trial, and he was stopped at the start of another offence. (Such surveillance is no longer available as an option due to cuts.) He is now inside on an indefinite (that's not forever, just unspecified) sentence. If we limited imprisonment for those cases where the public is at risk from serious offences, then it would be more effective than it is now.

See https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/5137393.rape-suspe...

and then, 10 years later,

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-17479...

We do not want our prisons cluttered with offenders who could be dealt with just as effectively with non-custodials, a system favoured by many European countries, most notably those with much lower recidivism levels.

[anonymous-user]

I agree, Derek.


The driver should, however, face not vengeance but consequences. Those need not be punitive.

[untakenname]

borcy said:

Why do you think they'd care if she's named?

Name and shame is the only way to get justice these days.
Watched the BBC cops program earlier in the week and a career criminal was robbing with impunity till he stole a £130k watch from the previous owner of Crystal Palace FC, as soon as it got in the news the police put out a manhunt with helicopters and armed stakeouts.

[Mojooo]

Let me play devils advocate then

I don't really care if I kill some other person through reckless driving but I am scared of doing years in jail.

If the threat of a long jail sentence was removed then I'd be more likely to take chances with my driving.

Do you find that an acceptable state of affairs?

[Gargamel]

Given the US still refuse to pay parking fines or the CC in London on the basis of DI there is no chance in this more serious case.

Had she stayed to face justice, I cannot believe she would have faced a jail term, its a lack of moral fiber.

[0a]

A pretty disgusting situation. It is understandable why diplomatic immunity exists, but helping people run away from driving offences isn’t it. Morally, I don’t know how she can live with herself without facing due process, and for both killing someone and denying the family justice.

[borcy]

untakenname said:

Name and shame is the only way to get justice these days.
Watched the BBC cops program earlier in the week and a career criminal was robbing with impunity till he stole a £130k watch from the previous owner of Crystal Palace FC, as soon as it got in the news the police put out a manhunt with helicopters and armed stakeouts.

This is a totally different ball game, I'm pretty sure the US have never sent any back abroad for this. You think they are going to start now?

[thatsprettyshady]

Won’t let me “watch this” so postings to subscribe

[Jakg]

Gargamel said:

Given the US still refuse to pay parking fines or the CC in London on the basis of DI there is no chance in this more serious case.

That's a very different point, and missions from many other countries also don't pay.

Whether CC is a tax vs a "charge for service" is really a legal semantic, although with clear economic effects.

Whereas whether not withdrawing diplomatic immunity in this case is more of a moral dilemma.

[Unbusy]

0a said:

A pretty disgusting situation. It is understandable why diplomatic immunity exists, but helping people run away from driving offences isn’t it. Morally, I don’t know how she can live with herself without facing due process, and for both killing someone and denying the family justice.

A good point. She won’t have any sense of being punished for her actions (I hope she never sleeps without trouble) and the poor family surely can’t get any closure over the loss of the lad.
If the spam went to trial and found guilty, then although no punishment could be metered out due to DI, at least the guilty party are identified and informed of their wrong doing.
Without that the family will always feel badly let down by the system.
Like others, I just can’t see her returning here.

[Short Grain]

untakenname said:

borcy said:

Why do you think they'd care if she's named?

[quote]Name and shame is the only way to get justice these days.
Watched the BBC cops program earlier in the week and a career criminal was robbing with impunity till he stole a £130k watch from the previous owner of Crystal Palace FC, as soon as it got in the news the police put out a manhunt with helicopters and armed stakeouts.

@borcy
True, was using my own values there!! Stupid Me!!

@untakenname

After the victim claimed a gun was used! Different fking world! Who needs a £130K watch? Yeah, I know it's his money but FFS

[Gargamel]

Jakg said:

Gargamel said:

Given the US still refuse to pay parking fines or the CC in London on the basis of DI there is no chance in this more serious case.

That's a very different point, and missions from many other countries also don't pay.

Whether CC is a tax vs a "charge for service" is really a legal semantic, although with clear economic effects.

Whereas whether not withdrawing diplomatic immunity in this case is more of a moral dilemma.

It simply illustrates that the US consider themselves to be special and different and able to ignore the law as of the lands they have diplomatic missions in. One need only look at the absolute fortress they operate out of in London.

[RobbyJ]

Do they have to define in advance who is a diplomat or can they retrospectively apply diplomatic immunity to a family member of an NSA or CIA employee, as is obviously the case in this instance? Why would a US diplomat be stationed at an NSA listening/communication station?

[cossy400]

https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/news/derby-news/t...


This guys got away without going to prison.

He drove through a giveway and ploughed in to the other driver.

No prison just a curfew and a ban.

[hutchst]

This is a secret squirrel base. Are we just assuming that the lady in question was the wife of a diplomat, rather than immune in her own right, or do we have evidence? Women do secret squirrel stuff as well.