Comparative sentences

[Gasman]

In the past it has been my wont to wonder how the ludicrously lenient sentences given for reckless/dangerous/drunken (mis)use of a motor vehicle would compare with those for similarly reckless/dangerous/drunken use of some other piece of useful but potentially dangerous motorised equipment; a chainsaw being my usual example.

Well, now I can flesh out the bones of my argument somewhat.

 

[TissoT]

Thought whilst watching he must be high on something then the news reporter confirmed it.

2011 ?

 

[Gasman]

Aaaargh! The Mod has deleted the version WITHOUT the typo. How do you edit a thread title?

Edit: As you were; I found it myself.

 

[Gasman]

Oh, I'm doing well today. I posted this after seeing a video on this morning's BBC news (shaky phone footage rather than CCTV) of someone waving a chainsaw around in a pub. A quick Google search produced the story at the top but I didn't think to check the date on it. Who would have thought chainsaw attacks in pubs were so common?

Now, of course, the video I saw is nowhere to be found!!

Unless any of you fine forumites know better!

 

[icowden]

And this chap is such a sweetheart that after serving his sentence, in 2017, he covered his girlfriend with petrol and flicked a lighter towards her. Now back in Prison. Has 76 offenses on his record including throwing a paving slab through somone's windscreen narrowly missing a 2 year old girl.

On the topic, the important thing is not what the person did, but what they were charged with and found guilty of.

So for the chainsaw attack:-

Dinnen of Thorgill Grove, west Hull, pleaded guilty to grievous bodily harm on Adrian Prior and affray by using threatening behaviour to cause people to fear for their safety. He also accepted charges of having an offensive weapon and criminal damage.

GBH carries a sentence of between 3 years and 16 years. The Judge must decide the offence category - in this case due to lack of premediation and a likely mental disorder (chap was on drugs) indicate lower culpability. Custody is between 3 to 5 years with a starting point of 4 years. There is then a whole raft of considerations which determine whether the starting point is increased or decreased. so serious medical conditions, admission of guilt, previous offences, mental disorder etc all play a part.

The other charges will also carry sentencing guidelines and the Judge decides whether those sentences run concurrently or consecutively. In this case I would guess that the thought was that this chap needs treating for his drug addiction and that a longer sentence is not going to be an additional deterrent.

So, you can't really compare sentencing for motorists causing fatalities with other equipment causing fatalities as the legal system is constrained by the sentencing guidelines of the offences available and which the person has been charged with.

 

[Drago]

Should be like the states - 3 summary convictions, automatic 5 years. 3 indictable convictions, automatic life.

 

[simongt]

And don't get me started on drunk / drugged driving - !

 

[icowden]

Not sure the States is a good model. They incarcerate around 700 people per 100,000. They have just under 25% of the world's prisoners. Remember that people in prisons cost us a lot of money. I prefer a model where the tariff is deliberated and set based on the circumstances of the crime and primarily aimed at the rehabilitation of the criminal so that they become a functioning member of society.

 

[Drago]

The States isn't an ideal comparison, with significantly different legal and cultural norms and processes. Expensive as keeping a villain locked up may be it's less expensive that the cost to society of their villainy. In addition, while someone is locked up society is safe from them.

I have little illusion that prison is much use as a means of reforming behaviour. I do have great belief that while convicted villains are out of circulation they're not committig crimes against the public, and in that regard the US prison system serves great utility.

Their 3 strikes rule is actually quite a high bar - you really have to go out of your way to commit 3 robberies, three burglaries, or 3 murders (or any handy combination thereof) and then you have to go even further out of your way to actually get convicted of all 3, and then cram all those jolly japes I to a 5 year span of time, so by the time a villain has met that criteria the public is well and truly deserving of being protected from them.

Most of the public manage to go their entire lives without being convicted of a single felony (roughly equivalent to out indictable offences), so anyone bad enough to manage all that well and truly deserves being kept out of circulation in the name of public safety.

 

[icowden]

The difficult area with this is Mental Illness (Usually addiction). An addict will easily break the 3 strikes rule. So you end up locking up a lot of addicts, when a better approach would be more residential addiction settings. Hence the importance of the Judges discretion.