Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Speeding driver who caused death only gets six months in prison watch

    • TSR Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Really not sure what the justice system is coming to when a man who kills a pregnant woman by dangerous driving only gets a six month sentence
    http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news...D=FB-Birm-main
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Very Important Poster
    That's just ridiculous. I've noticed quite often recently, that sentences for death by dangerous driving are only a year which is just stupid. Where's the justice?
    • Section Leader
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    He should be behind bars for years to come.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Was literally joking about this before I'd even seen this story. Saying if you felt so inclined, it seems the best way of committing murder is to "accidentally" lose control of your vehicle and plow them down, even if you're speeding a bit, since causing death by dangerous driving seems to get you a much shorter sentence.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rock Fan)
    Really not sure what the justice system is coming to when a man who kills a pregnant woman by dangerous driving only gets a six month sentence
    http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news...D=FB-Birm-main
    Why is his behaviour morally worse than a dangerous driver who doesn't hit someone or hits someone but by reason of pure good luck, does not kill or seriously injure them?

    Do you think all dangerous drivers should spend years in gaol regardless of whether they hit anyone or not?

    When you are thinking about those questions you may come to realise why these sentences are relatively short. Drivers such as this one are being sentenced for the consequences of their actions and not their moral culpability. He has driven like a prat, but so do thousands of others every day. It was simply his bad luck that in so driving, he has hit and killed whilst others did not. Neither he nor those other drivers intended to kill anyone.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    Why is his behaviour morally worse than a dangerous driver who doesn't hit someone or hits someone but by reason of pure good luck, does not kill or seriously injure them?

    Do you think all dangerous drivers should spend years in gaol regardless of whether they hit anyone or not?

    When you are thinking about those questions you may come to realise why these sentences are relatively short. Drivers such as this one are being sentenced for the consequences of their actions and not their moral culpability. He has driven like a prat, but so do thousands of others every day. It was simply his bad luck that in so driving, he has hit and killed whilst others did not. Neither he nor those other drivers intended to kill anyone.
    Well surely if you speed you run the risk of killing someone
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rock Fan)
    Well surely if you speed you run the risk of killing someone
    If you get behind the wheel of a car you run the risk of killing someone.

    If you speed you run a greater risk of killing someone.

    The worse the driving the greater the risk of killing someone.

    But more people who speed do not kill anyone, than do kill anyone.

    The blameworthiness is the same whether you speed, hit and kill someone, or whether you speed and they just jump out of the way in time.

    I should also say that in this particular case the Crown accepted a plea of causing death by careless driving (a lesser offence) rather than causing death by dangerous driving as his speeding was not significantly above the speed limit.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    If you get behind the wheel of a car you run the risk of killing someone.

    If you speed you run a greater risk of killing someone.

    The worse the driving the greater the risk of killing someone.

    But more people who speed do not kill anyone, than do kill anyone.

    The blameworthiness is the same whether you speed, hit and kill someone, or whether you speed and they just jump out of the way in time.

    I should also say that in this particular case the Crown accepted a plea of causing death by careless driving (a lesser offence) rather than causing death by dangerous driving as his speeding was not significantly above the speed limit.
    Would you be saying this if this was say your wife or a family relative.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    Why is his behaviour morally worse than a dangerous driver who doesn't hit someone or hits someone but by reason of pure good luck, does not kill or seriously injure them?

    Do you think all dangerous drivers should spend years in gaol regardless of whether they hit anyone or not?

    When you are thinking about those questions you may come to realise why these sentences are relatively short. Drivers such as this one are being sentenced for the consequences of their actions and not their moral culpability. He has driven like a prat, but so do thousands of others every day. It was simply his bad luck that in so driving, he has hit and killed whilst others did not. Neither he nor those other drivers intended to kill anyone.
    This. He never intended to do any harm, just had somewhere to be and risked a ticket to get there. There was no way killing someone was anywhere in his mind and this not by callousness but by pure human logic, hundreds of thousands of people speed every day but deaths caused by it are so few and far in between that they make the news (ie are a really rare event). He is probably deeply affected and a harsh punishment will not bring back the dead, nor will it deter a crime that - in a demanding fast paced society - can often be a crime of necessity which people will risk because the correlation between speeding and causing deaths is minor in so far as the chance is miniscule. He deserves punishment for risking peoples lives by being a muppet but not to have his own ruined any further than it undoubtedly is. He will have lost his license and his job, will have a criminal record and a dismissal note making it hard to get re-employed and will now automatically lose his license if its reinstated if he commits any driving offence. These are the consequences of his actions and he needs to own them but it helps nobody - particularly when actual murderers with the intent to kill can be out in a couple of years if they plead manslaughter - in no small part because we simply dont have the space in prisons so wasting a cell to keep someone who is not a real danger to society locked away as revenge is potentially exposing people to worse crimes anyway. Individually he will suffer severe consequences - he has his justice for his actions. Society shouldnt need to see him nailed to the cross for their own personal satisfaction.

    (Original post by Rock Fan)
    Well surely if you speed you run the risk of killing someone
    If you do anything you run the risk of killing someone. Driving at the limit or at all, operating machinery, cooking, cleaning, any task you can think of runs the risk of potentially causing death. This cannot be a reason unto itself to justify any sort of life sentence in this mans case, the precedent would be potentially dangerous as purposively it is what i just described.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rock Fan)
    Would you be saying this if this was say your wife or a family relative.
    Saying what? That he is as guilty as every speeding motorist who didn't hit the member of my family? Yes I would.

    I may want "my" motorist gaoled for as long as possible; but would I be willing as a taxpayer to pay for lots of other relatives' speeding drivers to be gaoled for years, then I wouldn't, particularly if it meant rapists, armed robbers and child molesters being let out of prison early so that speeding motorists could spend longer in gaol.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by nulli tertius)

    Do you think all dangerous drivers should spend years in gaol regardless of whether they hit anyone or not?
    No. But if you hit someone, you should some quite a long time in jail. I used to know someone who drives like an idiot. In doing so, he was putting his life, my life and that of other people at serious risk. He was lucky that when he was dumb enough to speed or use his mobile phone, (he was swerving around the road when that happened) nothing serious happened. He then wondered why they threatened to take away his licence time and time again.

    I've got into cars of people who have just passed their tests who are much better drivers than him.

    When you are thinking about those questions you may come to realise why these sentences are relatively short. Drivers such as this one are being sentenced for the consequences of their actions and not their moral culpability. He has driven like a prat, but so do thousands of others every day. It was simply his bad luck that in so driving, he has hit and killed whilst others did not. Neither he nor those other drivers intended to kill anyone.
    The difference is, they haven't killed anyone.
    Offline

    14
    Reading the above comments and what happened, in my opinion, 6 months is not nearly enough for what happened. But then again years in prison would still not be enough for the family of the person he killed.

    But, i know this guy and to say he is affected is true. It's all he can think about and he is punishing himself far worse with the guilt. The death of the pregnant woman will stay with him forever and the guilt. That's a far worse punishment.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tiger Rag)




    The difference is, they haven't killed anyone.
    But why is that an ethically relevant difference? What the driver did was drive dangerously. The quality of the wrongful act is the same whether or not the victim is killed or not. Whether a person is killed or not is entirely outside of the driver's control.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rock Fan)
    Would you be saying this if this was say your wife or a family relative.
    A lot of people would like to see those who have committed offences against their family members subjected to torture and then killed slowly, but that's not how we run our criminal justice system.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Whats the point in putting them in prison for any longer? Prison serves 2 purposes
    1. Rehabilitation of offenders
    2. Protecting the public
    With that in mind what purpose does a long sentence actually serve for a DD or criminal negligence offence?
    1. Rehabilitation: Driver was not intending to cause harm so no major rehabilitation is really needed. A year or two is more than enough time to rehabilitate against breaking, what most consider, relatively minor road traffic laws (albeit in the case cited with severe consequences)
    2. Protection of public, again the intention was not to cause harm unless proven otherwise so the person is not really considered a threat to public safety provided they are kept off the road, why would you have then in prison costing the tax payer thousands when they can be out generating income revenue?

    In cases like this for first time offenders, as much as their actions had dire consequences the offence commited is actually fairly minor. Although I agree in the case of repeat offenders harsh sentences are required as they have proven that rehabilitation has not worked.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.