Forum menu
"This is why juries decide guilt and judges decide sentence"
This.
Re: deterrent. Detection is *far* more of a deterrent than punishment and accidently running someone over while driving dangerously must have a near 100pc clear-up rate.
Nobody is accidentally killing people because they think they'll get away with it.
n theory he has been sentanced to a few months inside for killing each girl. Not enough to deter others is it ?
What do you think would work in deterring others from irresponsible driving. Not sure length of prison sentence if your irresponsible driving goes wrong is really in anyone's mind when they are doing it.
If deterrents worked we would need many prisons would we....
.
Deterrent is perhaps the wrong word, but sentencing both reflects and reinforces culture and in turn behaviours. Attitudes to road safety, drink driving etc culture is much different even in my lifetime and massively in my parents. Is stronger penalties a cause or effect of that change, or both?
Sentencing is not just about individual case as but about societies drawing lines.
BTW I think that we jail far to many people where community sentencing and rehab would be much better. But I really don't think this is one of these cases.
"BTW I think that we jail far to many people where community sentencing and rehab would be much better."
It madness isn't it. The punishment and rehab aspect of prison could be achieved in so many better ways, it wouldn't take much imagination.
All prison is good for is protection of the public, everything else could be done without spending all that cash.
Nobody is accidentally killing people because they think they'll get away with it
I dont think anybody is saying they are, but if a driver through gross negligence, recklessness and a total disregard for an innocent persons safety brings about incidents such as this which have devastating consequences. Are you saying that the fact that the driver had no intent somehow exonerates him?
The sentence is 6 yrs not three. It is not the judge's decision to release at three. And he must not take that policy it into account in reaching his sentence - or he will be subject to appeal. If you don't like this policy talk to your politicians, but be prepared to explain that YOU will be happy to pay more tax to see it happen (120k to keep him in jail for an extra three years).
As someone else said the maximum sentence is 14 yrs, but only the worst offenders should expect that, e.g. Those with previous poor driving records, and the benefits to everyone of a guilty plea mean he could expect a significant discount on his sentence; so it's likely that after trial he would have got 9yrs. Difficult to see how if he has no relevant previous convictions that isn't appropriate against a 14 yr max. likewise if you think that is too low talk to your mp, don't blame the judge he is only executing the law parliament made.
Release on license iat half way is not quite a get out of jail card. He still has various conditions attached. And it helps rehabilitation back into society.
As the original article didn't mention it he is also banned from driving for 10yrs (from date of release).
The sentence is 6 yrs not three. It is not the judge's decision to release at three
I think we all know the difference but in reality he will be released after 3. Its understandable that people focus on that number and not the larger one.
As someone else said the maximum sentence is 14 yrs, but only the worst offenders should expect that, e.g. Those with previous poor driving records
Yes but in this instance his crime was doubly bad and had twice the catastrophic impact.
As the original article didn't mention it he is also banned from driving for 10yrs (from date of release).
I'm not a "hang em and flog em" type and I have a lot of sympathy for those who would claim alternatives to incarceration can be more effective however I would say that its reasonable to expect he should never drive again. He will be behind the wheel 7 yrs after release. I would argue he has at least given up that "right"
only if people don't want to let facts get in the way of their argument. You need to decide if you object to the principle of people being release early on license or the headline sentence being too short. Criticising the Judge for a policy he has absolutely no control on is lazy.[b]surfer - Member [/b]
Its understandable that people focus on that number and not the larger one.
Actually the Judge understands that whilst the catastrophic impact was twice as bad the actual culpability was just the same as if the girls had jumped out the way just in time, or indeed their friend had also been as unlucky. Whilst society does expect that the punishment increases when driving causes death, actually the deterrent comes from the risk of both getting caught and significant sentences for all the times when people drive really badly and get away with it.Yes but in this instance his crime was doubly bad and had twice the catastrophic impact.
As a general rule when you commit too offences at the same time, you serve your sentence concurrently. I know people find that abhorrent, but once again that isn't the Judge's decision. If society disagrees, MP's can change the law - but it does mean you will have a lot of people in prison for much longer with no actual benefit to society (and a significant cost).
No it will be 10yrs from his release. So 13 yrs from now.He will be behind the wheel 7 yrs after release.
Many people would agree. However he is 24 yrs old. He will be 37 yrs old, with a significant criminal conviction by the time he is able to apply for his license back (and I think he will have to retake his test). He's only ever been in the Army, he will presumably be dishonourably discharged. The prospects for a 37 yr old ex squadie, with no driving license, a reasonable spell in jail, a conviction that is never considered spent etc. are not great. The likelihood of him ever making a valuable contribution to society is not improved by refusing to ever let him drive. Its quite possible he will be a father by then - and his disadvantage passes on a generation. Has your maturity and responsibility level changed since you were in your early 20's? There may even be (and its tenuous I know) an argument that someone who has had a catastrophic accident and suffered the consequences has a better understanding of the risks of driving than people driving for 20 yrs and getting aways with it. Lifetime bans make great headlines, but for first offenders suggest an assumption that rehabilitation is impossible.I would argue he has at least given up that "right"
The outcomes of that night are horrible for the families, but no sentence would ever bring the girls back.
Its quite likely that this wasn't the first time he'd had a drink and driven. You need to significantly increase the prospects of getting caught if you want to deter people. I'd also suggest that making it an offence to knowingly be a passenger in a car with a drunk driver should also be an offence (it is is not, and if it is it should be enforced). The person he drove home earlier that evening is not entirely blameless.
The punishment and rehab aspect of prison
Is there any real rehab in prison? It's the first thing to be cut whenever the prison budget has to tighten it's belt.
Prison is probably the opposite of rehabilitation, it just institutionalises people so that they fail to re-integrate into society and are more likely to re-offend.
I propose lifetime bans in the same way as lifetime prison terms are given. Non-one does life if they are considered safe to be let out - most don't because behaviour has changed and the risk is considered acceptable. I suggest lifetime bans in the same way. A lifetime ban would only be a lifetime ban if alcohol use meant it was never safe to lift the ban.
It's actually quite simple you know it's illegal don't do it. There's no remorse gonna fix them families so there's not much to argue about. I've had two experiences with drunk drivers over the last six weeks simply stunning the amount of irresponsiblity shown that could easily in a split second lead to a loss of life. I've no sympathy for them whatsoever.
Non-one does life if they are considered safe to be let out - most don't because behaviour has changed and the risk is considered acceptable
You do if you get a whole life tariff as the sentence means you will never be released
how reformed you are in prison is irrelevant you were sentenced to a while life tariff
That aside your point is true.
I think outofbreath? makes a good point re deterrence up there.
Any sentence, however harsh, won't stop people taking chances. A high probability of being caught before it gets as far as a fatal accident possibly would.
I'm beginning to think a separate traffic police force, funded by it's own generated fines, might make the greatest difference to driver behaviour and road accidents.
Three years inside, dismissal from service and a serious offence that will continue to affect his employment for at least five years post-release. As for the ban, even once he's got his license back he'll have to declare that offence to gain insurance, which will most likely prove financially unviable for a while. On top of that he has the deaths of those two young ladies on his conscience. To behest I think this is something that will continue to haunt him for the rest of his life in one form or another, which is just as the loss of those two girls will have the same affect on their respective families.
Thats an interesting read and your arguments are well made. I would challenge a couple of points but for what its worth I think we are almost in agreement. Tragic all round.
[quote=poly ]As the original article didn't mention it he is also banned from driving for 10yrs (from date of release).
Have they actually fixed that one? I did a search, but could only find articles suggesting they were going to do so, and the relevant legislation is a bit of a mess (the online versions of the relevant acts haven't been updated to include it, and it appears to originally be included as an amendment as part of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 which but for some reason not actually enforced at that point - the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 which was touted as being where it would be introduced appears to have simply made minor amendments to the 2009 act).
[quote=poly ]Its quite likely that this wasn't the first time he'd had a drink and driven. You need to significantly increase the prospects of getting caught if you want to deter people. I'd also suggest that making it an offence to knowingly be a passenger in a car with a drunk driver should also be an offence (it is is not, and if it is it should be enforced). The person he drove home earlier that evening is not entirely blameless.
Interesting point about passengers, and one I agree with in principle. However see the first couple of sentences of yours I've quoted - will it really make a significant difference if the probability of detection is still low? Not wanting to put a downer on it as I do agree in principle, but it also strikes me as being awfully difficult to enforce given the obvious line of defence (that they didn't think the driver was drunk - I'm sure you'd be one of the first to point out that you'd have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they knew the driver was drunk).