3 years for killing a whole family ?

[Spokey]

Truck driver kills whole family through careless driving - gets 3 years ... must serve 18 months

if it was a relation of yours ( the killed party ) - would you feel justice has been done ?

Spokey

[jambo]

"Won't someone please think of the children?!"

A somewhat inflametory phrasing of the situation there, I expect it was the line used by Vanessa Feltz. But then, I think she makes the writers of the Sun's headlines look high-brow.

Jambo

[Luckypants]

Well he was acquitted of causing death by dangerous driving, because they could not prove he was using his laptop while driving.

If this was (As the judge said) one of the worst examples, why was he not given the maximum sentence for death by careless driving? Never mind being a relative, as a citizen I am concerned why 'one of the worst' examples of this crime did not get the maximum sentence.

linky (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/staffordshire/7888653.stm)

[Biker Biggles]

Depends what he did wrong.I noticed they didnt charge him with death by dangerous driving,but used careless driving which suggests a minor error of judgement rather than gross negligence or just driving like a cnut.Punishment needs to fit the crime,not the needs of a baying mob because the worst scenario played out.

[Luckypants]

Depends what he did wrong.I noticed they didnt charge him with death by dangerous driving,but used careless driving which suggests a minor error of judgement rather than gross negligence or just driving like a cnut.Punishment needs to fit the crime,not the needs of a baying mob because the worst scenario played out.

He was charged with causing death by dangerous driving and also the causing death by careless driving. Acquitted of the more serious charge.

[Ceri JC]

Edit as other have posted info I didn't have

If this is that trucker case:

If forensics revealed beyond reasonable doubt he wasn't messing about on his laptop, then I'd say it's probably fair given the crime (big lapse in concentration whilst driving a lorry) rather than the consequence. I bore witness to a similar case, no one was hurt thankfully, just two vehicles knackered, but the "crime" the guy committed was the same as this (assuming he wasn't on his laptop): driving like a tw@ and not paying attention. I think he got 6 points. If it'd been me on my bike in that lane instead of the car he hit, it's quite possible I could have been seriously injured/died. It was only luck that it wasn't me there. Part of me thinks I'd like to see him treated as if he had injured someone (ban and bigger fine), but then I sort of think, what if you rear end someone's car at walking pace in a car park and 99% of the time it's a minor insurance jobbie. It could be someone in there with an existing spinal injury and the small impact cripples them. I don't see why you should be punished harsher in the latter case; what you did is exactly the same.

[Biker Biggles]

True.I meant they could only show evidence of careless.They also tried and failed to show he was fiddling with the satnav and made a slightly bizarre claim that he was driving without paying attention for a minute.All very emotive,but none of it proven to be true in court.What happened was he crashed the truck,as happens all too often,but why should the sentence be significantly different to anyone else who crashes a vehicle due to a lapse of concentration or an error of judgement?
Theres plenty of riders on here who have binned it due to getting it wrong,but if they have caused a more serious outcome should they all be doing six years bird?

[ophic]

Punishment needs to fit the crime,not the needs of a baying mob because the worst scenario played out.
Shouldn't the punishment be based on the worst case scenario? I seem to read about people getting light sentences (or nothing) when they break the law but no harm comes of it, through pure luck.

For example, person A drives like a muppet and kills a kid.

Person B drives with similar stupidity but doesn't kill a kid.

The crime? exactly the same. So the punishment should be the same. The outcome is pretty irrelevant and should be assumed to be the worst case. Doesn't matter if you don't kill anyone, the fact is you might have.

[Luckypants]

If you read the reports on the case, there was some evidence that the driver was using GPS software on a laptop while driving - this constituted the dangerous driving charge. This was not proven to the jury and so he was acquitted.

The lesser charge of careless driving was down to the fact that the queue he crashed into was visible for a mile before he ran into the back of it. So he did not notice the queue for at least a whole minute (assuming he was going max speed of 56mph), which is not a moment's inattention but bloody careless! As a result of his carelessness he killed 5 people.

As I have already stated, the judge described it as one of the worst examples of this crime, so why did he not get the max jail term? Surely the max jail term is for the 'worst examples'?

There's a big difference here between 'getting it a bit wrong' and driving for a whole mile without noticing stationary vehicles, IMHO.

[Biker Biggles]

Shouldn't the punishment be based on the worst case scenario? I seem to read about people getting light sentences (or nothing) when they break the law but no harm comes of it, through pure luck.

For example, person A drives like a muppet and kills a kid.

Person B drives with similar stupidity but doesn't kill a kid.

The crime? exactly the same. So the punishment should be the same. The outcome is pretty irrelevant and should be assumed to be the worst case. Doesn't matter if you don't kill anyone, the fact is you might have.


I agree with that.Im usually in a very small minority too.:(
There are certain practical problems with it though,in that you would either have to send millions of people to prison for poor driving,or have a much more lenient regime when poor driving causes nasty outcomes.But in principle,the punishment should fit the crime,not the whim of chance.

[Luckypants]

Shouldn't the punishment be based on the worst case scenario? I seem to read about people getting light sentences (or nothing) when they break the law but no harm comes of it, through pure luck.

For example, person A drives like a muppet and kills a kid.

Person B drives with similar stupidity but doesn't kill a kid.

The crime? exactly the same. So the punishment should be the same. The outcome is pretty irrelevant and should be assumed to be the worst case. Doesn't matter if you don't kill anyone, the fact is you might have.

Well in this case person A would be charged with Causing death by careless driving (as was this truck driver) and person b would be charged with careless driving. Not the same crime and so not the same punishment.

[Biker Biggles]

Ophic clearly meant in principle not as a specific case.Two people commit the same stupid act of csrelessness(or recklessness) and the sentence depends on luck or lack of it.

[ophic]

Luckypants, you've missed the point.

I decide to punch someone. They fall over but are fine. I get done for ABH.

or

I decide to punch someone. They fall over and die. I get done for manslaughter.

My decision was the same in both cases. That is what should be punished. I know the law isn't currently like this and labels crimes differently depending on the outcome, which the perpetrator had no control over. Just seems stupid to me.

[Luckypants]

No I did not miss the point. :) But as you say the law currently classifies criminal acts by outcome and that was the point I was making.

If you punch someone and kill them, that is of course more serious than punching someone and giving them a bloody nose. Same with careless driving.

I understand your point, but do not agree. The outcome of a crime has to be taken into consideration I believe.

My original point in this thread was actually one on sentencing. If the max sentence for the crime he was convicted of is 6 years and this was one of the 'worst examples' why did he not get the max? This is not about retribution for me, just about applying the law as it stands.

[Stu]

Luckypants, you've missed the point.

I decide to punch someone. They fall over but are fine. I get done for ABH.

or

I decide to punch someone. They fall over and die. I get done for manslaughter.

My decision was the same in both cases. That is what should be punished. I know the law isn't currently like this and labels crimes differently depending on the outcome, which the perpetrator had no control over. Just seems stupid to me.
But where do you draw the line? Should i be sent to prison for speeding just because I could have killed someone while speeding? I think I'd rather be tried for the consequences - you can't argue with them.

[ophic]

But where do you draw the line? Should i be sent to prison for speeding just because I could have killed someone while speeding? I think I'd rather be tried for the consequences - you can't argue with them.
Only in some circumstances. Speeding round a blind bend for example - where if someone was in the road, you would hit them. Speeding where its clearly safe to do so is a victimless crime and therefore the only consequences are getting caught, which is starting to get a little circular.

The problem I find is that people don't get discouraged enough from doing stupid things, cos 9/10 times, no-one gets hurt. So they keep doing it until someone does get hurt. By that time its too late and the damage is already done.

[Luckypants]

The problem I find is that people don't get discouraged enough from doing stupid things, cos 9/10 times, no-one gets hurt. So they keep doing it until someone does get hurt. By that time its too late and the damage is already done.

I can't argue with that.

[Stu]

I can't argue with that.
I so easily can!
cos it's a load of rubbish :rolleyes:
people don't do things that they think are stupid, they think that they are perfectly reasonable & safe at the time until they are proved wrong.

[Magnum]

He will probably be living with the sheer guilt of it for the rest of his life. That's punishment enough...

[ophic]

I so easily can!
cos it's a load of rubbish :rolleyes:
people don't do things that they think are stupid, they think that they are perfectly reasonable & safe at the time until they are proved wrong.
the "stupid" was from an outside perspective. eg, mine

Forgive me if I don't want to be the one proving them wrong. I use all my skill and experience in not proving them wrong, so they can continue to do these "perfectly reasonable & safe" things until someone less lucky or experienced comes along. How is this right?

[Flamin_Squirrel]

How is this right?


Because the alternative is locking up the entire population based on 'what ifs'. :rolleyes:

And if your insane ideas were put into practice, they would ruin far more lives than the car crashes you're trying to mitigate.

[ophic]

Because the alternative is locking up the entire population based on 'what ifs'. :rolleyes:

And if your insane ideas were put into practice, they would ruin far more lives than the car crashes you're trying to mitigate.
Yeah I agree its a bit draconian. I was illustrating a principle tho - one that now seems to be forgotten in current law and road usage. There is a happy medium somewhere but we seem to be moving away from it.

Yet there are times when i'd happily shoot people who repeatedly "forget" to indicate or observe properly. :smt067:driving:

[Biker Biggles]

And if you fail to base your justice system on principle it instantly becomes liable to hijack by the baying mob mentality.Which is happening more and more these days as the system is politicised.

[richie95]

should be longer, people get 10 years for killing one during driving

[Gene genie]

another fine advertisment for brittish justice and continental lorry drivers.

[yorkie_chris]

If you read the reports on the case, there was some evidence that the driver was using GPS software on a laptop while driving - this constituted the dangerous driving charge. This was not proven to the jury and so he was acquitted.

The lesser charge of careless driving was down to the fact that the queue he crashed into was visible for a mile before he ran into the back of it. So he did not notice the queue for at least a whole minute (assuming he was going max speed of 56mph), which is not a moment's inattention but bloody careless! As a result of his carelessness he killed 5 people.

As I have already stated, the judge described it as one of the worst examples of this crime, so why did he not get the max jail term? Surely the max jail term is for the 'worst examples'?

There's a big difference here between 'getting it a bit wrong' and driving for a whole mile without noticing stationary vehicles, IMHO.

I agree. But I don't really see what him spending 5 years inside would really accomplish either.

Well he was acquitted of causing death by dangerous driving, because they could not prove he was using his laptop while driving.

If this was (As the judge said) one of the worst examples, why was he not given the maximum sentence for death by careless driving? Never mind being a relative, as a citizen I am concerned why 'one of the worst' examples of this crime did not get the maximum sentence.

linky (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/staffordshire/7888653.stm)

I am suprised that not looking where you are going for so long is not considered dangerous.

No I did not miss the point. :) But as you say the law currently classifies criminal acts by outcome and that was the point I was making.

If you punch someone and kill them, that is of course more serious than punching someone and giving them a bloody nose. Same with careless driving.

I understand your point, but do not agree. The outcome of a crime has to be taken into consideration I believe.

My original point in this thread was actually one on sentencing. If the max sentence for the crime he was convicted of is 6 years and this was one of the 'worst examples' why did he not get the max? This is not about retribution for me, just about applying the law as it stands.

I agree, but perhaps the judge just sees the pointlessness of him serving the full term, as it is hardly likely to act as a deterrent to other road users is it? Or to serve any other worthwhile purpose...

[Flamin_Squirrel]

And if you fail to base your justice system on principle it instantly becomes liable to hijack by the baying mob mentality.Which is happening more and more these days as the system is politicised.

Or alternatively, being hi-jacked by the medial and tivialised which happens more and more instead?