Yet another derisory fine for killing a cyclist...

[Thomas Buck]

"Simon Mason" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Thomas" <tom [at] greysheep [dot] co [dot] uk> wrote in
> message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > Hang on... you're saying that we should imprison people
> > purely for the purpose of scaring people into inaction?
> > I can understand that kind of argument as far as
> > murderers and rapists are concerned, but for this...
>
> Yes -it's called a *deterrent*. Kill someone with a
> dangerous weapon and
you
> get banged up. If it makes only a few people take more
> care -then it's worthwhile.

And him having to explain to his mates about what a silly
sod he's been isn't a deterrent? I mean, really, do you
think kids read something in the paper about a driver
being jailed for five years and think "Oo-err, better slow
down then."

Now, I think it's pretty likely that if this kid's a
passenger in one of his mates' cars, and that car starts
speeding, he's going to get the message across in a method
that *will* make a difference.

Naturally, opinions differ, but meh, makes life interesting.

Tom.

 

[Thomas Buck]

"Gawnsoft" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 17:44:29 -0000, "Thomas" <tom [at]
> greysheep [dot] co [dot] uk> wrote (more or less):
>
> >I can understand that kind of argument as far as
> >murderers and rapists are concerned, but for this...
>
> Are you really saying that a killing should be treated
> lightly when carried out by means of a car?

Are you really saying there's no difference between murder
and manslaughter?

Tom.

 

[Mark Thompson]

>>I can understand that kind of argument as far as murderers
>>and rapists are concerned, but for this...
>
> Are you really saying that a killing should be treated
> lightly when carried out by means of a car?

I believe he's talking about the lack of intent. See my over
long post for why.

 

[Thomas Buck]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 06:30:35 +0900, James Annan
> <[email protected]> wrote in message <[email protected]
> net.or.jp>:

> >I don't honestly think that even adding a significant
> >jail sentence would add a great deal to the deterrent
> >that is already there.
>
> No, I think there should be significant community service
> orders, bans and retraining. I really do not think that
> the derisory fines and few points handed down to the
> average lethally bad driver are anything like adequate,
> and for some reason when the dead person is a cyclist the
> penalty seems to be even less adequate (perhaps because of
> BeHIT's ******** making courts believe cycling is somehow
> dangerous).

I couldn't agree with you more, I was merely
questioning why jail constantly seems to be banded
about as the only solution.

Tom.

 

[Thomas Buck]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 17:21:01 -0000, "Thomas" <tom [at]
> greysheep [dot] co [dot] uk> wrote in message
> <[email protected]>:
>
> >Whilst any loss of human life is, of course, regrettable,
> >what else
should
> >be done? He's got his whole life in front of him
>
> Which will give him plenty of time to pay more substantial
> damages in installments, after his three year ban and
> twelve month community service order finishes.

Sounds fair to me

Didn't mean to start quite such a massive thread, I just
tend to get rather tired of prison sentances being held up
as some miracle cure for society's
ills. Bloody liberal.

Tom.

 

[Thomas Buck]

"Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Thomas wrote:
> >
> > Right... so people should be imprisoned for being human?
> > i.e. everybody makes mistakes.
> >
>
> Sentencing has three purposes - punishment, protection of
> society and deterrence. Would you think twice before
> taking a gun to a burglar after
the
> Tony Martin case and would you think twice about driving a
> bit fast on the roads after this case?

The Tony Martin case is a double-edged sword; on the one
hand, if someone breaks into your home, starts stealing and
refuses to leave, you should be able to use whatever means.
On the other, he did shoot the kid in the back...

Tom.

 

[Mark Thompson]

Ian Smith wrote in news:[email protected]:

> On 27 Mar 2004, Mark Thompson
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > H&S legislation is explicit that teh consequence of teh
>> > lapse in question should be taken into account in
>> > sentencing. That is, if your lapse causes death, then
>> > you should be sentenced more severely than if it does
>> > not. There would be no fundamental problem with doing
>> > teh same for motoring offences - it doesn't require any
>> > change of fundamental or universal principle.
>>
>> We're already doing it for driving aren't we?
>
> It's always trumpeted as we can't. Indeed, my posting was
> in response to just that assertion - that you can't lock
> 'im up for killing someone because it was just a momentary
> lapse of concentration and it wouldn't be fair to punnish
> him severely for a momentary lapse of concentration which
> opther people get away with.
>
> Which is bollards in two respects - one being that quoted
> above, and teh other being that you _shoul_, in any case,
> punnish the people that offend but by fluke get away
> without killing someone.

Yebbut, aren't we already taking deaths into account when we
sentence people? If the youth who killed the woman had only
left her with bruises his punishment would be even more
lenient wouldn't it?

 

[Mark Thompson]

<snippity everything re: motorist will kill to get to work on time>

Apart from the trying to kill bit, you all more or less
agree with each other so just admit it!

 

[Mark Thompson]

> I've broken speed limits.

Murderer

 

[Mark Thompson]

>> So then, what should his punishment have been?
>
> perhaps something I and others have long been
> advocating: if you cause a collision, you don't get your
> licence back until the victims of that collision are
> returned to full health. So if they don't get better, or
> you killed someone, you never drive again, which seems
> like justice to me.

I've been considering that one too. I haven't found anything
I don't like about it either. I'm sure people will whinge
about having to look for a

 

[Gawnsoft]

On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 19:35:25 -0000, "Thomas Buck" <La de la de la>
wrote (more or less):

>
>"Gawnsoft"
><[email protected]> wrote
>in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 17:44:29 -0000, "Thomas" <tom [at]
>> greysheep [dot] co [dot] uk> wrote (more or less):
>>
>> >I can understand that kind of argument as far as
>> >murderers and rapists are concerned, but for this...
>>
>> Are you really saying that a killing should be treated
>> lightly when carried out by means of a car?
>
>Are you really saying there's no difference between murder
>and manslaughter?

No - but I am saying that manslaughter with an axe and
manslaughter with a car should have comparable sentences -
which they do not currently have. (As manslaughter with a
car has been redefined as another offence allow more lenient
sentencing).

Cheers, Euan Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122 Smalltalk
links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk)
http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

 

[Jon Senior]

"dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]...
> Not a lot of people I know *want* to go to jail. If they
> thought there was
a
> realistic chance of actually ending up there if they
> seriously injure or
kill
> someone as a result of their driving, I think it may well
> have a positive effect on their driving behavoiur and that
> of their peers. If he gets a derisory fine and a
> ludicrously short ban it will have no positive effect
at
> all on their driving behaviour - such piddlingly small
> fines and short
bans are
> a joke.

On the other hand, you can put him in prison, define him as
a "criminal" in the public eye thus limiting his chances of
ever contributing to society, and ensure that his peer group
for the next n years consists of career criminals,
murderers, rapists etc.

Jon

 

[David Hansen]

On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 09:49:31 +0100 someone who may be "Jon Senior"
<jon@restless_REMOVE_lemon.co.uk> wrote this:-

>And when you put him in prison, you will make him more so.
>It will change the public's perception of him.

I don't see a downside to this.

I wouldn't put him in prison for a long time. A month or two
would be appropriate, together with a driving ban of say
five years and some community service. Having completed all
of this successfully he could take an enhanced driving test.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number
F566DA0E I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK
government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

 

[Helen Deborah V]

Gawnsoft
<[email protected]>typed

> On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 21:53:46 +0000, BenS
> <[email protected]> wrote (more or less):

> >He had an accident. People have accidents. If someone
> >dies in an accident, then sure, it's a tragedy but to
> >punish the person who had the accident with prison?
> >Utterly over the top.

> Why so?

> If you look at the stats, having a vehicle accident is a
> driver is something that happens multiple times over the
> typical driver's lifetime.

> Having an accident is therefore hardly an unforeseen side-
> effect of driving.

> Neither is it a rare side-effect of driving.

> Given that it is relatively frequent, and foreseeable, why
> should we be minded to let off those who drive and cause
> death by only a token fine?

> After all, it's only earlier this week that someone was
> given a small fine for driving beered-up and 50% over
> the speed limit on the wrong side of the road while
> speaking on a mobiile phone and killing three people he
> crashed into.

Quite.

Part of the problem is the terminology. The term 'accident'
implies chance and unforseeabilty.

The terms 'crash' or 'collision' do not.

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email protected] Edgware.

 

[David Hansen]

On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 19:31:44 -0000 someone who may be "Thomas Buck"
<La de la de la> wrote this:-

>And him having to explain to his mates about what a silly
>sod he's been isn't a deterrent?

I suspect that his mates will reinforce his offending. "It
wasn't your fault, it was an accident. Could have happened
to anybody."

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number
F566DA0E I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK
government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

 

[David Hansen]

On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 19:40:31 -0000 someone who may be "Thomas Buck"
<La de la de la> wrote this:-

>The Tony Martin case is a double-edged sword; on the one
>hand, if someone breaks into your home,

So far so good.

>starts stealing

I don't recall that they stole anything, though this would
be impossible for Mr Martin to determine at the time.

>and refuses to leave,

They were not asked to leave, so did not refuse to leave.
Indeed they were already leaving when shot in the back.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number
F566DA0E I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK
government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On 27 Mar 2004 19:52:30 GMT, Mark Thompson
<[email protected]> wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

>aren't we already taking deaths into account when we
>sentence people? If the youth who killed the woman had only
>left her with bruises his punishment would be even more
>lenient wouldn't it?

Carl Baxter was convicted of GBH following his road rage
attack on Stephen Kirwin. The maximum penalty for GBH is
life imprisonment. He had a previous conviction for
assault following a traffic tantrum. His actual sentence
was two years, with a two year ban to run concurrently. So
even where intent is present and provable it looks like
the car is the weapon of choice if you want to be out of
jug quickly.

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at
Washington University

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 02:22:26 +0100, "Jon Senior"
<jon@restless_REMOVE_lemon.co.uk> wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

>"Are you seriously suggesting that most people, if given
>the choice, would rather kill than be late for work? Is
>that a personal viewpoint?"

Not by their words shall they be recognised, but by
their deeds.

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at
Washington University

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 10:56:29 +0100, David Hansen
<[email protected]> wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

>>And when you put him in prison, you will make him more so.
>>It will change the public's perception of him.

>I don't see a downside to this.

I don't see any problem with making it very plain that he is
a criminal - the attempts of careless drivers to pretend
that motoring offences are civil not criminal (which they
are not) are well-known, after all.

But I think that community service orders may be more
appropriate in this case. Carl Baxter should be locked up
until he forgets what the sky looks like, but this kid
should pay his debt to society in a more tangible way.

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at
Washington University

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 19:40:31 -0000, "Thomas Buck" <La de la de la>
wrote in message <[email protected]>:

>The Tony Martin case is a double-edged sword; on the one
>hand, if someone breaks into your home, starts stealing and
>refuses to leave, you should be able to use whatever means.
>On the other, he did shoot the kid in the back...

The Tony Martin case is a very dangerous precedent. We have
always had the right to use reasonable force, but never had
the right to arm ourselves and lie in wait, nor to shoot
people in the back. Quite why the right to life should be
seen as less important than property rights is an
interesting philosophical point, and one which informs the
current debate in as much as lethally bad driving carries a
lesser punishment than theft.

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at
Washington University