[Fwd: Death driver jail term criticised]

[Tony Raven]

Four years for murdering five people with a car while drunk

<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/suffolk/6256258.stm>

Tony


--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell

 

[Ace]

On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 12:52:44 +0100, Tony Raven
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Four years for murdering five people with a car while drunk
>
><http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/suffolk/6256258.stm>

Can't you read English? He's been sentenced to eight and a half years,
which is very near the maximum of 10 that the offence could carry.

What would you have wanted the court to do?

 

[Tony Raven]

Ace wrote on 30/06/2007 13:58 +0100:
> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 12:52:44 +0100, Tony Raven
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Four years for murdering five people with a car while drunk
>>
>> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/suffolk/6256258.stm>
>
> Can't you read English? He's been sentenced to eight and a half years,
> which is very near the maximum of 10 that the offence could carry.
>

Wrong again. "Ben Morphey was told he would serve half of an
eight-and-a-half year jail term"


--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Ace
('[email protected]') wrote:

> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 12:52:44 +0100, Tony Raven
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Four years for murdering five people with a car while drunk
>>
>><http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/suffolk/6256258.stm>
>
> Can't you read English? He's been sentenced to eight and a half years,
> which is very near the maximum of 10 that the offence could carry.
>
> What would you have wanted the court to do?

More to the point he's been given a ten year driving ban. Frankly, what I'd
like to see is for the courts to give long *suspended* sentences (up to
and including life sentences) for this sort of thing, but to release the
convicted drivers on licence more or less immediately. They would only be
jailed if they drove a motor vehicle while banned - in which case, being
out on licence, they could be jailed immediately with no need to go back
to court. Towards the end of their sentence they would then have to train
for and sit a mandatory advanced driving test, and unless they passed it
they wouldn't get their driving licence back.

Prison as vengeance doesn't make sense and isn't economic. Prison is only
justified in so far as it either rehabilitates the offender, or protects
the public. If the offender is an irresponsible driver, then in nine cases
out of ten (s)he will rehabilitate in time just be growing older. In the
mean time the public is protected just by preventing them from driving.

They get to continue living their life and earning their living, the
exchequer collects the fine and their continued income tax (and doesn't
have to pay to keep them in prison), and the public are safe. Result, I
would say.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; If Python is executable pseudocode,
;; then Perl is executable line noise
-- seen on Slashdot.

 

[Ace]

On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 14:35:16 +0100, Tony Raven
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Ace wrote on 30/06/2007 13:58 +0100:
>> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 12:52:44 +0100, Tony Raven
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Four years for murdering five people with a car while drunk
>>>
>>> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/suffolk/6256258.stm>
>>
>> Can't you read English? He's been sentenced to eight and a half years,
>> which is very near the maximum of 10 that the offence could carry.
>>
>
>Wrong again.

No.

>"Ben Morphey was told he would serve half of an
>eight-and-a-half year jail term"

Time served != time sentenced. The max sentence is ten years, he got
nearly that. Go look up details of release under licence and you'll
see that it's always like this.

 

[Ace]

On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 14:44:04 +0100, Simon Brooke
<[email protected]> wrote:

<snip>

*Applause*

 

[Tony Raven]

Simon Brooke wrote on 30/06/2007 14:44 +0100:
>
> Prison is only
> justified in so far as it either rehabilitates the offender, or protects
> the public.

You forgot prison "pour encourager les autres.

--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell

 

[raisethe]

On 30 Jun, 14:44, Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:
> in message <[email protected]>, Ace
>
> ('[email protected]') wrote:
> > On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 12:52:44 +0100, Tony Raven
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>Four years for murdering five people with a car while drunk
>
> >><http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/suffolk/6256258.stm>
>
> > Can't you read English? He's been sentenced to eight and a half years,
> > which is very near the maximum of 10 that the offence could carry.
>
> > What would you have wanted the court to do?
>
> More to the point he's been given a ten year driving ban. Frankly, what I'd
> like to see is for the courts to give long *suspended* sentences (up to
> and including life sentences) for this sort of thing, but to release the
> convicted drivers on licence more or less immediately. They would only be
> jailed if they drove a motor vehicle while banned - in which case, being
> out on licence, they could be jailed immediately with no need to go back
> to court. Towards the end of their sentence they would then have to train
> for and sit a mandatory advanced driving test, and unless they passed it
> they wouldn't get their driving licence back.
>
> Prison as vengeance doesn't make sense and isn't economic. Prison is only
> justified in so far as it either rehabilitates the offender, or protects
> the public. If the offender is an irresponsible driver, then in nine cases
> out of ten (s)he will rehabilitate in time just be growing older. In the
> mean time the public is protected just by preventing them from driving.
>
> They get to continue living their life and earning their living, the
> exchequer collects the fine and their continued income tax (and doesn't
> have to pay to keep them in prison), and the public are safe. Result, I
> would say.
>
> --
> [email protected] (Simon Brooke)http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
> ;; If Python is executable pseudocode,
> ;; then Perl is executable line noise
> -- seen on Slashdot.

Exactly where is the punishment here? Other than not being able to
drive an MV (which isn't really a big deal anyway) the driver gets
away with it.

So in addition to the measures you propose, the killer should also pay
for his crime financially, by having his assets seized and by
attaching a deduction to his future earnings.

He should also be publicly shamed, via the local media and through
public display in the local market place.

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 14:44:04 +0100, Simon Brooke
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Prison as vengeance doesn't make sense and isn't economic. Prison is only
>justified in so far as it either rehabilitates the offender, or protects
>the public.

It is also justified as a deterrent to others.

 

[Paul Boyd]

On 30/06/2007 15:29, raisethe said,

> He should also be publicly shamed, via the local media

That happens anyway, usually even before the verdict is announced.

> and through public display in the local market place.

....but that would be good, if you can find any local markets these days

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

 

[Nick]

raise the wrote:
> On 30 Jun, 14:44, Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:
>> in message <[email protected]>, Ace
>>
>> ('[email protected]') wrote:
>>> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 12:52:44 +0100, Tony Raven
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Four years for murdering five people with a car while drunk
>>>> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/suffolk/6256258.stm>
>>> Can't you read English? He's been sentenced to eight and a half years,
>>> which is very near the maximum of 10 that the offence could carry.
>>> What would you have wanted the court to do?
>> More to the point he's been given a ten year driving ban. Frankly, what I'd
>> like to see is for the courts to give long *suspended* sentences (up to
>> and including life sentences) for this sort of thing, but to release the
>> convicted drivers on licence more or less immediately. They would only be
>> jailed if they drove a motor vehicle while banned - in which case, being
>> out on licence, they could be jailed immediately with no need to go back
>> to court. Towards the end of their sentence they would then have to train
>> for and sit a mandatory advanced driving test, and unless they passed it
>> they wouldn't get their driving licence back.
>>
>> Prison as vengeance doesn't make sense and isn't economic. Prison is only
>> justified in so far as it either rehabilitates the offender, or protects
>> the public. If the offender is an irresponsible driver, then in nine cases
>> out of ten (s)he will rehabilitate in time just be growing older. In the
>> mean time the public is protected just by preventing them from driving.
>>
>> They get to continue living their life and earning their living, the
>> exchequer collects the fine and their continued income tax (and doesn't
>> have to pay to keep them in prison), and the public are safe. Result, I
>> would say.
>>
>> --
>> [email protected] (Simon Brooke)http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
>> ;; If Python is executable pseudocode,
>> ;; then Perl is executable line noise
>> -- seen on Slashdot.
>
> Exactly where is the punishment here? Other than not being able to
> drive an MV (which isn't really a big deal anyway) the driver gets
> away with it.
>

Punishment?

What we are really interested in is preventing the behaviour/crime, both
in the offender and in others. Like Simon I suspect prison has as a
punishment is of very little deterrent value in cases like this.

The logic goes that because people don't expect an accident they don't
consider the penalties and hence even severe penalties have very little
deterrent effect.

It is far more likely that drink drivers do consider the probability of
being caught for drink driving, but without any accident involved and it
is this penalty that they will consider and be deterred by.

The good thing about prolonged driving bans are that they help prevent
recidivism and that they don't cost the tax payer.

> So in addition to the measures you propose, the killer should also pay
> for his crime financially, by having his assets seized and by
> attaching a deduction to his future earnings.
>

One would hope that there is the potential for a civil case to assess
damages.


> He should also be publicly shamed, via the local media and through
> public display in the local market place.
>

Well the bbc website does appear to have named and shamed him.

 

[Alex Potter]

On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 15:45:39 +0100, Tom Crispin wrote:

> It is also justified as a deterrent to others.

Given current sentencing policy, I don't think that justification holds up.

--
Regards
Alex
The From address above is a spam-trap.
The Reply-To address is valid

 

[Rob Morley]

In article <[email protected]>, Nick
[email protected] says...
> raise the wrote:
> > On 30 Jun, 14:44, Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> in message <[email protected]>, Ace
> >>
> >> ('[email protected]') wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 12:52:44 +0100, Tony Raven
> >>> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> Four years for murdering five people with a car while drunk
> >>>> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/suffolk/6256258.stm>
> >>> Can't you read English? He's been sentenced to eight and a half years,
> >>> which is very near the maximum of 10 that the offence could carry.
> >>> What would you have wanted the court to do?
> >> More to the point he's been given a ten year driving ban. Frankly, what I'd
> >> like to see is for the courts to give long *suspended* sentences (up to
> >> and including life sentences) for this sort of thing, but to release the
> >> convicted drivers on licence more or less immediately. They would only be
> >> jailed if they drove a motor vehicle while banned - in which case, being
> >> out on licence, they could be jailed immediately with no need to go back
> >> to court. Towards the end of their sentence they would then have to train
> >> for and sit a mandatory advanced driving test, and unless they passed it
> >> they wouldn't get their driving licence back.
> >>
> >> Prison as vengeance doesn't make sense and isn't economic. Prison is only
> >> justified in so far as it either rehabilitates the offender, or protects
> >> the public. If the offender is an irresponsible driver, then in nine cases
> >> out of ten (s)he will rehabilitate in time just be growing older. In the
> >> mean time the public is protected just by preventing them from driving.
> >>
> >> They get to continue living their life and earning their living, the
> >> exchequer collects the fine and their continued income tax (and doesn't
> >> have to pay to keep them in prison), and the public are safe. Result, I
> >> would say.
> >>
> >> --
> >> [email protected] (Simon Brooke)http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
> >> ;; If Python is executable pseudocode,
> >> ;; then Perl is executable line noise
> >> -- seen on Slashdot.
> >
> > Exactly where is the punishment here? Other than not being able to
> > drive an MV (which isn't really a big deal anyway) the driver gets
> > away with it.
> >
>
> Punishment?
>
> What we are really interested in is preventing the behaviour/crime, both
> in the offender and in others. Like Simon I suspect prison has as a
> punishment is of very little deterrent value in cases like this.
>
> The logic goes that because people don't expect an accident they don't
> consider the penalties and hence even severe penalties have very little
> deterrent effect.
>
> It is far more likely that drink drivers do consider the probability of
> being caught for drink driving, but without any accident involved and it
> is this penalty that they will consider and be deterred by.
>
> The good thing about prolonged driving bans are that they help prevent
> recidivism and that they don't cost the tax payer.
>
Except that banned drivers often continue to drive, repeatedly catching
them and putting them through the courts costs money, supervising their
community service costs money ...

 

[raisethe]

> > So in addition to the measures you propose, the killer should also pay
> > for his crime financially, by having his assets seized and by
> > attaching a deduction to his future earnings.
>
> One would hope that there is the potential for a civil case to assess
> damages.
>
>

Can you give me an example of where a convicted car killer has had to
pay a substantial amount of damages to the estate of the deceased?

 

[Nick]

Rob Morley wrote:

>>
>> The good thing about prolonged driving bans are that they help prevent
>> recidivism and that they don't cost the tax payer.
>>
> Except that banned drivers often continue to drive, repeatedly catching
> them and putting them through the courts costs money, supervising their
> community service costs money ...

Yes I agree at some point prison may be required if they do ignore a ban.

I'm not sure what your point is, are you claiming prison is not
expensive in comparison to a driving ban? I would argue it is expensive
even taking into account other costs such as breaking a ban.

 

[raisethe]

On 30 Jun, 16:20, Rob Morley <[email protected]> wrote:

> > The good thing about prolonged driving bans are that they help prevent
> > recidivism and that they don't cost the tax payer.
>
> Except that banned drivers often continue to drive, repeatedly catching
> them and putting them through the courts costs money, supervising their
> community service costs money ...-

The error here is that they shouldn't be caught repeatedly. After
killing someone, they should be monitored carefully eg by tagging,
signing in at police stations every day etc. Their photo should appear
every week in the local paper under the heading of banned drivers and
be on display elsewhere in the locality. They should also be shown
what happens to people who defy banning orders. All of these measures
will not approach the cost of holding someone in prison.

If they are found driving whilst banned just once, then they should be
physically prevented from driving again. I prefer amputation or at the
very least a penal colony but these methods may be hard for some
people to accept. The alternative would have to be the very expensive
option of prison.

The point is, any banned driver should not be physically able to drive
again once he has been caught driving whilst banned, so there would be
no need to repeatedly catch him.

 

[Matt B]

Tom Crispin wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 14:44:04 +0100, Simon Brooke
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Prison as vengeance doesn't make sense and isn't economic. Prison is only
>> justified in so far as it either rehabilitates the offender, or protects
>> the public.
>
> It is also justified as a deterrent to others.

How can that be so? How can punishing one individual, as a lesson for
others, ever be morally justifiable?

--
Matt B

 

[Alan Braggins]

In article <[email protected]>, Tony Raven wrote:
>Simon Brooke wrote on 30/06/2007 14:44 +0100:
>>
>> Prison is only
>> justified in so far as it either rehabilitates the offender, or protects
>> the public.
>
>You forgot prison "pour encourager les autres.

Arguably that's protecting the public from those who would have committed
the crime if they weren't deterred by the thought of the prison sentence.
At least that's the intention, and if it doesn't work, I don't think
"pour encourager les autres" does justify prison.

 

[Rob Morley]

In article <[email protected]>, Nick
[email protected] says...
> Rob Morley wrote:
>
> >>
> >> The good thing about prolonged driving bans are that they help prevent
> >> recidivism and that they don't cost the tax payer.
> >>
> > Except that banned drivers often continue to drive, repeatedly catching
> > them and putting them through the courts costs money, supervising their
> > community service costs money ...
>
> Yes I agree at some point prison may be required if they do ignore a ban.
>
> I'm not sure what your point is

I was disagreeing with you on both of your points.

 

[Rob Morley]

In article <[email protected]>,
raisethe
[email protected] says...
> On 30 Jun, 16:20, Rob Morley <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > The good thing about prolonged driving bans are that they help prevent
> > > recidivism and that they don't cost the tax payer.
> >
> > Except that banned drivers often continue to drive, repeatedly catching
> > them and putting them through the courts costs money, supervising their
> > community service costs money ...-
>
> The error here is that they shouldn't be caught repeatedly. After
> killing someone, they should be monitored carefully eg by tagging,
> signing in at police stations every day etc.

Are we still talking about drivers who kill? I was just commenting on
how ineffective driving bans can be. I agree with the idea of penal
colonies though.