[Closed] Michael Casey gets 6 years for killing 2 AFD athletes

Rubbish excuse, does seem lenient, but I am not a judge.

6 years! Should have been 60. Drink drivers should have the book thrown at them. There is no excuse!

I thought killing someone on a bike these days got you a slap on the wrist because a driving ban would cause hardship and going to jail might make you lose your job?

A custodial sentence seems to be a victory for the rest of the population TBH.

[i]I thought killing someone on a bike these days [/i]

They were runners. On a pedestrian crossing. Teenaged girls.
Ridiculously lenient.

I thought killing someone on a bike these days got you a slap on the wrist

They weren't on bikes.

You lot aren't judges, you didn't hear the case, and you haven't met the guy after the accident. You can't really judge if it's appropriate or not.

This comes up every time there's a case like this. You need to have a bit of a think about what the criminal justice system is supposed to do and what the point of sentences is.

You might want to explain that to Helen Burrows too.

"You might want to explain that to Helen Burrows too."

Do you think she'd be able to objectively consider this sentence?

This was very close to home for me - friend's daughters were / are at the same school as the girls, etc.- and for a bloke to be over the limit, speeding, and 'distracted' where his friend had thrown up in the passenger footwell earlier - I'm struggling to see what impact remorse or what he's like afterwards has to the people involved.

Sometimes saying sorry isn't good enough.

I posted this in another thread. It's a bit more realistic.
http://canadamotoguide.com/2017/04/03/bike-blocking-dangerous-driver-gets-15-year-sentence-report/

So if this guy had deliberately killed the girls you'd only want him to get 15/years?

Casey was given a six-year jail sentence which means he should be released on licence after three years.

Admittedly this bit here does seem lenient.

He'll get dismissed from the Army for his troubles too, but I fail to see why a substantial driving ban isn't in order, seems the judges have too much concern for the human rights of the perp rather than victim.

I fail to see why a substantial driving ban isn't in order

Isn't a ban automatic for Death by Dangerous Driving?

I'm struggling to see what impact remorse or what he's like afterwards has to the people involved.

So what impact does a lengthy jail sentence have on the people involved?

Casey was given a six-year jail sentence which means he should be released on licence after three years.

This is standard, all sentences are halved.

You lot aren't judges, you didn't hear the case, and you haven't met the guy after the accident. You can't really judge if it's appropriate or not.

This comes up every time there's a case like this. You need to have a bit of a think about what the criminal justice system is supposed to do and what the point of sentences is.

Mollie you are right we dont know the detail of the case however being remorseful after the event should only carry so much weight. I would be surprised for example if the Judge had revised the sentence down based on this.

The criminal justice system is supposed to do a number of things. One of which is to sentence to deter. IMO the Judge should have sent out a clear message that although Casey never went out to kill these children his actions brought it about, he was reckless and callous and the consequences are catastrophic.

The Criminal justice system is also there to punish. The withdrawal of Caseys liberty is punishment however IMO his liberty will not be removed for long enough.

One more role of the Criminal justice system is to ensure that Justice is "seen" to be done. I think it has failed in this instance.

As a parent it is heartbreaking to see these children killed before their lives have begun.

Edit:

So what impact does a lengthy jail sentence have on the people involved?

As above,

Mollie you are right we dont know the detail of the case however being remorseful after the event should only carry so much weigh

There can be more to it than remorse. If a person is completely mentally destroyed by the consequences of his actions, then what's the point in locking him up at all?

I know I've been distracted whilst driving before now. I could've caused an accident a few times in my life. Should I be locked up now?

IMO the Judge should have sent out a clear message that although Casey never went out to kill these children his actions brought it about, he was reckless and callous and the consequences are catastrophic

Most people aren't that keen on killing people as it is - a sentence in this case doesn't make a difference. The reason that people don't pay attention when driving isn't because they don't mind kiling people; it's because they don't think an accident will happen to them. It's a question of competence, not intent.

If a person is completely [b]mentally destroyed[/b] by the consequences of his actions, then what's the point in locking him up at all?

My emphasis. What do you mean by "mentally destroyed" and how do you quantify that? I think it would have been mentioned in the report if some psychological element to sentencing then I suspect that would have been reported.

I answered the latter part of your question above.

Most people aren't that keen on killing people as it is

Obvs but we still incarcerate people who kill without intent. When there is clearly no benefit (and as above I have illustrated why in this case I think he should be imprisoned) we dont.

I've read somewhere that in studies where people are given all the facts they generally agree with sentences imposed by Uk courts.

Current (I think) sentencing guidelines here:

@OOB maybe your right, I "sense" this is lenient in this instance but regardless I do take issue with Mollies comment:

Most people aren't that keen on killing people as it is - a sentence in this case doesn't make a difference

What do you mean by "mentally destroyed" and how do you quantify that? I think it would have been mentioned in the report if some psychological
element to sentencing then I suspect that would have been reported.

You have more faith in the media than I do 🙂

Its not about that

[i]The reason that people don't pay attention when driving isn't because they don't mind kiling people; it's because they don't think an accident will happen to them. It's a question of competence, not intent.[/i]

Years driving ban and a few points on the license for all 'death by dangerous driving' offences should suffice then. (Obviously 6 months ban if it's a cyclist killed)

Long, long driving ban could be appropriate also I think.

Its not about that

Point is, we really haven't enough information, so the whole thread is pointless. It just gets people's outrage whipped up which, when not grounded in fact, is an ugly thing.

I think your irony antennae need retuning

Point is, we really haven't enough information, so the whole thread is pointless. It just gets people's outrage whipped up which, when not grounded in fact, is an ugly thing.

I think there is sufficient information from a number of "reliable" sources to make a judgement that 3yrs for 2 deaths is inappropriate. I think you could use that argument if we were discussing finer margins.

Bear in mind there is enough information for you to say this:

a sentence in this case doesn't make a difference

Justice is there to punish, to protect society, and to rehabilitate. I see what is being said about agreeing with sentencing when all facts are known, but to kill two teenage girls and remove their lives and destroy the lives of their families and loved ones, for a penalty of 3 years when it finally comes to it - doesn't seem right at all.

And while he might not have intended to kill, he was handling a deadly weapon having consciously decided to drink, consciously decided to drive, consciously decided to speed (and it wasn't speeding on a country road and hitting another car, it was speeding in a 30mph on a busy road through Aldershot) and consciously then got distracted by his mate's vomit in the footwell. And yes, i say consciously because no-one else made him do those things and if there's any element of 'involuntary' to the driving, speeding or distraction it's because of his completely voluntary choice to get drunk in the first place and hence imho, irrelevant.

Until drivers are sentenced appropriately for making conscious decisions that can with reasonable foresight be expected to lead to the killing of innocent people....... until then the issue isn't 'I don't think it'll happen to me' but 'I don't think it'll happen to me and the consequences (for me) aren't that bad either'. In the case of drink driving it needs to be 'I don't think it'll happen to me BUT IF IT DOES I'M GOING TO PRISON FOR A LONG TIME irrespective of outcome' - then it becomes a proper deterrent.

I think there is sufficient information from a number of "reliable" sources to make a judgement that 3yrs for 2 deaths is inappropriate.

And yet people with much more experience, training and knowledge of the case disagree with you.

Can you all please spell out your reasoning based on the case and provide your credentials?

[quote=molgrips ]a sentence in this case doesn't make a difference.So why bother with a sentence at all? After all, it was purely "accidental" and he didn't go out with the intention of killing someone.

So...

Over the limit...

Jumps a red light...

Kills 2 children...

& 6 yrs is enough?? (Out in 3???)

WTAF?!

Where's the deterrent there??

I don't think you require an awful lot more background to realise that's fukted up..

There can be more to it than remorse. If a person is completely mentally destroyed by the consequences of his actions, then what's the point in locking him up at all?

Ah, so I'm supposed to feel sorry for the pissed up squaddie who ran down two young girls....right, like fuk. He made the choice to sit behind the wheel..

If you can't do the time, fekin etc..

(You may have noticed I have little time for drivers who choose to get behind the wheel when they fukin well shouldn't & then cause an accident...)

theotherjonv - Member

I reckon it should be a ban for life if you kill of permanently disable someone like that.

You have demonstrated that your thinking faculties are deficient, and you can't cure stupid.

I know I've been distracted whilst driving before now. I could've caused an accident a few times in my life. Should I be locked up now?

Were you pished at the time? If so then probably yes.

He has done a 6 month tour of Afghanistan though, to most aldershot judges this is like a get-out-of-jail free card.......

Can you all please spell out your reasoning based on the case and provide your credentials?

I'll summarise

Over the limit...

Jumps a red light...

Kills 2 children.

Are you disputing any of that? If not then IMO that is sufficient.

Can you list your credentials given you dont think it should have been a custodial sentence? After all the Judge disagreed with you to a greater extent. In fact you appear to be the only one at that end of the spectrum.

I saw the link to the sentencing guidelines. It's way too much for me to read. I do wonder how many boxes were ticked though.

And the thought crosses my mind, as it does when I read of these things, just how many of those found guilty are sentenced towards the top of the range?

In the worst cases guidelines are 8 to 14 years I think, but he pleaded guilty so will get a deduction for that of up to a third so that would suggest they started at at least 9 years if he got for relief for guilty plea. Hopefully the criminal barrister on here will tell the real story as I am sure my analysis is way too simplistic.

Mentally destroyed. What about the families of the girls involved !. I bet those people really are mentally destroyed by the selfish actions of one individual. This should have been at least 20 years in prison. Read the BBC report of what he had drunk he wasn't just over the limit and he would have known that but still made the choice to drive. No excuses for drink driving ever. My son trains on the same playing field so maybe I'm a bit emotive but 6 years for killing two innocent girls is just wrong. If it was an accident then I would feel for the guy having to live with that but sorry your p*ssed up and choose to drive you deserve to rot for a long time.

Justice is there to punish, to protect society, and to rehabilitate.

On that basis: confined to his own home, place of community service or place of work monitored with a GPS tracker for 6 years; a lifetime driving ban; 6 years alcohol free with random testing; a six year ban from traveling in a car other than a taxi; 3000 hours of community service for athletics' clubs/maintaining pedestrian rights of way. If the GPS tracker shows him to be traveling at more than 50km/h he must send the public transport receipt to the probation officer. An additional 3 years jail if he fails to comply with any of the conditions.

Custodial sentences are counter productive as they often punish the family of those jailed more than the criminals. In his case I believe the threat to society could be managed.

If he had done all those things but somehow missed the people on the crossing would it be any different?

Would he have got 6 years in that case?

Different yes, in the same way as firing an illegal firearm won't get you the same sentence as if you kill someone with the shot - even if you weren't aiming at them.

As someone said above, the justice system is quite good at taking into account all the circumstances of a crime. Where I think the British justice system fails is that it relies more heavily that its European neighbours on custodial sentences as "punishment" gets a higher priority than "protection of society" and "rehabilitation". Some people do need locking up but many more could be put to good work repaying their debt to society in ways that benefit both society and ultimately the offender.

The perfect community service for this guy would be the job of helping kids to cross the road on a crossing near a school. 45mins four times a day. With the offer of a gardening and maintenance job in the school if the time restrictions meant he couldn't find a full-time job. Refusal or less than enthusiastic participation = jail. Add to that a lifetime driving ban and restrictions on movement for six years and I think that is more dissuasive in "example setting" than jail to the car-obsessed, and job status sensitive public.

Tin pot local radio reprted that one of the girls mums shouted " I dont get my daughter back in 3 years ". Inferring , I guess , that he gets his life back in 3 years, and she has to live the rest of her life without her daughter .
In theory he has been sentanced to a few months inside for killing each girl. Not enough to deter others is it ? 10 years sentence , then a 6 year driving on release, fine, plus community service would make more of an impact.

On that basis: confined to his own home, place of community service or place of work monitored with a GPS tracker for 6 years; a lifetime driving ban; 6 years alcohol free with random testing; a six year ban from traveling in a car other than a taxi; 3000 hours of community service for athletics' clubs/maintaining pedestrian rights of way. If the GPS tracker shows him to be traveling at more than 50km/h he must send the public transport receipt to the probation officer. An additional 3 years jail if he fails to comply with any of the conditions

Youve got a good imagination but that all looks a bit.. well.. complex and difficult to manage. In the UK we deprive people of their liberty when they commit serious crimes. Prison in this instance is appropriate.

The perfect community service for this guy would be the job of helping kids to cross the road on a crossing near a school. 45mins four times a day. With the offer of a gardening and maintenance job in the school if the time restrictions meant he couldn't find a full-time job. Refusal or less than enthusiastic participation = jail.

So you are not against the concept of incarceration? you just like the concept of humiliation first?

Is the criticism of the judge or the sentencing available to judge?

If there wasn't an offence of causing death by dangerous driving then it would have been involuntary manslaughter. (IANAL)The maximum sentence for manslaughter is life, but involuntary manslaughter I'd I'll imagine has similar guidelines to death dangerous driving. So would the sentence have always been of this level because of lack of intent?

My emotional response is the same as most, Chuck away the key.

The emotional response is heightened by the fact it is two young athletes, the utter pointless avoidability of it and the relatabilty to our own families.

This is why juries decide guilt and judges decide sentence

Btw I don't buy the non-deterrent argument -failure to sentence properly devalues the seriousness and creates and perpetuates a culture of acceptance around inappropriate behaviour.