motorist given 4 years for killing a cyclist
  • she was texting whilst driving.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/7270751.stm

    what do you think of the sentence?
  • 4 years of food and lodging paid for by us, at £300/week (I remember reading that somewhere). That is a lot of money. OK, she'll probably serve less, but it's still a lot of money. Don't know, hope she uses the time inside constructively.

    5 year ban is good, tho.
  • perhaps i am misunderstanding you bill, but are you expressing a smattering of sympathy for the motorist? are you suggesting that the money which will be spent on her incarceration would be better spent elsewhere? that perhaps she shouldn't have gotten the sentence?

    *confused*

    can you explain what you meant, please? :)
  • i think he means she shouldent have been texting in the first place
  • Well, what's the point of putting her inside to rot? Punishment? Education? Deterrence?

    I said before that it would be better if the offender could make some contribution to society whilst they were serving their time. Otherwise it's a waste of their time, and our money.

    The sentence is good because on the tariff that is applied to other cases were people have been killed through someone else's negligence, this is about equiv to manslaughter. So it sends the message that it's not ok to kill people with a car.

    But I don't see why she should get her license back.
  • I agree with Bill on this.
    The main point here is to ensure that this offender doesn't re-offend. She's probably very unlikely to be a danger to anyone unless she's at the wheel of a car. Locking her up is simply a waste of money.
    Life driving ban......and a suspended death sentence, that will be unsuspended pretty damned quickly if she ever drives again.
    As a society, we can't afford all these rehabilitation schemes - lovely though they may be in principle.
  • you still seem to be sending out mixed messages, bill!

    are you not in favour of incarceration for death by reckless driving cases? your first seems to indicate you think it is a waste of money, the second that it isn't! lol.

    anyway, i certainly agree that she shouldn't get her license back.

    a related question: regarding the HGV driver that only got a £300 fine. what do you think he should have received?
  • I don't know if I really believe that prison 'works' in its present form. If you look at recidivism rates, then it's obvious that it doesn't. And Count's nonsense about rehabilitation about being expensive is just that: nonsense.

    The rehabilitation schemes cost only a little more than banging them up.

    I don't know! That's why I keep flip-flopping. I want to see society taking road crime as seriously as other crime, but I don't believe that the current penal system works.
  • Regarding the HGV driver, he should have had license taken away, for a long time. Much more appropriate. .
  • i understand, i don't really know much about law, so it's hard to comment, really. that's why i asked for opinions, rather than giving one.

    i agree that prison doesn't really seem to work, and i have Queen of the World fantasies about how i might restructure it, but i've not really thought them through to see whether they might be even remotely practical.

    i think there is always the concern - what about the family of the deceased? but then i wonder how much one should take their views into consideration, since they will be so biased. but then i remember that the concept of impartiality is such a flawed one to begin with... and so it goes...

    but i certainly do think that if you cause someone to die or cripple them or disable them in a serious fashion: automatic life-long ban.
  • driving is seen as a right, not a priviledge. thats what has to change You don't need a licence for a right.
    I agree with some of the reservations about prison sentances, while also being aware that it wasn't a freind or relative of mine that was killed. Aside from the vengance aspect of it, I don't see prison being much use in these situations. The law should change so that it is a lot easier for drivers to lose their licences. someone who kills or seriously injures a cyclist, pedestrian or motorist, either intentionally or as a result of carelessness should be banned from driving for life.

    Businesses have to conform to strict guidelines for health and safety, whether it is a kitchen being clean in a takeaway or dangerous chemicals being stored correctly in a factory. This is because under the law, these businesses have a duty of care to those around them. They are responsible should it be proved that food poisoning came from their burger or a child got sick because their factory was contaminating the area. this duty of care also in theory extends to motorists and other road users, but the motor car is seen as such an integral part of our economy and society that imposing a lifelong driving ban would be seen as counter productive, if not challengeable under european human rights legislation. A long prison sentance is rare in these cases and was probably only because she had been texting while driving, therefore breaking two laws at once. Had she been messing with the car radio when the cyclist was killed, I'm sure she would have recieved a more lenient sentance.

    The attitude the motor car has to change. cyclists should be about proving that you don't need a car to function in modern society and they should do it by force of example. I've noticed that there are a lot of comments about so called fakengers on this site. i think this is a brilliant thing. If kids are looking at cycling as being something they can get into, as opposed to the dyed in the wool club scene that was the only thing available when i was a kid, then all the better for all cyclists, no matter what they wear or what job they do. The only time things change in a society is when attitudes change and kids are historically pretty good at that, being as how they have a habit of becoming adults. governemnts can make all the laws they want, but if those laws aren't popular then generally judges don't enforce them fully, generally policemen over look them and generally people keep flouting them. Driving while using a mobile phone being a good example. If we want drivers to become more responsible, then we have to remove them from the centre of society. elitism won't do that.

    Ps

    It's saturday and I have a had a few biffs, so I apologise for the spelling. i also mean absolutely no disrespect to the dyed in the wool club scene. the 70 year old man who used to push me up hills when I was a kid is still a hero of mine, and any system that turns out hardcore OAPs like that has my full support.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!