|
Without having been in the two courts involved, and hearing the evidence, I find it odd that a man who overtook foolishly, causing someone to swerve into a tree and die got 2 years in jail. A man who was short of sleep and was found guilty of driving without due care and attention (only that?) in that he swerved into an oncoming car killing a couple and leaving 6 children orphaned, got a 6 month ban and fined £100. I emphasise, I only know what I have read in the papers and seen on TV but it seems that the punishment does not fit the crime (IMHO)
|
|
the law is often confusing and judges can only apply sentences in relation to the proven cause. The two cases may have different causes therefore attracting different sentence guidelines. Examples of the law being an ass could be a long thread......
|
|
|
> Without having been in the two courts involved, and hearing
> the evidence, I find it odd that a man who overtook
> foolishly, causing someone to swerve into a tree and die got
> 2 years in jail.
Or even more than that.....
Imagine two people who did exactly the same thing, equally as foolish. However, in the first, as above, the oncoming driver swerved into a tree and died, but in the second the oncoming driver managed to avoid the tree and lived. Or even that there wasn't a tree there and so he skidded across an open field and lived.
Why is the original driver more at fault in the first than in the second ? Obviously the ramifications were somewhat more extreme, but the foolishness was the same.
Unless we accept that the basis of law is retribution. And that is a dodgy point. Failing that, sentencing must clearly be driven by public sentiment and emotion. And that's even more worrying.
|
Mark,
I've held up this argument for discussion many times.
Relative of mine mounted the pavement in a busy town some 40 years ago and hit a shopfront. The story is told at Christmas sometimes with much amusement. But if a child in a pushchair had been killed........
As you say the two accidents/technical offences are the same.
David
|
|
|
|
In the midlands:
Guy guilty of driving without due, care and attention[1], Failure to stop at the scene of the crash, failure to report a crash, driving without insurance. Lot's of points, no ban.
Same day in the same magistrates court: 80 in a 60 limit. Ban.
A bloke near me went to prison for 140mph. Prison!
We're run by idiots.
[1] Dont think it's called this anymore but never mind.
[2] On a 3 mile downhill straight the width of a dual carriageway with easy room for 4 cars to pass.
|
Guy
You should be ashamed of yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
Dave, did either driver have any history of motoring offences? If so, they may have influenced the sentencing. Second point, the judge can only apply the sentence to the crime in accordance with the laws laid down by parliament. As I said earlier, examples of the law being an ass could be a long thread
|
Michael wrote:
>
> Dave, did either driver have any history of motoring
> offences?
No idea - the 80 in a 60 wasn't totting up though.
|
|
|
Michael wrote:
>
> Dave, did either driver have any history of motoring
> offences?
No idea - the 80 in a 60 wasn't totting up though.
|
|
|
|
|
Dave, there lies the problem with news reports. We only get part of the story.
|
|
|
