The Student Room Group

18 year old girl kills while drunk behind the wheel, gets 5 years in prison.

..
(edited 9 years ago)

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Sulpha
What a joke.

Some stupid drunk teenaged girl runs over a cyclist taking part in a charity bike ride and kills him leaving his 3 children without a father and she gets a 5 year sentence meaning she'll probably be out in like 3 years.

A man was also sentenced recently for the same type of offence and got 9 years.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-30553947
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-30531218

Thoughts ?


There's struck guidelines for giving out prison sentences. Numerous factors at play such as previous, age, intent etc. The one story talks of driving over the limit 33mph over the limit.

It's a fine balancing out. No matter what happens the guy isn't coming back to life. But should the girl ruin her life for a mistake?
Original post by Sulpha
You could argue a multitude of others crimes occurred as the result of mistakes and automatically get way harsher punishments.

5 years for killing someone's husband and the father to 3 children is incredibly insulting.


As I say. It depends what the judges guidelines are.
Original post by Sulpha
5 years for killing someone's husband and the father to 3 children is incredibly insulting.


would you be OK with it if he was single and childless?
Original post by Autumnsong
would you be OK with it if he was single and childless?


This.
Original post by MatureStudent36
There's struck guidelines for giving out prison sentences. Numerous factors at play such as previous, age, intent etc. The one story talks of driving over the limit 33mph over the limit.

It's a fine balancing out. No matter what happens the guy isn't coming back to life. But should the girl ruin her life for a mistake?

And I know the girl ruined at least 4 lifes and took away away a mans life.
Original post by Nitrogen
And I know the girl ruined at least 4 lifes and took away away a mans life.


She ruined a lot more than that. She impacted on everybody's lives who knew him.

She's also impacted her own life and those that know her.
Original post by Sulpha
Are you asking me a sincere question or are you being sarcastic ?

If it's the latter please point out to me where I gave off the impression that it would be ok.



You can do the same as well.


It's not so much that you said it would be okay. But you certainly made it seem like just because he has a wife and kids his death would be worse than that of a single man with no children, a single man with no children still deserves justice.
When did social life become going out for a drink?
What do you want people to say?

Everyone knows that there is a gender bias in court. Men generally get longer sentences than women.
She'll be out in 2

Posted from TSR Mobile
Yeah its pathetic women get a lighter sentence than men in pretty much most cases. Judge probably fancied her
Original post by Sulpha
What a joke.

Some stupid drunk teenaged girl runs over a cyclist taking part in a charity bike ride and kills him leaving his 3 children without a father and she gets a 5 year sentence meaning she'll probably be out in like 3 years.

A man was also sentenced recently for the same type of offence and got 9 years.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-30553947
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-30531218

Thoughts ?


They were sentenced in two different countries.

The man had a recent previous conviction for doing 90mph in a 60 mph area and in Scotland got only 2 years knocked off a starting point of 11 for a guilty plea.

The starting point for the most serious type of causing death by dangerous driving in England is 8 years, with a 1/3 discount for a guilty plea. Therefore with no aggravating or mitigating factors she would have got 5 years 4 months. Given that she was barely an adult offender, 5 years would seem entirely in line with guidance for personal mitigation.

The reality is that the Scottish judge's starting point (we don't actually know precisely where he started before adding in the previous offence) was much closer to the 14 year statutory maximum than the English Sentencing Council would have considered appropriate.

It is the Scottish sentence that looks too high. There isn't a lot of "headroom" above 11 years within the statutory maximum of 14 years to deal with more serious cases than this one with not guilty pleas.

The difference in the guilty plea discount is just a feature of the difference between the two legal systems.

Nothing to do with the gender of the offender though.
Reply 13
You can't compare the sentences, England+Wales and Scotland aren't the same.
What's this about a black box in her car? Never heard of that in my life before.

Anyone able to find a similar example with a man? It's well known that women receive far less harsh punishments for the same crimes as men.
Original post by Spetznaaz
What's this about a black box in her car? Never heard of that in my life before.


Nowadays there are a lot of insurance policies for younger drivers which involve having a black box that measures how 'safe' a driver you are by monitoring your driving for things like speed, force around corners, number of abrupt stops/harsh breaking, time of day you drive and a number of other things. You get discounts for being safe and pay more if you're not safe by their measurements.
Original post by MatureStudent36
There's struck guidelines for giving out prison sentences. Numerous factors at play such as previous, age, intent etc. The one story talks of driving over the limit 33mph over the limit.

It's a fine balancing out. No matter what happens the guy isn't coming back to life. But should the girl ruin her life for a mistake?


She's killed someone whose never coming back, why shouldn't her life be ruined? She's ruined his family's life. She deserves it
Original post by Mercedes7
She's killed someone whose never coming back, why shouldn't her life be ruined? She's ruined his family's life. She deserves it


Society has generally found that perpetual punishment for a mistake shouldn't be a life time of punishment for punishments sake, we go for rehabilitation.

She made a mistake and there but for the grave of god it could've been anybody else.
Original post by MatureStudent36
Society has generally found that perpetual punishment for a mistake shouldn't be a life time of punishment for punishments sake, we go for rehabilitation.

She made a mistake and there but for the grave of god it could've been anybody else.


Typical liberal cowardice, complacency and apologist. People must be punished for their crimes!

People need to take responsibility for their actions. But liberals don't want this.

She should be branded a killer (of an innocent man). There should be a list naming and shaming killers like her, we do it with see offenders.

Posted from TSR Mobile
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by ESPORTIVA
Typical liberal cowardice, complacency and apologist. People must be punished for their crimes!

People need to take responsibility for their actions. But liberals don't want this.

She should be branded a killer (of an innocent man). There should be a list naming and shaming killers like her, we do it with see offenders.

Posted from TSR Mobile


I've been called many things in my time, but a liberal isn't one of them.

She is being punished for her crimes. She's got a three year sentence.

She'll be branded as a killer until the day she dies.

You've obviously been touched by this case or one very similar. What happened?

Quick Reply

Latest