>The purpose of a jail sentence is not just to penalise the offender ...
it is also assessed by a victim's family as an adequate retribution - perhaps unfortunately, but unavoidably. That is the consequence which usually attracts the most discussion.
|
I could never agree with a jail sentence in this case. The guy is basically a decent human being who made a misteke, which we all do from time to time. Mostly we are lucky and get away with it, in this event the consequences unfortuneately turned out t be tragic but that does not make him anymore a wicked or evil person than the rest of us.
A community sentence which required him to put something back would have been far better than banging him up with hardened criminals at enormous expense, especially when you watch proagrammes like Road Wars which show persistant motoring crimanals involved in police pursuits only being caught after crashing and more often than not avoiding a custodial term.
Edited by Robin Reliant on 06/12/2008 at 11:14
|
|
How could he do "Community Service"? Any non-custodial sentence would be meaningless in this case-he'd be out of the country.
|
|
|
|
Perhaps there's more to it, but why was he in the right hand lane if he thought he was on a dual carriageway? Surely he should have been keeping to the left... or perhaps he'd thought he was back in the US rather than a dual carriageway and is just using that as an excuse?
|
The BBC link is a summary of the case in a few hundred words. The defendant pleaded guilty but the court would still have had the benefit of a full report of the accident and presumably more reports on the defendants background.
|
|
|
|
I could never agree with a jail sentence in this case.
Why? The circumstances could have allowed a charge of manslaughter, which usually carries a sentence of several years in jail.
Of course, you may be inclined to think that jail is in general a bad idea, and I think there's mileage in that argument. However, that's a separate argument, not a reason to keep this man out of jail when other people who cause death by gross negligence are locked up.
The guy is basically a decent human being
Do you know him well? Did you hear the full evidence in court? If not, that statement is just supposition, and from the evidence in the short news report it would be equally reasonable to conclude that he was a selfish sod who didn't give due attention to the dangers of using an unfamiliar car in an unfamiliar driving environment, when he could have taken the train or got a connecting flight. (There's a fast train service from Newcastle to London, which would have deposited him directly at the Piccadilly Line tube to Heathrow). Having made that decision, he didn't bother to learn some very basic things about UK roads, or even to properly program the satnav in which he appears to have placed blind faith.
He does appear to be thoroughly remorseful, which seems to have been a factor in the relatively short prison term.
who made a misteke which we all do from time to time.
Actually, he made a whole series of mistakes, the last of which proved fatal to three people. These were not momentary lapses: they were a consistent failure to act responsibly in his use of a machine which has a well-known potential to cause death or serious injury to him and to others.
A mistake is often caused by negligence, and it's hard to argue that this man was not negligent. One of the grounds for a manslaughter conviction in English law is causing death by gross negligence: see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter_in_English_law
|
Lazy, dumb, didn't check his route before he set out, whole series of mistakes, placed blind faith in a satnav, negligent. . . .
None of those, even added together, make jail appropriate.
I see no evidence that the individual concerned had any intention to break the law or harm any other person. His behaviour was not malicious, nor even, as far as I can see, reckless - simply negligent.
IMHO, jailing people for negligence is simply unethical.
Completely agree with Altea Ego.
|
If you directly cause someones death, which the driver did, it is your fault - if he didnt understand british roads, he shouldnt have been driving on them.
Its sad for him but his inadequate preparation led to the deaths of innocent people - something he could have easily avoided.
When will people realise that driving carries a burden of responsibility to other road users - with a quick flick of the wrist you can cause a fatal smash.
As such, if I had made the same mistake as him, I would accept any jail term, its only fair to the families of those who died, so they know the person who caused it has accepted the enormity of what they have done.
If I was to ever drive in the US, I would spend copious amounts of time learning about the differences - some countries are like starting over as far as rules of the road go.
This is why I am somewhat against people with foreign licenses being able to just turn up here and drive - its asking for trouble.
|
3 People killed! Negligence isn't even close! If he is in prison he won't be around being a menace on our roads.
|
|
|
|
IMHO jailing people for negligence is simply unethical.
It's a longstanding principle in English law, as well as in many other countries, that gross negligence which leads to serious consequences can be a serious offence. See for example en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_negligence or a manslaughter case at news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/7305598....m
|
IMHO jailing people for negligence is simply unethical.
So if due to negligence, a nuclear power station causes the death of millions, what does tyro suggest would be a reasonable punishment?
|
Situations like this tend to leave me sitting on the fence, but in this case I agree with Altea Ego. What is the benefit to society of imprisoning this man? He's not going to drive again in the UK and his own conscience will remind him of this for the rest of his life.
However, I spent 5 months driving in the USA and never remembered a dual carriageway being indicated with a broken white line. I did read their equivalent of the Highway Code before driving though, which is more than this man did.
|
And how would those commentators who do not support a custodial sentence feel if it was their dead relative? Can you honestly answer objectively?
In law, the standard of driving required is absolute. Our laws, rightly or wrongly, draw no distinction between a learner driver and an experienced one. All are required to drive to the same standard. A visitor, therefore, bears responsibility for being familiar with the road set-up, signs and rules etc. Highway code available in numerous outlets. That most visitors make no effort to find things out before driving counts for nothing when they find themselves in court. These laws are designed to offer some (I said some) level of protection to you and I, along with punishment and deterrent. I cannot believe that if a member of your family were killed by this man that you'd accept an unfortunate series of events or circumstances lead to an 'accident'. A wholly avoidable one in my opinion.
|
Could be a case for corporate manslaughter here.
He arrived in Newcastle, did a day's work, and then was attempting to drive around 250 miles to London before catching a flight.
His employer should have realised that this was unreasonable.
I drive around this country for my job. In similar circumstances, my employer would require me to stay overnight in a hotel.
|
>And how would those commentators who do not support a custodial sentence feel if it >was their dead relative?
You mean would i be looking for revenge? vengance? eye for an eye?
no
does this man being jailed bring them back from the dead?
no
Did he do it on purpose to make me suffer?
no
was there greed or malicious intent involved?
no
> Can you honestly answer objectively?
yes
|
AE, in what sense was this an accident?
He didn't deliberately set out to crash, but his driving on the wrong side of the road was not accidental, he was doing something wrong.
|
If he didnt do it on purpose, then he did it accidently.
|
>>If he didnt do it on purpose, then he did it accidently.<<
What?!
If say a car suddenly pulled out of a side road forcing him to cross into the path of the oncoming car, that would be accidental.
It was his negligence or ignorance that led him to drive like that. Nobody forced him to, his lack of basic knowledge or skills meant that he was driving in a way that lead to this outcome.
|
>>If he didnt do it on purpose then he did it accidently.<< What?! If say a car suddenly pulled out of a side road forcing him to cross into the path of the oncoming car that would be accidental. It was his negligence or ignorance that led him to drive like that. Nobody forced him to his lack of basic knowledge or skills meant that he was driving in a way that lead to this outcome.
Have you driven abroad? yes of course you have. So have I. And for thousands of miles I did it safely. Once however the day after I came back to the uk, I started to drive on the wrong side of the road.
what was that- negligence? a lack of basic skills? A lack of knowledge? deliberate? a death wish? a desire to kill people? No it was a momentary mental aberation. Fourtunately it had no bad outcome - Covince me that wasnt accidental.
Now convince me you have never made a mistake on the road.
|
AE, he was driving dangerously, that's why he was convicted of death by dangerous driving.
I have done the same as you and it's not accidental, it's called not concentrating. Like you, it had no consequences when I did it, but my first thought was not "gosh what a ninny I am, but never mind". It was "thank $%^&* nothing was coming round that corner" ie a mixture of guilt and relief that my stupidity had not led to something bad.
|
> ie a mixture of guilt and relief that my stupidity had not led to something bad.
Isnt that the crux of it?
was he stupid? yes. Was his driving dangerous? well yes of course its very dangerous to drive on the wrong side of the road.
Did he know he was doing something wrong? At that time? no he didnt.
Had he been speeding like a boy racer, showing off, cutting corners, jumping red lights, or other driving acts where the driver *knows* he is doing something risky then a sentence like this is justified.
He made a mistake. I feel that pure mistakes made by motorists are unfairly jumped upon becuas ethey are easy meat, where actions made by those with more antisocial intent are treated more leniently.
Oh and does putting him in jail stop someone else doing what he did? No.
|
AE, what we were debating was whether this was an accident. We agree it was a dreadful error and that he has shown the proper remorse and I'm sure he wishes he could turn back the clock, but ultimately nobody and nothing made him do what he did so it's not an accident.
We don't know the finer details so no point speculating.
To the wider point about whether custody achieves anything in this case, it is a hard one to call. As the judge said, everyone loses here and I cannot imagine this sentence will prevent a single instance of the same thing happening again, but if the court simply shrugged its shoulders it would seem an inadequate response to the loss of three lives. It's actually possible that this person might in some way welcome it, in that he will emerge having "paid his debt"
|
It was an accident because he didn't intend it to happen. Just as when you drop a plate on the floor you describe it as an accident, you don't descend into modern PC speak to try and prove it was actually something else.
|
And how would those commentators who do not support a custodial sentence feel if it was their dead relative? Can you honestly answer objectively?
Since it has never happened, I cannot answer with total certainty, but I see no reason to believe I would think differently.
In reply to Spospe, it would depend on the circumstances.
NowWheels has provided many useful links. I think that the statement
(at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_negligence ) by Lord Hewart CJ in the case of R v Bateman (1925) defining criminal negligence as that which "showed such disregard for the life and safety of others as to amount to a crime against the State" is helpful. Such negligence would be pretty close to what I would have called recklessness, and recklessness is a different matter.
In the case in point, I see absolutely no evidence of recklessness or showing significant disregard for the life and safety of others.
|
I think we should only allow non-UK license holder to drive in UK , if that license issuing country also drive on same side of the road.
There had been several instances when continental drivers came on wrong side of the road and killed/injured some people.
Now, obvious disadvantage that other countries will then also prevent UK drivers to drive on their soil.
So, it's a question of compromise.
|
I think we should only allow non-UK license holder to drive in UK if that license issuing country also drive on same side of the road. There had been several instances . . .
If we are going there, I reckon that all males under the age of 25 have to go too. :-)
|
|
The USA,unlike the UK,is not yet one country-it is still a federation of seperate states and they all make their own traffic laws and apply them-very few in the same way.
|
The USA unlike the UK is not yet one country-it is still a federation of seperate states and they all make their own traffic laws and apply them-very few in the same way.
i think they all drive on the same side of the road tho
|
Tyro - references to criminal law are irrelevant. The subject is not an area of criminal law.
Altea - I hope that no-one in your family dies at the hands of another, accident or not. I do not believe you can answer my question objectively if you've not had to deal with the loss of someone close. Neither have I fortunately, so fear not the discussion. I have, however, dealt with many deaths, and the response from relatives is always the same. No-one (yet) has said: 'hey-ho, it was an accident'. I'd wager that it will never happen except where someone was plotting murder, and the job was done for them!
Enjoy the discussion, but I'm afraid to say I think many commentators speak from a position of ignorance. I've come to the conclusion that these forums serve no purpose whatsoever, a bit like radio talk shows only intended to hook the listener and keep them tuned. In common with other threads here many people espouse a viewpoint which I suspect alters radically when they find themselves a victim. I also know who they turn to in those times. As they say on a well known TV show: 'For those reasons, I'm out'.
|
Woodster,
Of course the victims of someone else's actions feel strongly about the punishment handed out to the perpretator. That's why we don't let them or their relatives decide sentencing. I once had my car broken into and a couple of snooker cues stolen, I was mad about it and I would quite willingly have had the thieves hands cut off before banging them up for about twenty years, but it would hardly have been a just sentence, would it?
|
I said 'I'm out!'
reasonable to compare simple theft to death?? And I never said anything about relatives having a hand in sentencing. I suggested that they would not be content to accept such an occurrence was an 'accident'.
|
Tyro - references to criminal law are irrelevant. The subject is not an area of criminal law.
Woodster, while I realise that you are out, I thank you for clarifying that.
However, that being the case, if everyone agrees that the accused is not a criminal, then it seems to me odd that he should be sent to prison.
|
|
Woodster is wrong. Death by dangerous is a criminal offence.
|
|
Nsar - I thought about that soon after I posted and my initial reaction to your post is that you're right. But now I'm questioning it again. You can be imprisoned for Road Traffic Act offences (drink driving) that are not criminal. They are, however, recordable, unlike most traffic offences. Short of getting the books out and checking I defer to you. Isn't this still a matter of driving standards? Gone is the old 'reckless' definition, requiring proof of state of mind, replaced as you doubtless know by an objective standard. Most criminal acts require state of mind to be ascertained, and this doesn't. I think!!
|
Unequivocally this is criminal law.
In fact I would say that everything, even drink driving and speeding, are criminal offences, albeit ones that are not taken seriously by e.g., employers, courts when taking character into account, foreign authorities when granting visas, availability of Legal Aid for legal representation, etc.
There are lots of criminal offences that do not require any mens rea (i.e., mental element) in order to secure a conviction, for instance serving alcohol to a drunk in a pub is an offence of strict liability.
It is a matter of driving standards - the test is whether the driving "falls far below that of a careful and competent driver" and undoubtedly, driving on the wrong side of the road for an extended period of time (even in the mistaken belief that you are on a dual carriageway with an invisible second carriageway) falls within that category.
|
Even the most minor of traffic infringements were originally "criminal"
The transfer of parking tickets from the police to councils was (until very recently) formally referred to as de-criminalised parking enforcement.
|
>Altea - I hope that no-one in your family dies at the hands of another, accident or not. >I do not believe you can answer my question objectively if you've not had to deal with >the loss of someone close
Woodster, I have had family members die of natural causes, premature death to preventable disease, accident (drowning) and murder (manslaughter actuaLY) (yes i come from a big family)
So I kinda feel i can answer most questions about death with a fair degree of experience.
perhaps thats why I can see some unfairness here.
|
Have to say with the greatest and most genuine respect for the victims and their loved ones, I too agree with you AE and HJ.
The man made a dreadful and tragic mistake. Some form of legal retribution is probably appropriate but not this variant. Most of us who have ever driven will have at some time done things unintentionally and potentially dangerous to others.
Edited by Humph Backbridge on 06/12/2008 at 20:47
|
|
HJ: Driving on the wrong side is not an accident. Its either dangerous driving or it is not, the consequences for which include jail. SFAIK, the matter was put to proof in court. Its up to the driver of a motor vehicle, in a foreign country, to be acquainted with the roads.
|
What is the minimum tariff for this offence?
|
|
I agree harsh to jail him - what's that going to achieve for a non-resident ? Which one of us hasn't momentarily made errors like this when driving abroad ?
|
|
Making an assumption here but he may have been (rightly) remanded whilst awaiting trial - I'd be interested to know whether he actually served "time" after the sentence. Not much detail elsewhere on the web.
|
Good point PU - however the accident happened a little over 4 months ago. The relatively speedy disposal of the case would make me think that he has pleaded guilty (although it might have been possible to dispose even more quickly than that if he has).
He would automatically be released at 50% of the sentence, i.e., after 10 months.
He may be eligible for earlier release on tag but the longest tag can last is 135 days (which is less than the 180ish days remaining to his half way point even if he were remanded immediately on charge following arrest at the scene). Given that the length of tag is dependent on the length of the sentence I think his maximum tagging duration would be less than 135 days. He would also have to have a suitable address in the UK (by no means guaranteed) and presumably the right to remain in the UK for the period of his tagging.
Even if he met all those criteria, he's still mathematically outside the point where he could be released for at least a month or two.
|
|
Lack of detail in the reports though - either that I've lost my Googling skills though, He should have been fined a fortune and sent home.
|
Minimum starting point where no aggravating factors is 12 months (less 1/3 discount for a guilty plea, if appropriate).
www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/deat.../
Possible aggravating factors in this case include:
1. driving when knowingly deprived of adequate sleep or rest;
2. more than one person killed as a result of the offence (especially if the offender knowingly put more than one person at risk or the occurrence of multiple deaths was foreseeable);
3. a prolonged, persistent and deliberate course of very bad driving (although this is no more than arguable and would be based on the offender's own account).
"An immediate custodial sentence will generally be necessary unless there are exceptional circumstances."
Even where there is "intermediate culpability" - "momentary dangerous driving/error of judgement/ short period of bad driving" (which to me appears to be the basis of the offence, not an aggravating factor) the starting point is 2 - 4 years.
Mitigating factors include
1. a good driving record;
2. the absence of previous convictions;
3. a timely plea of guilty;
4. genuine shock or remorse (which may be greater if the victim is either a close relation or a friend);
5. the offender's age (but only in cases where lack of driving experience has contributed to the commission of the offence), and
6. the fact that the offender has also been seriously injured as a result of the accident caused by the dangerous driving.
7. the fact that the offender behaved responsibly, and took positive action to assist at the scene.
It seems that most of the mitigation would be available in this case.
|
>>Minimum starting point where no aggravating factors is 12 months
Thanks, that's very helpful, and helps explain what has happened.
There but for....
I'm sure we've all had lapses, and have driven badly (apart, obviously, from the sanctimonious contingent!) - we've been lucky that there weren't such tragic consequences.
|
But by blaming the driver, the rental company is not held liable for the enormous cost of the deaths.
Really not sure about that at all - most rental companies self insure and will therefore be responsible for the driver's actions even if they didn't contribute to them.
Even if you can attribute some blame to the rental company (which I doubt and which may be irrelevant) it'd only be a partial contribution - the bulk of the negligence has to lie with the driver in my opinion (albeit 20% of £shedloads is potentially worth arguing over).
|
|
I can't make sense of the report. It says he'd been in the UK for " a few hours" then says he was looking for work here and then says he'd picked up a hire car to drive back to London to "fly back to America" Jet-lag might have been a feature. My head's fudged at the moment though.
|
Says he was here "for work" IIRC - i.e., fly in, spend a day doing meetings and then return.
I don't know how his itinerary would have looked - Expedia gives some very strange routes and times between LAX and NCL so maybe there was a planning failure also.
|
|
Adds to the "fatigue" theory - I wish these things were properly reported. Wouldn't cost much.
|
google: Nathan Doud 27 from California dual carriageway
Many other reports, including this one from D.Te:
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3567515/California...l
"......
Neither Mr Thackwray, a garage owner, or Mr Lewis, a retired mining engineer, was wearing a seatbelt ....
The court heard how Doud, from Ventura in California, had flown to Newcastle from Zurich at the last minute to carry out repair work on optical machinery for his employers.
The father-of-one frequently travelled the world and had hired a Citroen C4 to drive from Newcastle to London, so that he could fly home to America to see his 10-year-old daughter.
.... "
|
Neither Mr Thackwray a garage owner or Mr Lewis a retired mining engineer was wearing a seatbelt
Hmm. So if they had been wearing seatbelts they wouldn't have crushed the driver and all three may have survived.
|
>>the rental company is not held liable ...
Why should the rental company be held liable for a driver's shortcomings?
>>Blame culture.
Holding the rental company liable leads to a far worse culture - a nannying culture which leads to companies having to print warnings on coffee cups telling people that the contents may be hot! Is that really what you want to see more of?
The act of driving a car brings with it serious responsibilities which can't be shirked or passed onto anyone else.
|
|
I think the punishment was undeserved. It was dangerous driving, but it is so easily done. All it takes is one moment of innattention. I went to Florida on business, and several times had to shout at a colleague who drove on the wrong side of the road. I've seen the same in this country and flashed my headlights to wake up the driver, in this case a car with German plates, which was approaching a blind bend on the wrong side of the road.
|
I rarely contribute to this sort of thread.
I've been in the same position abroad, when I've seen an obvious holiday-maker in a hire car.
When I've pulled out of a filling station abroad.
In this country, on a motorbike with 6v electrics in, a temporary lane closure on a dual -carriageway.
|
I think that his employer should also bear some responsibility.
Guy is flown over from Zurich to Newcastle to do a days work and then sets off just before midnight in a hire car in a foreign country to head to London to catch a flight back home to the US.
|
"I thought I was on a dual carriageway."
Well, had he kept to the left/nearside lane of the 'dual carriageway' like he should have done, he would have avoided the oncoming car.
I wonder if there's a bit more to this than meets eye, although he's answered for killing the three men so perhaps the fine details are not so important.
|
although he's answered for killing the three men
See link to D.Tel posted further up lat night at 23.32.
Was it a contributory cause that the driver Mr Bell had not made sure that his passengers Mr Thackwray and Mr Lewis were wearing seat belts? Did the passenger in the rear get flung on to the driver contribute to the driver's death?
Bearing in mind the Government's seat-belt advert where the boy in the back who is not wearing a seat belt is shown as being responsible for the driver's death, how should responsibility for these deaths be apportioned in Nathan Doud's case?
IMO: As for jailing people, I think the whole concept of jailing people in the UK as a punishment is flawed. Except in cases of violent crimes, sending people to jail seems to cost the Taxpayer far more than it costs the culprit and any benefit to the Taxpayer is very doubtful. Jail is seen as an easy option for enjoying their life by many criminals.
|
>>Was it a contributory cause that the driver Mr Bell had not made sure that his passengers Mr Thackwray and Mr Lewis were wearing seat belts?<<
I doubt you'd say that to their wives.
|
I doubt you'd say that to their wives.
Why ever not? You doubt wrong.
Have you never heard about a man named Dodi and a Princess named Diana?
|
|
Then I hope you never meet them.
|
No doubt you will be there to tell them when to switch off their TVs before the seat belt adverts come on.
|
Now looked at the sattelite map and refreshed my memory of an area I knew as a child, albiet before the M1 was extended to meet the A1
It beggars belief that anyone could think that the A656 was a dual carriageway.
|
It beggars belief that anyone could think that the A656 was a dual carriageway.
Even if he really did believe it to be so, he was then driving in the wrong lane of the dual carriageway; i.e. as he was not overtaking anyone and as he was driving in the right-hand lane, his mindset was to drive in a lane which was correct for a dual carriageway the USA or Europe.
|
|
I didn't get involved in this thread because it gets a bit tiring being accused of bad attitudes I don't actually have. But I have to say that I too agree with AE, and I believe him when he says he wouldn't want the driver to go to jail even if one of his relations was among the victims. You wouldn't be very pleased with the guy, but it wouldn't take long to reach the conclusion that jailing him would be pointless if, as it appears, he bitterly regrets the results of his doziness. Jail ought to be for nasty or bad people, not careless or foolish ones.
|
I am with jbif and others on this.
If none were wearing seatbelts they have contributed to their own deaths. It maybe that the unrestrained back seat passenger actually killed the driver. I do wonder however if there is more to this than actually reported.
Dangerous driving is defined in S2(A)(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. A person is guilty of dangerous driving if:
1. the way he drives falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver and
2. it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous
Note the word AND
To me, if the driver was normally 'a competent and careful driver' and that he made a single 'error of judgement' , (ie assuming that he was on a dual carriageway), there is no way that he should be guilty of dangerous driving as defined above. A tragic outcome has confused the judgement of whether the result of his error could have been anticipated.
Very similar to the case of the guy whose landrover ended up on a railway line, causing one train to derail, with a subsequent fatalities when a second train hit the first.
|
pmh2 - I am amazed. Are you saying that driving on the wrong side of the road would not be obviously dangerous in the eyes of a competent and careful driver?
|
pmh2 - I am amazed. Are you saying that driving on the wrong side of the road would not be obviously dangerous in the eyes of a competent and careful driver?
Absolutely! He did not KNOW he was on the wrong side of the road. Single error of judgement. He was not driving in a reckless manner.
|
|
The judgement of the court suggests otherwise and I'm not sure how you can make that statement.
|
judgement of the court suggests otherwise
The judgements of courts are quite often disputed by public opinion or by lawyers, and they are sometimes overturned on appeal or by higher courts.
They have all the information that is laid before them, not always conveyed in detail in the reporting of cases. And judges or magistrates are there to apply the law in its gross form to individual cases, sentencing guidelines being in practice quite broad. They often do all right, but they often make mistakes or misjudgements too owing to their own pathologies or being presented with misleading information.
There is nothing sacred about the judgements passed by courts. They can be questioned. If they couldn't the newspapers would take a quantum jump in boringness.
|
Well, let's see if they appeal.
I have a feeling they won't.
|
We can only discuss this on the facts as presented. I have already posted that ther maybe more to this than reported.
On the facts as presented here I can make any statement that I wish. You may wish to disagree, but I am not alone in my view.
|
|
I'm intrigued. Why do you think that there may be more to this than reported?
|
Jail is seen as an easy option for enjoying their life by many criminals.
It might be if they can actually get into the jail - it seems to me that jail is the last place the courts send criminals to these days...
Goes back to someothing I said on another thread... I believe that jail is correct for many offences... but not the types of jail we have at the moment... they should be places that you don't want to go, not places that you do...
As for this particular case, it seems to me that we still don't have enough evidence to tell if he should have been jailed or not... however it would seem from his itinery over the few days before that he would not have been in a fit state to do the journey he set out on... fatigue would seem to be a major cause, if it was then I can understand the sentance, if you are tired then you don't drive...
|
>>we still don't have enough evidence to tell if he should have been jailed or not...<<
The Judge did.
|
I believe that jail is correctfor many offences... but not the types of jail we have at the moment... they should be places that you don't want to go not places that you do...
If jails are a cushy as many seem to believe, I wonder why they have to keep the guests locked in?
|
If jails are a cushy as many seem to believe, I wonder why they have to keep the guests locked in?
1. To convince those members of the public who are thick and/or gullible that our leaders are doing a good job:"tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime".
2. job creation.
3. Have you not heard of "open" prisons?
Edited by jbif on 07/12/2008 at 17:50
|
And how would those commentators who do not support a custodial sentence feel if it was their dead relative? Can you honestly answer objectively?
Probably not. I imagine if a loved one dies in circumstances like that, objectivity is very difficult, if not impossible. But since objectivity is vital to ensure that we are all treated consistently by the law, all you've proved is that relatives of the victim are uniquely unqualified to have an opinion on sentencing.
In my opinion the level of intent to harm, or lack of concern about causing harm is by far the most important factor that should determine t,he severity of an offence. Someone who, with the best of intentions attempts to drive safely and genuinely believes they are achieving that, but makes a mistake and kills someone has committed an offence. Someone who gets in their car without a care for anyone else's safety and charges around the place at grossly inappropriate speeds with no regard for anyone around them, but happens by pure luck to get away without hurting anyone has IMO committed a far more serious offence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
