21 months “would send out a warning”?

Overview Chat Bike Members News Women

This topic has 24 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 15 years ago by slowmedown.

Viewing 25 posts - 1 through 25 (of 25 total)

21 months “would send out a warning”?
aracer
Free Member

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7865114.stm

Anybody else think that’s a ridiculously short sentence? I remember reading about this one before and thinking she’d have the book thrown at her with the admission that she thought using a phone whilst driving was sometimes acceptable. It seems the judge thinks he has thrown the book at her, but I disagree.

(apologies for the wrong forum – it seems that’s something you can’t edit when you realise as you hit the “post” button).

Posted 15 years ago

djglover
Free Member

And a longer sentence will achieve what?

Posted 15 years ago

geetee1972
Free Member

And a longer sentence will achieve what?

I think we call it justice. It is also known as deterent

Sadly far too many people think that it’s perfectly acceptable to continue using mobile phones while driving. The evidence is that the net effect to concentration while driving and using a mobile phone is equivalent to being several times over the legal alcohol limit (as measured in reaction time).

If the woman had been several times over the limit and killed some one do you think a 21 months sentence would be appropriate?

A stronger sentence would have conveyed a greater sense of justice to the bereaved relatives and a stronger message to the public that this kind of behaviour is unacceptable.

Posted 15 years ago

jon1973
Free Member

I think the sentence is appropriate.

Posted 15 years ago

djglover
Free Member

21 months is enough of a deterant for me, sentence seems to be in line with what I would expect from gross negligence

Posted 15 years ago

one_happy_hippy
Free Member

I personally dont think its anywhere near long enough – she knew what she did was illegal yet she disregarded the law continued to break the law and killed someone.

It should be a manslaughter charge not death by dangerous driving at least, if she cant be done for murder.

Posted 15 years ago

mt
Free Member

Chop her phone hand off. Alternatively her phone ear. No cost to us for prison.

Posted 15 years ago

aracer
Free Member

It’s silly talk suggesting murder. However I do always wonder why motorists never get charged with manslaughter. Though even for death by dangerous driving the maximum sentence is 14 years, and the sentencing guidelines suggest at least 2 years for intermediate culpability (which the use of the phone surely was).

Posted 15 years ago

hora
Free Member

Love the photo on the story. Sorry, Im not helping here!

Posted 15 years ago

BigDummy
Free Member

21 months is a very, very long time for a young woman to spend in prison. For evil and vicious acts longer sentences may be right. For pathetic stupidity and thoughtlessness this doesn’t seem to be excessively lenient.

😐

Posted 15 years ago

geetee1972
Free Member

LOL Hora – It’s kind of like that scene in Monty Python & The Holy Grail where they have Connie Booth dressed up as a witch in order to prove she is a witch!

Posted 15 years ago

hora
Free Member

Spot on!!!!!!!

Posted 15 years ago

chakaping
Full Member

She might have got a similar sentence if she’d been drunk anyway, no?

The BBC cleverly seem to have neglected to include the charge she was convicted of, but the previous story reveals it as death by dangerous driving.

Sentence doesn’t seem grossly inappropriate to me, but two years might have been better.

Posted 15 years ago

sofatester
Free Member

She has a mobile in her hand. Shes a witch, burn her 😈

Posted 15 years ago

aracer
Free Member

For pathetic stupidity and thoughtlessness

Pathetic stupidity and thoughtlessness which resulted in somebody totally innocent dying? The question really is how long you’d get for killing somebody by letting off a shotgun accidentally because you were busy concentrating on something else as you waved the gun around.

Don’t forget she’ll actually only spend 10.5 months in prison (possibly only 6.5 months, then tagging).

Posted 15 years ago

hora
Free Member

She has a mobile in her hand. Shes a witch

Err not anymore. Shes in the clitclink now so two words needs amending on the above…

Posted 15 years ago

djglover
Free Member

The question really is how long you’d get for killing somebody by letting off a shotgun accidentally because you were busy concentrating on something else as you waved the gun around.

Don’t forget she’ll actually only spend 10.5 months in prison (possibly

Probably less, possibly even accidental death.

Posted 15 years ago

uplink
Free Member

My next door neighbour’s daughter was killed by a driver in similar circumstances
She was on the hard shoulder & – for whatever reason – he failed to see her or her car & wandered into the hard shoulder & killed her
He was convicted of causing death by dangerous driving & received 6.5 years

More fitting sentence, I think

Posted 15 years ago

grizzlygus
Free Member

The BBC cleverly seem to have neglected to include the charge she was convicted of

And yet again a cunning plan by the evil trotskyite, victim-hating, BBC do-gooders, is exposed by a STW Sun/Daily Mail reader.

Posted 15 years ago

Coyote
Free Member

Through arrogance and stupidity, she has killed another person. Prison is supposed to be a punishment as well as a deterrent. In that context a couple of years out of your life for completely depriving someone of theirs seems very lenient. Oh and the three year ban? Seeing as she’ll serve the first 18 months of that ban whilst she is inside that’s not much of a punishment either.

Posted 15 years ago

RudeBoy
Free Member

Connie Booth was lovely…

Posted 15 years ago

andywhit
Free Member

Using a mobile while driving should incur sentences in line with drink driving IMO.

Posted 15 years ago

IanMunro
Free Member

I’m impressed that they managed to get a photo of her on the phone:)
My gut reaction in these sort of cases is just kill the person – they’re a waste of space and the world would be a better place without them. But a good society isn’t built on such sentiments, so i’ve no idea whether 21 months is lenient on excesive.

Posted 15 years ago

scaredypants
Full Member

“trouble” is, they can’t prove she was using the phone when she crashed, so instead I assume they did her for being the sort of **** that doesn’t look where they’re going

given that, I’m surprised they got it as high as 21 months TBH

silly (& I suspect lying) cow

If your defence incorporates “i’m so stupid I didn’t look at what was in front of me” then you should never be allowed to drive again

edit: – yeah, quality photo !

Posted 15 years ago

slowmedown
Free Member

photojournalism at its best

Posted 15 years ago