Three jailed for dangerous driving

[V8RX7]

Esceptico said:

It is a fact that you disagree but the reality is that your opinion doesn’t count because it has no impact on the legislation, policing or sentencing.

In isolation it doesn't and nor does anyone else's - on that basis why do any of us write on a forum ?

However we are (hopefully) all voters and occasionally we get our way.

[vonhosen]

V8RX7 said:

Esceptico said:

It is a fact that you disagree but the reality is that your opinion doesn’t count because it has no impact on the legislation, policing or sentencing.

In isolation it doesn't and nor does anyone else's - on that basis why do any of us write on a forum ?

However we are (hopefully) all voters and occasionally we get our way.

And the successive governments of both main flavours, that have been voted in by the electorate, have presided over the legislation & sentencing guidelines we do have.

It really is pretty pointless comparing or complaining about various individual cases, none of which we will be privy to the full sentencing considerations for when making those comparisons or complaints.

We have sentencing limits & guidelines precisely so that there are consistencies in sentencing & so that there will be a limit to expensive appeals taking place. The appeals system however exists for the rare occasions that the court may get it wrong by not applying the guidelines correctly.

I'm far more in favour of that system than ill informed PHers declaring what the sentences should be based on their gut feelings.

If we are to express a personal opinion, then it needs to be rather more generally than applying opinion to individual cases that we don't have sufficient information about.
Such as we should be declaring an opinion that "dangerous drivers should never be subject to potential imprisonment' or that 'imprisonment should exist as an option for people convicted of dangerous driving.'

Edited by vonhosen on Friday 17th January 09:33

[vonhosen]

yonex said:

You do reside in the UK i take it, as people like VH are very much in the (Police) minority.

Nobody condones riding like a bell, but the facts are the punishment simply doesn’t fit the crime.

The fact is, you (& I) don't know the full facts of cases. That's why we don't get to set the sentences & people who do have the full facts of each individual case do.

I haven't been saying who should or shouldn't be imprisoned, because I'm aware it's stupid for people to make those decisions without all the facts available.

What exactly am I in a minority of in taking that position?
Rational thought?

[Krikkit]

Esceptico said:

As far as I can tell, the actual “facts” are

- there is a crime of dangerous driving
- under current legislation the three were found guilty of dangerous driving
- under current sentencing guidelines custodial sentences can be given for dangerous driving
- no one on here knows what prior convictions the three have or the full evidence out before the court which the judge would have taken into account when passing the sentences

Don't come in here with your sense and reason...

[V8RX7]

vonhosen said:

What exactly am I in a minority of in taking that position?
Rational thought?

You are in a minority because you don't question anything

You blindly follow rules and believe they are correct regardless

A road near me was NSL, then a 50, in the last few weeks is now double white lines too.

So for 30+ years I've safely and legally overtaken there, almost daily, you would happily report me if I did so now and would think I'm unreasonable to question it.

[vonhosen]

V8RX7 said:

vonhosen said:

What exactly am I in a minority of in taking that position?
Rational thought?

You are in a minority because you don't question anything

You blindly follow rules and believe they are correct regardless

Not true, I've said so on many occasions.

V8RX7 said:

A road near me was NSL, then a 50, in the last few weeks is now double white lines too.

So for 30+ years I've safely and legally overtaken there, almost daily, you would happily report me if I did so now and would think I'm unreasonable to question it.

I wouldn't be reporting you.
I wouldn't think you unreasonable to ask questions of those who have implemented the changes.
It's also your choice to observe the restrictions or not.
But it would be unreasonable for you to expect that you not be reported where you do make the choice to go against the restrictions that have been implemented.

[Hungrymc]

vonhosen said:

And the successive governments of both main flavours, that have been voted in by the electorate, have presided over the legislation & sentencing guidelines we do have.

It really is pretty pointless comparing or complaining about various individual cases, none of which we will be privy to the full sentencing considerations for when making those comparisons or complaints.

Is the recent decision to allow cameras into crown court an indication that the authorities recognize there an issue with transparency? I'd suggest it a good move and it may demonstrate that your trust in the system and the "full evidence" fully explaining what can appear as inconsistent sentencing is fully founded. Or it may show that the "prior conviction and full evidence" argument is not the whole story.

Good to see the authorities recognizing the need to modernize and be more accountable either way.

And Pointless? We can't discuss anything without 100% clarity on all facts? We can't have an opinion or a discussion based on the limited facts we do have? Erm, okey dokey.

[vonhosen]

Hungrymc said:

vonhosen said:

And the successive governments of both main flavours, that have been voted in by the electorate, have presided over the legislation & sentencing guidelines we do have.

It really is pretty pointless comparing or complaining about various individual cases, none of which we will be privy to the full sentencing considerations for when making those comparisons or complaints.

Is the recent decision to allow cameras into crown court an indication that the authorities recognize there an issue with transparency? I'd suggest it a good move and it may demonstrate that your trust in the system and the "full evidence" fully explaining what can appear as inconsistent sentencing is fully founded. Or it may show that the "prior conviction and full evidence" argument is not the whole story.

Good to see the authorities recognizing the need to modernize and be more accountable either way.

And Pointless? We can't discuss anything without 100% clarity on all facts? We can't have an opinion or a discussion based on the limited facts we do have? Erm, okey dokey.

Accountability & transparency has been moving forwards for decades.

I'm saying it's pointless taking hard positions when comparing individual decisions when we don't have all the facts the decision was based on. If we have all the facts & the sentencing guidelines available that's fine, but it's not an informed opinion if we don't, it's just based on your gut & personal prejudices rather than information. That's not a reasoned debate.

Like I say expressing an opinion on wider policy, such as should anyone ever be imprisoned for an offence of dangerous driving, is a valid discussion to have where opinions also have some validity within the argument, but to compare the individual outcomes of two cases without knowing the information or reasoning behind them is pure folly & serves no useful purpose.

[black-k1]

vonhosen said:

...

I'm saying it's pointless taking hard positions when comparing individual decisions when we don't have all the facts the decision was based on. If we have all the facts & the sentencing guidelines available that's fine, but it's not an informed opinion if we don't, it's just based on your gut & personal prejudices rather than information. That's not a reasoned debate.

...

On this occasion Von, I'm not sure I 100% agree. While no one can fully understand the details of any given specific decision, the old adage of justice being done and being seen to be done applies, at least in part. What this specific case highlights is that the "being seen to be done" part may not have been achieved, at least for some.

I'd also suggest that reasoned depute is generally based on personal experience and understanding. Someone elses experience and understanding may appear as a prejudice to you but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be part of reasoned debate.

[vonhosen]

black-k1 said:

vonhosen said:

...

I'm saying it's pointless taking hard positions when comparing individual decisions when we don't have all the facts the decision was based on. If we have all the facts & the sentencing guidelines available that's fine, but it's not an informed opinion if we don't, it's just based on your gut & personal prejudices rather than information. That's not a reasoned debate.

...

On this occasion Von, I'm not sure I 100% agree. While no one can fully understand the details of any given specific decision, the old adage of justice being done and being seen to be done applies, at least in part. What this specific case highlights is that the "being seen to be done" part may not have been achieved, at least for some.

I'd also suggest that reasoned depute is generally based on personal experience and understanding. Someone elses experience and understanding may appear as a prejudice to you but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be part of reasoned debate.

If you administer justice on the basis/criteria that you want it match what people observing 'expect' (not that you can hope to please all the people all the time with any verdict anyway), then you are merely playing to their prejudices (when their expectation is not based on the facts/guidelines).

That's not what I call justice or hope that our courts would do. I want them to deal with it on the facts before them & to the guidelines set. Not their own prejudices & not to appease those of others either.

We can only know if it's right or not when we have that information.
Like I said, there is an appeals process available to act as safety check where those with sufficient information suspect it's not right.

[anonymous-user]

Esceptico said:

I think you are mixing “facts” with your personal opinion (which you are perfectly entitled to hold).

As far as I can tell, the actual “facts” are

- there is a crime of dangerous driving
- under current legislation the three were found guilty of dangerous driving
- under current sentencing guidelines custodial sentences can be given for dangerous driving
- no one on here knows what prior convictions the three have or the full evidence out before the court which the judge would have taken into account when passing the sentences

It is a fact that you disagree but the reality is that your opinion doesn’t count because it has no impact on the legislation, policing or sentencing.

It is a fact that some people (not surprising those on a car and bike forum) agree with you. However there will be many (I suspect many more) who don’t. As an acid test, trying show the clip to some family or friends with no interest in cars and bikes and see what they think.

Was that a yes or no?

[black-k1]

vonhosen said:

black-k1 said:

vonhosen said:

...

I'm saying it's pointless taking hard positions when comparing individual decisions when we don't have all the facts the decision was based on. If we have all the facts & the sentencing guidelines available that's fine, but it's not an informed opinion if we don't, it's just based on your gut & personal prejudices rather than information. That's not a reasoned debate.

...

On this occasion Von, I'm not sure I 100% agree. While no one can fully understand the details of any given specific decision, the old adage of justice being done and being seen to be done applies, at least in part. What this specific case highlights is that the "being seen to be done" part may not have been achieved, at least for some.

I'd also suggest that reasoned depute is generally based on personal experience and understanding. Someone elses experience and understanding may appear as a prejudice to you but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be part of reasoned debate.

If you administer justice on the basis/criteria that you want it match what people observing 'expect' (not that you can hope to please all the people all the time with any verdict anyway), then you are merely playing to their prejudices (when their expectation is not based on the facts/guidelines).

That's not what I call justice or hope that our courts would do. I want them to deal with it on the facts before them & to the guidelines set. Not their own prejudices & not to appease those of others either.

We can only know if it's right or not when we have that information.
Like I said, there is an appeals process available to act as safety check where those with sufficient information suspect it's not right.

Justice can only be administered because the “people” allow it and the level of justice is determined by what is acceptable/expected by that population. While attempting to adjust the goalposts on a case-by-case basis is not a sensible thing to do, it’s also not sensible to ignore reaction to specific cases when looking at the bigger, more generic, picture. Often, specific examples can highlight anomalies in a generic system providing evidence of the limitations of that system and showing a requirement for change.

Simply because someone does not agree with a specific example does not mean they are prejudice. I accept that without all the facts their opinion will not be fully informed but as long as they all accept that they are not fully informed then their opinion is still valid (as their opinion on what they know). Clarifying what they don’t know is really the only way to demonstrate that their opinion is based in incorrect assumptions.

History is full of situations where laws, seen originally as correct and just, have been replaced/repealed and are now seen as unjust and unfair. Often these changes have stemmed from one or two specific examples. I’m not saying this is, or is likely to be, such a situation, but merely highlighting that things are not quite as black and white.

There is an appeals process but, like much of the justice system, it penalises those who don’t conform then fail to win. Part of the decision to appeal is – is the risk of the impact of losing greater than the benefit of wining, regardless of “right and wrong”.

And, before you ask, no, I don’t have a better alternative but that doesn’t make the current system right.

[vonhosen]

black-k1 said:

vonhosen said:

black-k1 said:

vonhosen said:

...

I'm saying it's pointless taking hard positions when comparing individual decisions when we don't have all the facts the decision was based on. If we have all the facts & the sentencing guidelines available that's fine, but it's not an informed opinion if we don't, it's just based on your gut & personal prejudices rather than information. That's not a reasoned debate.

...

On this occasion Von, I'm not sure I 100% agree. While no one can fully understand the details of any given specific decision, the old adage of justice being done and being seen to be done applies, at least in part. What this specific case highlights is that the "being seen to be done" part may not have been achieved, at least for some.

I'd also suggest that reasoned depute is generally based on personal experience and understanding. Someone elses experience and understanding may appear as a prejudice to you but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be part of reasoned debate.

If you administer justice on the basis/criteria that you want it match what people observing 'expect' (not that you can hope to please all the people all the time with any verdict anyway), then you are merely playing to their prejudices (when their expectation is not based on the facts/guidelines).

That's not what I call justice or hope that our courts would do. I want them to deal with it on the facts before them & to the guidelines set. Not their own prejudices & not to appease those of others either.

We can only know if it's right or not when we have that information.
Like I said, there is an appeals process available to act as safety check where those with sufficient information suspect it's not right.

Justice can only be administered because the “people” allow it and the level of justice is determined by what is acceptable/expected by that population. While attempting to adjust the goalposts on a case-by-case basis is not a sensible thing to do, it’s also not sensible to ignore reaction to specific cases when looking at the bigger, more generic, picture. Often, specific examples can highlight anomalies in a generic system providing evidence of the limitations of that system and showing a requirement for change.

Simply because someone does not agree with a specific example does not mean they are prejudice. I accept that without all the facts their opinion will not be fully informed but as long as they all accept that they are not fully informed then their opinion is still valid (as their opinion on what they know). Clarifying what they don’t know is really the only way to demonstrate that their opinion is based in incorrect assumptions.

History is full of situations where laws, seen originally as correct and just, have been replaced/repealed and are now seen as unjust and unfair. Often these changes have stemmed from one or two specific examples. I’m not saying this is, or is likely to be, such a situation, but merely highlighting that things are not quite as black and white.

There is an appeals process but, like much of the justice system, it penalises those who don’t conform then fail to win. Part of the decision to appeal is – is the risk of the impact of losing greater than the benefit of wining, regardless of “right and wrong”.

And, before you ask, no, I don’t have a better alternative but that doesn’t make the current system right.

There is no evidence 'the people' (as a critical mass of the populace) are up in arms about this. That they in some way believe justice has not been done.

The evidence would suggest the people have 'allowed' it (as you put it) & that only a minority are objecting. A minority who if they are honest when questioned would admit that they do so without the full facts.

I've said I am not against & indeed believe it is valid for people to debate opinions on the wider issue, on questions such as 'should dangerous drivers ever be imprisoned?'.
But an objection about the sentencing in individual cases, with regard to the law as it is now & not just what they'd like it to be, is useless without the facts.
The appeal courts don't deal with the wider issue of 'is it right/wrong for the offence of dangerous driving to have the potential for you to be imprisoned? That's for parliament to consider. They deal with if the guidelines have been followed & the correct sentence arrived at with regard to them & the full facts/circumstances.

[Esceptico]

Dangerous driving can and does lead to innocent people being killed. Therefore I support custodial sentences for dangerous driving.

I am less certain on what should be classified as dangerous driving worthy of a custodial sentence. I think it has to go beyond just those cases where people have been seriously injured and killed.

If I were to walk down a city street with a a gun, randomly shooting with no care as to whether I was going to hit someone or not (although not aiming at people) would it matter if I did it did not hit people in assessing the crime? Same for dangerous driving if people willingly put others at risk even if there is no intention to harm.

[anonymous-user]

Esceptico said:

Dangerous driving can and does lead to innocent people being killed. Therefore I support custodial sentences for dangerous driving.

I am less certain on what should be classified as dangerous driving worthy of a custodial sentence. I think it has to go beyond just those cases where people have been seriously injured and killed.

If I were to walk down a city street with a a gun, randomly shooting with no care as to whether I was going to hit someone or not (although not aiming at people) would it matter if I did it did not hit people in assessing the crime? Same for dangerous driving if people willingly put others at risk even if there is no intention to harm.

Of course there's a difference!

Poor analogy.

[Hungrymc]

Esceptico said:

Dangerous driving can and does lead to innocent people being killed. Therefore I support custodial sentences for dangerous driving.

I am less certain on what should be classified as dangerous driving worthy of a custodial sentence. I think it has to go beyond just those cases where people have been seriously injured and killed.

If I were to walk down a city street with a a gun, randomly shooting with no care as to whether I was going to hit someone or not (although not aiming at people) would it matter if I did it did not hit people in assessing the crime? Same for dangerous driving if people willingly put others at risk even if there is no intention to harm.

Your first and second paragraph I agree with. I think some more quantifiable criteria would help and it’s troubling to see apparent inconsistencies in the sentencing (the Hartley example which include some aggravating circumstances). Maybe it’s all explained by prior convictions etc (even though one fled the scene of the accident). And I’d add that it’s pretty clear the riding was well towards the bad end of the spectrum.

I’m not convinced by the relevance of the analogy.

[vonhosen]

Hungrymc said:

Esceptico said:

Dangerous driving can and does lead to innocent people being killed. Therefore I support custodial sentences for dangerous driving.

I am less certain on what should be classified as dangerous driving worthy of a custodial sentence. I think it has to go beyond just those cases where people have been seriously injured and killed.

If I were to walk down a city street with a a gun, randomly shooting with no care as to whether I was going to hit someone or not (although not aiming at people) would it matter if I did it did not hit people in assessing the crime? Same for dangerous driving if people willingly put others at risk even if there is no intention to harm.

Your first and second paragraph I agree with. I think some more quantifiable criteria would help and it’s troubling to see apparent inconsistencies in the sentencing (the Hartley example which include some aggravating circumstances). Maybe it’s all explained by prior convictions etc (even though one fled the scene of the accident). And I’d add that it’s pretty clear the riding was well towards the bad end of the spectrum.

I’m not convinced by the relevance of the analogy.

The purpose of the analogy, I believe, is he is expressing a belief that no harm no foul is not applicable to dangerous driving, in respect that it should still be dealt with robustly with due regard to the actions, even in the absence of injury/damage. As it also should with discharging a firearm in a public place resulting in no injury/damage.

[exgtt]

Anyone who films themselves breaking the law deserves whatever they get.

[anonymous-user]

vonhosen said:

The purpose of the analogy, I believe, is he is expressing a belief that no harm no foul is not applicable to dangerous driving, in respect that it should still be dealt with robustly with due regard to the actions, even in the absence of injury/damage. As it also should with discharging a firearm in a public place resulting in no injury/damage.

Then treat every dangerous driving offence exactly the same. Let’s just assume the worst outcome for everything.

Good plan 1/10

[Hungrymc]

yonex said:

Then treat every dangerous driving offence exactly the same. Let’s just assume the worst outcome for everything.

Good plan 1/10

I think they mean to treat them all the same as utter recklessness with a firearm which apparently is very similar?

So the Hartley one I shared earlier... DD, causing an accident and fleeing the scene, According to the current system is more like a kid playing with a catapult ?