Death by careless driving, sentencing guidelines

[Arch]

From what I've heard on snippets of news, and seen reported here, people don't often get sent to prison anyway, so will there be much difference?....

Interesting point about collateral damage form James. I saw on the news last night the story of the 9 year old girl killed when the front of the house she was walking past was blown off by a gas explosion. Horrible for family and friends of course and freakishly bad luck, but I wonder how many 9 years olds were killed or injured on the roads yesterday, who never got a mention on the national news.

I've wondered sometimes, if it would do any good to persuade a paper, or news programme to report every road death, say for a month, whether hearing it, day after day, would ram home to people (drivers, cyclists and pedestrians) their responsibilities as road users.

 

[Tynan]

umm, murder has to have intention

and the judges and courts are under instructions from the govt to avoid custodial sentences whenever possible

someone filled up the prisons with their 'tough on crime' policies

 

[Cab]

I've wondered sometimes, if it would do any good to persuade a paper, or news programme to report every road death, say for a month, whether hearing it, day after day, would ram home to people (drivers, cyclists and pedestrians) their responsibilities as road users.

Excellent point. It would be a real eye opener.

 

[Tynan]

interesting and misleading article I found, trying to make something out of little

 

[wafflycat]

Manslaughter, as I understand it, does not have to have intention. You kill someone, but there's no mens rea (sp?), 'malice aforethought'

And with manslaughter, the person found guilty can have sentencing from walking out of court, to a long, long custodial sentence.

Change killing someone with a car from the mentality of 'oops! didn't mean it! Was an accident, guv' and if you take my licence away, my poor family will suffer' to manslaughter and all that is implied there in the form of seriousness, and perhaps only then will death by moronic motorist be taken seriously. Perhaps.

 

[biking_fox]

I quite agree that a manslaughter charge ouwl be a good thing, there is also vehicular manslaughter, as well as the death by dangerous driving.

Why all these different laws?

My understanding it is to do with the amount of evidence required. Manslaughter convictions are difficult to obtain, which is why the Dbdd was brought in - to make it easier to prosecute, because not enough people were being found guilty of the previous charges. In essance the law is frequently an ass.

 

[Cycling Naturalist]

I quite agree that a manslaughter charge ouwl be a good thing, there is also vehicular manslaughter, as well as the death by dangerous driving.

Why all these different laws?

Because governments like headlines which say, "Government rushes in tough new laws to stop....................." They rely on the media and public not noticing (a) that there is already a law in place ( the new law is poorly drafted and will be difficult to enforce (c) the courts have been told not to lock anyone up anyway, as the prisons are full.

These points will only be made by lawyers who can be denounced as fat cats busy feathering their own nests by getting kiddy rapists off.

 

[piedwagtail91]

no one seems to care aboiut the dead and their families,
what about the woman killed by the concrete mixer lorry on tv the other night.
she was KILLED someone is responsible but no one gets done .thats completely wrong.
apparently the driver was bleating on about blind spots.
well if he's an experienced lorry driver paying attention he will have beeen aware of blindspots and tried to double check before crushing a young womans skull.
the only reason they're so soft on killers with cars is because they all drive and they're covering their backs.
i've been on the receiving end more than once and the cops continue to do nothing.
the law in country only works if you have the cash to buy it.

 

[MartinC]

Many seem to be missing the point here. The government specifically changed the law so that people would get custodial sentences for killing with a car. The law went through the commons in 2005 and got Royal Assent in 2006. It's not been implemented yet but the body that determines sentencing guidelines has decided to impose non custodial sentences for 'momentary lapses of concentration'. It's decided to re-interpret the law in a way that Parliament didn't intend and in a way more favourable to the people it feels it represents. This is undemocratic. I don't know who (if anyone) this sentencing guidelines body is accountable too. We should find out and start to lobby them. The changes in legislation brought in by Parliament were a step in the right direction but they have been blocked by a part of the judiciary - that's the real problem.

 

[User169]

no one seems to care aboiut the dead and their families,

Well as I read the BBC report, the SGC did consult the relatives of victims. I guess though it will depend on who you ask. Take the Thomas Petersen Munch case, for example. He was given a custodial sentence for causing death by dangerous driving, although the mother of one of the victims wrote a letter to the court urging that he not be imprisoned. She felt it would serve no good purpose.