"Reckless indifference"

[James Annan]

How will they manage to write this law so as to exclude car drivers? It
would surely be hard to argue that someone who caused death by
"dangerous driving" had not also displayed "reckless indifference" to
the consequences. This sounds like a lower level of offence than the
"grosss negligence" that currently related to manslaughter. But I would
be astonished if this new law was applied to car crashes. The odd
cyclist will no doubt get locked up for it though, if they fail to dodge
a pedestrian who runs in front of them.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/uk/4544238.stm

James
--
James Annan
see web pages for email
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/

 

[Matt B]

James Annan wrote:
> How will they manage to write this law so as to exclude car drivers?

They won't. If a car driver or anyone deliberately kills someone it is
murder.

> It
> would surely be hard to argue that someone who caused death by
> "dangerous driving" had not also displayed "reckless indifference" to
> the consequences.

If their is reasonable grounds to believe the more serious charge can be
made to stick you can bet it *will* be applied.

> This sounds like a lower level of offence than the
> "grosss negligence" that currently related to manslaughter.

> But I would
> be astonished if this new law was applied to car crashes.

If the evidence dictates a more serious offence occurred it will be
applied. Like now, no stone is left unturned at the scenes of fatal
"accidents", serious crime is always assumed a possibility until the
police satisfy themselves otherwise.

> The odd
> cyclist will no doubt get locked up for it though, if they fail to dodge
> a pedestrian who runs in front of them.

If there is evidence to support such a case, why not?

Can you distinguish between malice, negligence and accident?

Another thing to consider is the outcome. If murder was the intent, and
the perpetrator went away believing it was achieved, only later to find
that by some miracle the victim had survived, is the offence thus less
serious, and do the public need to be protected from a failed murderer
to any lesser degree than from a successful one?

--
Matt B