Discussion
My Daughter's best friends suffered a most grevious loss last Christmas. At 00-30 hours on Christmas morning their 18-year old daughter was crossing the road in the centre of St. Neots, at a pedestrian crossing, when she and her boyfriend were hit by a drunken 21 year old driver in an old BMW 3-series at a speed estimated at between 57 and 65 mph. This in a 30 limit. The driver was well over the drink limit. In fact he got out of the car and said "did I just do that?" Her parents witnessed the whole episode as they had all just left the church after midnight mass, so the young lady was not 'in-drink'. Her boyfriend suffered multiple fractures which have, effectively, destroyed his career as a physical training instructor.
After 4 weks on life support the young lady lost her battle and died, the car driver being prosecuted for Death by Dangerous and DD. His sentance was 6 years inside and a 15 year ban.
However, last week an appeal judge reduced the term of imprisonment from 6 to 5 years. Oh, dear, 6 years was too long for what he did, was it? I guess he'll spend 30 months inside, come out and drive whilst disqualified.
What do we think of that then?
After 4 weks on life support the young lady lost her battle and died, the car driver being prosecuted for Death by Dangerous and DD. His sentance was 6 years inside and a 15 year ban.
However, last week an appeal judge reduced the term of imprisonment from 6 to 5 years. Oh, dear, 6 years was too long for what he did, was it? I guess he'll spend 30 months inside, come out and drive whilst disqualified.
What do we think of that then?
Sick.
Wouldnt it be a better idea that if someone is grossly over the drink drive limit and kills someone that the sentance is upgraded to murder? That would hopefully put more people off doing it if the sentance would be 25 years (but im sure the busybodies would make sure that it was only 2 years with good behaviour!
Wouldnt it be a better idea that if someone is grossly over the drink drive limit and kills someone that the sentance is upgraded to murder? That would hopefully put more people off doing it if the sentance would be 25 years (but im sure the busybodies would make sure that it was only 2 years with good behaviour!
gh0st said:
Sick.
Wouldnt it be a better idea that if someone is grossly over the drink drive limit and kills someone that the sentance is upgraded to murder? That would hopefully put more people off doing it if the sentance would be 25 years (but im sure the busybodies would make sure that it was only 2 years with good behaviour!
It would not.
Murder is about pre meditated killing, not recklessness. If there is recklessness involved, it can only be manslaughter (Cunningham/Caldwell recklessness as defined by the courts Subjective or objective)
There is a substantive offence of murder against common law. It does not stop people committing the offence!
As a father of two...I can't find the words to imagine what her parents must have and are going through...
I, like other BiB on here are privvy to information which the general public don't get to see. This means that we come into contact with these 'sentences' regularly and it starts to just numb you after a while.
I've broken the news to relatives of road death victims and seen their pain first hand. I've been with them through the investigation and in the lead up to the trial of the person who caused their daughter/son/mother/father/sister, whoever to die. Then when a paltry sentence is handed down to the offender, I've seen the look of despair in the relatives eyes.
It's not simply that Justice hasn't been done, it's the fact that their loved ones lives seem to be worth so little in the eyes of the law...
Street
I, like other BiB on here are privvy to information which the general public don't get to see. This means that we come into contact with these 'sentences' regularly and it starts to just numb you after a while.
I've broken the news to relatives of road death victims and seen their pain first hand. I've been with them through the investigation and in the lead up to the trial of the person who caused their daughter/son/mother/father/sister, whoever to die. Then when a paltry sentence is handed down to the offender, I've seen the look of despair in the relatives eyes.
It's not simply that Justice hasn't been done, it's the fact that their loved ones lives seem to be worth so little in the eyes of the law...
Street
I have to say that the Cambridgeshire Police were absolutely fantastic in this case. They were helpful and very supportive to the family.
One police officer, in conversation with my son-in-law about this said that if you want to kill someone it is best to do it with a car, then the most you are likely to get is Death by Dangerous Driving and a very short sentance. Almost never has murder been proved when a vehicle was directly involved. Is that true, gone?
Apparently one of our national daily papers has picked up on this and has interviewed the parents this week. The young lady's parents are currently campaigning for causing death by drunken driving to be automatically made manslaughter. What success they'll have is anyone's guess.
One police officer, in conversation with my son-in-law about this said that if you want to kill someone it is best to do it with a car, then the most you are likely to get is Death by Dangerous Driving and a very short sentance. Almost never has murder been proved when a vehicle was directly involved. Is that true, gone?
Apparently one of our national daily papers has picked up on this and has interviewed the parents this week. The young lady's parents are currently campaigning for causing death by drunken driving to be automatically made manslaughter. What success they'll have is anyone's guess.
Maybe we should rename this thread "What Revenge?"
Our intincts may be to demand a stiffer sentence when an innocent is killed, especially when it is one of our loved ones, but the sentence should fit the crime, not the consequence. If this idiot had careered into a field, killing no-one, the crime committed is the same and so should be the sentence.
Our intincts may be to demand a stiffer sentence when an innocent is killed, especially when it is one of our loved ones, but the sentence should fit the crime, not the consequence. If this idiot had careered into a field, killing no-one, the crime committed is the same and so should be the sentence.
Alex said:
Maybe we should rename this thread "What Revenge?"
Our intincts may be to demand a stiffer sentence when an innocent is killed, especially when it is one of our loved ones, but the sentence should fit the crime, not the consequence. If this idiot had careered into a field, killing no-one, the crime committed is the same and so should be the sentence.
So you'd be quite happy with a fine and a few points if some drunken prat wiped out a member of your familly?
ca092003 said:
I think we are back to the old arguement: 'Do we punish the crime or the consequences of the crime'?
Personally, I think all drink drivers should go to jail.
Yes, bang 'em all up!
That's what everyone wants, but will it ever happen.
BRAKE says DD is on the increase and must be addressed. That's one bit of sense from them at long last.
The terrible situation here is that no camera could have prevented this.
If anyone is interested, I'll find out how you can add your voice to the campaign to make D by DD the equal of manslaughter in the eyes of the law, with appropriate sentances.
I understand my husband has already covered this elsewhere on here and on Paulie's site as well.
mahali (contributor on there) has petition on this very issue. She was on Crimewatch with her husband (Don posted a thread on this when story first broke as well.) Hayley Day aged 12 was passenger in a car. The driver of the car she was travelling in lost control after twazak/scrote forced him off the road. Witnesses say this car drove along a Kent road at 85mph plus, causing people to swerve and brake to avoid him. After the series of collisions which killed Hayley... the scrote drove off and has never been caught. The Days launched campaign to ensure that he serves proper sentence should he ever get caught - which he has not been und the case has been closed on basis that "media coverage will mean he will not fair trial if we do catch him" What kind of message ist that? .
However, as Stressed Dave commented to Mad Doc in his reply on here..... these scum have no respect for the law. Prison? Occupational hazard!
Ban? hahahahaha! Short of chopping off their arms and legs...... how do we actually prevent them from adhering to this ban. After all - not like we have traffic police as we used to!
Ach ja ... let me recap!
Speed camera solve all our problems don't they! They jump up and down and catch the scum in his untaxed, unregistered throwaway car
Mad Doc cited case which was in Manchester paper. Driver (banned TWICE before - aged only 19 now! Banned for 3 years in April 2003) gets sent down for just 15 months after driving his car into a wall wit such force that the engine ripped out of the chassis and landed near the window of someone's house and his back seat passenger was hurled out of rear window und collided with lamp-post 40 metres away. His friend will never stand again nor use his left aarm again.
Cavalier attitude... "He will not be getting in car for long time" said his defence....
Oh yeah!???? He was banned I gather for further two years. So... that means he will be able to drive legally again in 2006? When both current bans expire?
Und how do we stop him driving? Or how do we catch him at it again?
Oh yes - we know camera und not a policeman.
Und yes - they were speeding ..... but these are the truly dangerous for whom scamera means zero. They would even challenge Trafpols into highly dangerous pursuits - but rather the trafpol at least try to catch them and lock them away for short spell - und emphasis would seem to be on "short".
Personally - Durham Jail, bread und water, a boot camp - und I would chuck away the key!
Stick the speed camera in place where sun does not shine, spend on trafpol und have a punishment system which really hammers scrotes und half baked pretzels!
But then ... speed camera - easy pickings from the safe who end up with similar length bans under tot-up und pay up the fines und the extra insurances und actually abide by the laws - but we cannot be too tough on those who deliberately flout the law by drinking, drugging and dann getting into car. driving really recklessly, fail to tax, insure, or even qualify as driver in first place!
Because - diddums - they cannot help it!
By the way - the St Neots' PE teacher's collapsed and punctured lung from the accident? Member of this family was one of the surgeons.
This ist one of the things which makes me a bit cross
mahali (contributor on there) has petition on this very issue. She was on Crimewatch with her husband (Don posted a thread on this when story first broke as well.) Hayley Day aged 12 was passenger in a car. The driver of the car she was travelling in lost control after twazak/scrote forced him off the road. Witnesses say this car drove along a Kent road at 85mph plus, causing people to swerve and brake to avoid him. After the series of collisions which killed Hayley... the scrote drove off and has never been caught. The Days launched campaign to ensure that he serves proper sentence should he ever get caught - which he has not been und the case has been closed on basis that "media coverage will mean he will not fair trial if we do catch him"
What kind of message ist that? . However, as Stressed Dave commented to Mad Doc in his reply on here..... these scum have no respect for the law. Prison? Occupational hazard!
Ban? hahahahaha! Short of chopping off their arms and legs...... how do we actually prevent them from adhering to this ban. After all - not like we have traffic police as we used to!
Ach ja ... let me recap!
Speed camera solve all our problems don't they! They jump up and down and catch the scum in his untaxed, unregistered throwaway car
Mad Doc cited case which was in Manchester paper. Driver (banned TWICE before - aged only 19 now! Banned for 3 years in April 2003) gets sent down for just 15 months after driving his car into a wall wit such force that the engine ripped out of the chassis and landed near the window of someone's house and his back seat passenger was hurled out of rear window und collided with lamp-post 40 metres away.
His friend will never stand again nor use his left aarm again. Cavalier attitude... "He will not be getting in car for long time" said his defence....
Oh yeah!???? He was banned I gather for further two years. So... that means he will be able to drive legally again in 2006? When both current bans expire?
Und how do we stop him driving? Or how do we catch him at it again?
Oh yes - we know
camera und not a policeman. Und yes - they were speeding ..... but these are the truly dangerous for whom scamera means zero. They would even challenge Trafpols into highly dangerous pursuits - but rather the trafpol at least try to catch them and lock them away for short spell - und emphasis would seem to be on "short".
Personally - Durham Jail, bread und water, a boot camp - und I would chuck away the key!
Stick the speed camera in place where sun does not shine, spend on trafpol und have a punishment system which really hammers scrotes und half baked pretzels!
But then ... speed camera - easy pickings from the safe who end up with similar length bans under tot-up und pay up the fines und the extra insurances und actually abide by the laws - but we cannot be too tough on those who deliberately flout the law by drinking, drugging and dann getting into car. driving really recklessly, fail to tax, insure, or even qualify as driver in first place!
Because - diddums - they cannot help it!
By the way - the St Neots' PE teacher's collapsed and punctured lung from the accident? Member of this family was one of the surgeons.
This ist one of the things which makes me a bit cross
Cooperman said:
Almost never has murder been proved when a vehicle was directly involved. Is that true, gone?
I would say it is true. The difficulty comes when the offence of murder is considered by the investigator.
Unless there is overwhelming evidence of someone deliberately driving over someone to kill them (i.e. several witnessed attempts before success or an admission, then it is almost impossible to prove.
cooperman said:
Apparently one of our national daily papers has picked up on this and has interviewed the parents this week. The young lady's parents are currently campaigning for causing death by drunken driving to be automatically made manslaughter. What success they'll have is anyone's guess.
Stranger things have happened! MacPherson?
Streetcop said:
WildCat...
Hello...hope you're returning to normal size and the necessary parts are retaining their suppleness..
Have you campaigned much for increased Trafpol numbers....?
Written to many chief constables, MPs? On a regular basis?
Danke Liebchen.
My figure ist returning to normal stand of purrr-fection.... Should be back to slim, but voluptuous curves in not time.... but running after the kittens ... keeps you fit and burns off the excess...
Littlest kitten is too cute for words. Do indeed dress her in the frilliest dresses. She loves the car, gurgles und chuckles at decent blat on fastish roads, does not like it stopping und grizzles when we stop at lights, in jam or go over road humps.....She ist in cot - sucking on her little thumb - watching me at the moment.... cute little grin on her face.
As matter of fact - do write to MPs and CCs in Cumbria und Lancs - they get regular letters - suggesting trafpols und not cams. Dick Ed, of course is a complete waste of space.... he never replies nor listens..... not even to our rantings on subject of drugs und proper policing ..... und family medics and myself know a thing or two about those .....
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff