21 months “would send out a warning”?
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 9 years agogeetee1972Member
[/quote]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 9 years agoone_happy_hippyMember
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 9 years ago
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 9 years agochakapingSubscriber
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 9 years ago
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 9 years ago
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 9 years agouplinkMember
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 thinkPosted 9 years agoCoyoteSubscriber
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 9 years agoIanMunroMember
I’m impressed that they managed to get a photo of her on the phone:)Posted 9 years ago
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.scaredypantsSubscriber
“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 9 years ago
The topic ‘21 months “would send out a warning”?’ is closed to new replies.