[Fwd: Death driver jail term criticised]

[Tony Raven]

Alan Braggins wrote on 30/06/2007 16:50 +0100:
> 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.

Hypothetical. If crossing a red light carried an automatic prison
sentence instead of an FPN would you be more, the same or less likely to
cross a red light?

--
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, 17:42, Rob Morley
> > 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?

yes, when they are to blame.

I was just commenting on
> how ineffective driving bans can be. I agree with the idea of penal
> colonies though.

 

[Squashme]

On 30 Jun, 17:42, Rob Morley <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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.

Yeaahhh, this bloke already sounds a bit Australian:-

Simon Spence, prosecuting, said Morphey told police the alcohol he had
consumed would have had "very little effect on his driving and would
not really dull his reaction times". [after nearly 8 pints of lager]

Is there a companion group to SafeSpeed called SafeDrunk, that could
argue in support of this motorist?


Apologies to any Australians listening, it was only a goak, honest.

 

[Pyromancer]

Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as Simon
Brooke <[email protected]> gently breathed:

>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.

That is possibly one of the most sensible and well reasoned posts I've
ever seen on the subject of law and order. And I agree with you
completely.

--
- DJ Pyromancer, Black Sheep, Leeds. <http://www.sheepish.net>
Hard Rock, Leeds <http://www.hard-rock.org.uk>
Broadband, Dialup, Domains = <http://www.wytches.net> = The UK's Pagan ISP!
<http://www.inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk> <http://www.revival.stormshadow.com>

 

[Pyromancer]

Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as raisethe
<[email protected]> gently breathed:
>On 30 Jun, 14:44, Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:
>> in message <[email protected]>, Ace

>> 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.

>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.

Not driving would have a very major effect on a lot of people's lives.
They'd probably have to move house, possibly to a less pleasant area, in
order to be able to still get to work for starters.

>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.

I'd like to see that too, but unlikely to happen, alas.

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

Done by the BBC. And while personally I'm all in favour of execution,
amputation, and other extreme penalties for various offences, as others
have pointed out, in the case of drink driving the only penalty the
perpetrator is liable to take account of is the one for just being
caught driving drunk. They tend not to think of the possible
consequences beyond that. Ok, the death penalty for drink driving might
act as a deterrent (though TBH the jury's out on how much of a deterrent
the DP actually is - and I'm saying that as a supporter of it), but
you'd never get that passed in law.

What Simon's proposed might actually work, even within the current legal
framework.

--
- DJ Pyromancer, Black Sheep, Leeds. <http://www.sheepish.net>
Hard Rock, Leeds <http://www.hard-rock.org.uk>
Broadband, Dialup, Domains = <http://www.wytches.net> = The UK's Pagan ISP!
<http://www.inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk> <http://www.revival.stormshadow.com>

 

[Pyromancer]

Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as Rob Morley
<[email protected]> gently breathed:

>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 ...

Simon's proposal solves that - they're on licence from prison, so first
time they're caught drving, it's straight inside for the full rest of
the sentence, without even having to pass a court on the way.

--
- DJ Pyromancer, Black Sheep, Leeds. <http://www.sheepish.net>
Hard Rock, Leeds <http://www.hard-rock.org.uk>
Broadband, Dialup, Domains = <http://www.wytches.net> = The UK's Pagan ISP!
<http://www.inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk> <http://www.revival.stormshadow.com>

 

[Nick]

Rob Morley wrote:
> 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.

Yes I kind of guessed you wanted to disagree with me but I'm still not
exactly sure what you disagreed with or why?

Are you saying driving bans don't help prevent bad driving. Are you
saying you think that drivers are more likely to go out and drive badly
after they are banned than if they are not banned?

Are you also saying you think it is cheaper to send people to jail than
to spend money monitoring them to see if they do break a ban and spend
money on trials for those that do?

 

[Nick]

Tony Raven wrote:
> Alan Braggins wrote on 30/06/2007 16:50 +0100:
>> 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.
>
> Hypothetical. If crossing a red light carried an automatic prison
> sentence instead of an FPN would you be more, the same or less likely to
> cross a red light?
>

People consider the punishment when crossing a red light because they
figure there is a reasonable chance of getting caught and hence a severe
punishment has a strong deterrent effect. The same is true to a certain
extent of drink driving.

However people do not expect to kill someone when they drink drive and
hence are much less deterred by even a very severe punishment.

There was an Open University program that illustrated a similar point by
stating that capital punishment would have a huge deterrent effect on
illegal parking but the deterrent effect on murder was much less clear
mainly because murders do not expect to be caught.

 

[JNugent]

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

Which bit of "He's been sentenced to eight and a half years, which is
very near the maximum of 10 that the offence could carry" is incorrect?

 

[JNugent]

Simon Brooke 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 Simon Brooke has (what he fondly imagines are) far worse ideas
for revenge.

 

[JNugent]

raisethe wrote:
>>>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?

What is a "car killer"?

Since a car is not alive, it is hard to envisage one being killed.

If you mean "a driver who has been shown to have been so negligent as
to be responsible for a road traffic accident in which someone else
died", there must be lots of examples of insurance payouts to the
estates of deceased persons. It's the main reason why insurance is
compulsory.

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Tom Crispin
('[email protected]') 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.

My mother, who did a lot of research in this area, sid that deterrence is
largely a myth - criminals by and large do not believe they will be
caught, and so are not deterred.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Nick ('[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.

The problem with prolonged driving bans, though, is that many people
continue to drive when banned, and it is complicated and difficult to get
them punished for it - which is why I suggest combining the ban with a
suspended sentence. If someone is out on licence from a suspended sentence
and they break the terms of their licence (in this case by driving), then
they can be imprisoned immediately with no further court appearance.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; "If I were a Microsoft Public Relations person, I would probably
;; be sobbing on a desk right now" -- Rob Miller, editor, /.

 

[Simon Brooke]

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

> In article <[email protected]>, Nick
> [email protected] says...
>> raise the wrote:
>> > On 30 Jun, 14:44, 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. 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.
>> >
>> > 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.

There's no punishment there, except for the withdrawal of the privilege of
driving (and, of course, the driver could be fined as well). I'm not
persuaded that punishment does much good.

> 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 ...

That's why I suggest the suspended sentence. If they're caught driving,
they can be imprisoned immediately without putting them through the courts
again.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; Our modern industrial economy takes a mountain covered with trees,
;; lakes, running streams and transforms it into a mountain of junk,
;; garbage, slime pits, and debris. -- Edward Abbey

 

[Rob Morley]

In article <[email protected]>, Nick
[email protected] says...
> Rob Morley wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Yes I kind of guessed you wanted to disagree with me but I'm still not
> exactly sure what you disagreed with or why?
>
> Are you saying driving bans don't help prevent bad driving. Are you
> saying you think that drivers are more likely to go out and drive badly
> after they are banned than if they are not banned?

They're not risking losing their licenses, are they? Plus banned
drivers tend to drive really badly when being chased by the police - do
you never watch those TV programs?
>
> Are you also saying you think it is cheaper to send people to jail than
> to spend money monitoring them to see if they do break a ban and spend
> money on trials for those that do?
>
You said "they don't cost the taxpayer", not "they cost the taxpayer
less".

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 00:43:13 +0100, Simon Brooke
<[email protected]> wrote:

>in message <[email protected]>, Tom Crispin
>('[email protected]') 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.
>
>My mother, who did a lot of research in this area, sid that deterrence is
>largely a myth - criminals by and large do not believe they will be
>caught, and so are not deterred.

For crimes like crimes of passion I would tend to agree with your
mother. For other crimes, like lying on a tax return or misdemeanors
like lying on a job application I would not agree.

If criminals caught drink driving routinely faced a police caution for
a first offence I really believe that the problem of drink drivers on
our roads would be even more rife than it is as present.

 

[Tony Raven]

Simon Brooke wrote on 01/07/2007 00:47 +0100:
>
> The problem with prolonged driving bans, though, is that many people
> continue to drive when banned, and it is complicated and difficult to get
> them punished for it - which is why I suggest combining the ban with a
> suspended sentence. If someone is out on licence from a suspended sentence
> and they break the terms of their licence (in this case by driving), then
> they can be imprisoned immediately with no further court appearance.
>

How will that work given that "deterrence is largely a myth - criminals
by and large do not believe they will be caught, and so are not deterred."?

--
Tony

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

 

[Tony Raven]

Simon Brooke wrote on 01/07/2007 00:43 +0100:
> in message <[email protected]>, Tom Crispin
> ('[email protected]') wrote:

>> It is also justified as a deterrent to others.
>
> My mother, who did a lot of research in this area, sid that deterrence is
> largely a myth - criminals by and large do not believe they will be
> caught, and so are not deterred.
>

Depends who you are trying to deter. Yes, for many criminals its a
calculated risk of doing business and for some crimes people are carried
along by emotion and are not thinking. But as has been pointed out
before if all cars caught speeding were confiscated and crushed or you
had automatic imprisonment for running a red light, the vast majority
would not speed or run red lights. There are some though that would or
even see it as their challenge to authority.

--
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]>, Tony Raven
('[email protected]') wrote:

> Simon Brooke wrote on 01/07/2007 00:47 +0100:
>>
>> The problem with prolonged driving bans, though, is that many people
>> continue to drive when banned, and it is complicated and difficult to
>> get them punished for it - which is why I suggest combining the ban with
>> a suspended sentence. If someone is out on licence from a suspended
>> sentence and they break the terms of their licence (in this case by
>> driving), then they can be imprisoned immediately with no further court
>> appearance.
>>
>
> How will that work given that "deterrence is largely a myth - criminals
> by and large do not believe they will be caught, and so are not
> deterred."?

I'm not seeking to deter them, I'm seeking to get them off the road. If
they repeat offend, they get jailed. They don't get threatened with it
repeatedly, just straight in the cell and turn the key. No complications,
no appeals, no delays, straight out of the car and into the cell.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; Drivers in the UK kill more people every single year than
;; Al Qaeda have ever killed worldwide in any single year.

 

[Rob Morley]

In article <[email protected]>,
Squashme
[email protected] says...

> Well, how about greatest good of the greatest number. Hopefully,
> making an example of the driver will deter many others and the good
> produced will outweigh any hurt done to the criminal.
>
Isn't that called fascism?