Is this all a cyclists life is worth

[icowden]

The law seems to be made so complicated that a judge can always find an excuse for a lenient sentence. It also always seems to put the offender first, the offender says albeit this being the 28th time in 16 months(random example) this time he's really gonna learn from it and the judge dishes out an ''discount for good intentions a guess?

Actually, it's a good deal simpler than you think. The Judge looks at the sentencing guidelines for the offence, which are fairly clear.
As mentioned above, the maximum sentence for careless driving is 5 years, so he can't have been done for that. So lets look at causing death by dangerous driving.

The Judge must decide whether the offence is Level 1, 2 or 3. 3 = significant risk of danger. 2 = substantial risk of danger, 1 = most serious (flagrant disregard for rules of the road, apparent disregard for the great danger being caused to others). Each of these has a starting point and a range. So 3 = 3 years, 2 = 5 years, 1 = 8 years as a starting point.

The Judge then considers aggravating factors and mitigating factors. In this case the aggravating factors are previous convictions and consumption of drugs before driving. Mitigating factors are things like "i was driving because it was an emergency" or "i didn't know that I still had drugs in my system, or someone spiked my drink".

If the defendant pleads guilty from the get go, then they get a reduction of one third of the sentence.
Ancillary orders are considered and the sentence has to be proportionate to the offending behaviour (totality guideline).

So in this case, the Judge may have started at level 1 (8 years) increased to 10 years for the aggravating factors but then applied a 1/3 discount for an early guilty plea - which would result in a 7 year sentence. Or started at level 2 pushed up to the maximum and denied the reduction for a guilty plea as the defendant was already on bail for another custodial offence.

 

[brommieinkorea]

British legal system may be crazier than ours.... The real question should be , why do killers get a free pass because they use a car ? Why does "dangerous driving" or vehicular homicide even exist in the legal system ? Why do people who cause a fatal crash with a car, walk away from the scene ? And yes it's worse here in the USA because our automotive companies are more powerful.

 

[icowden]

British legal system may be crazier than ours..

Nope. The US system is beyond stupid and believes only in punishment. That's why the USA has the highest proportion of incarcerated people in the world. It does not have the lowest crime rate thus indicating that it doesn't work.

The real question should be , why do killers get a free pass because they use a car ?

They don't.

Why does "dangerous driving" or vehicular homicide even exist in the legal system ?

Because it covers a range of offences that fall between careless driving and murder.

Why do people who cause a fatal crash with a car, walk away from the scene ?

Cars are quite tough and designed to protect the occupant.

 

[brommieinkorea]

Nope. The US system is beyond stupid and believes only in punishment. That's why the USA has the highest proportion of incarcerated people in the world. It does not have the lowest crime rate thus indicating that it doesn't work.

They don't.

Because it covers a range of offences that fall between careless driving and murder.

Cars are quite tough and designed to protect the occupant.

Missed the point you did. Homicide is murder, yet when "vehicular" gets thrown in it carries a much less consequence, so killers who use a car get a pass. The US's legal system is modeled after the British system, and when it comes to car crime we seem to have the exact same problems. Of course lack of enforcement is a real problem. And people who cause fatal crashes should leave the scene in the back of a police cruiser NOT walk away.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

Homicide is murder

No, murder is one category of homicide. There are other homicides that do not constitute murder.

The US's legal system is modeled after the British system

There isn’t a British legal system.

 

[Alex321]

Missed the point you did. Homicide is murder,

No it isn't.

Murder is homicde, but so is manslaughter.

yet when "vehicular" gets thrown in it carries a much less consequence, so killers who use a car get a pass. The US's legal system is modeled after the British system, and when it comes to car crime we seem to have the exact same problems. Of course lack of enforcement is a real problem. And people who cause fatal crashes should leave the scene in the back of a police cruiser NOT walk away.

Actually, that is just false. Causing death by dangerous driving carries very similar sentencing to manslaughter. Admittedly, it is only fairly recently that sentences have been raised to that level, but that is what they are now.

Causing death b careless driving carries sentences around or just below the minimum for manslaughter, but for t to only be careless driving, it is a level of negligence that probably would not be high enough to be done for manslaughter at all.

 

[brommieinkorea]

No it isn't.

Murder is homicde, but so is manslaughter.





Actually, that is just false. Causing death by dangerous driving carries very similar sentencing to manslaughter. Admittedly, it is only fairly recently that sentences have been raised to that level, but that is what they are now.

Causing death b careless driving carries sentences around or just below the minimum for manslaughter, but for t to only be careless driving, it is a level of negligence that probably would not be high enough to be done for manslaughter at all.

Kill someone with a weapon, it's what ? Anything you can bash someone with, including a car, is a weapon.

 

[Alex321]

Kill someone with a weapon, it's what ? Anything you can bash someone with, including a car, is a weapon.

If deliberately kill them, then it is murder.

If you kill them unintentionally, then it may be manslaughter, depending on the degree of culpability. It could still be murder, if you intended causing them serious harm and they ended up dying. Or it could be nothing at all against you, if you couldn't avoid it.

 

[brommieinkorea]

If deliberately kill them, then it is murder.

If you kill them unintentionally, then it may be manslaughter, depending on the degree of culpability. It could still be murder, if you intended causing them serious harm and they ended up dying. Or it could be nothing at all against you, if you couldn't avoid it.

Open highway, daylight . How do we know it wasn't deliberate ? Just because the perpetrator stops and says " I didn't see him" or some other such drivel, doesn't make it true.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

Open highway, daylight . How do we know it wasn't deliberate ? Just because the perpetrator stops and says " I didn't see him" or some other such drivel, doesn't make it true.

The difficulty is proving intent and that’s the prosecution’s burden.

You can’t convict someone of murder on the basis of ‘how do we know it wasn’t’.

 

[Alex321]

Open highway, daylight . How do we know it wasn't deliberate ? Just because the perpetrator stops and says " I didn't see him" or some other such drivel, doesn't make it true.

Very few people will deliberately set out to kill a stranger.

And for a charge of murder to stick, a jury has to be convinced beyond reasonable doubt that it was a deliberate action intended to cause serious harm or kill. Not just "we don't know it wasn't deliberate".

And there was nothing in the report to suggest it might possibly have been deliberate.

There is no reason this particular case should be treated any differently to manslaughter in general - and while there have been proposals to increase the "starting point" for manslaughter offences, the average sentence for manslaughter by gross negligence since 2010 has been 4 years, so he go a fair bit more than that.

 

[brommieinkorea]

The difficulty is proving intent and that’s the prosecution’s burden.

You can’t convict someone of murder on the basis of ‘how do we know it wasn’t’.

Sure could have been an accident (negligence). However , only when the weapon is an automobile do the courts feel any need to prove intent.
You've definately got the legaleese down but clearly there is almost no concern over the killing of people not in cars. This exists in the UK and US very similarly.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

only when the weapon is an automobile do the courts feel any need to prove intent.

This is utter nonsense.

The rules on evidence are the same for all crimes. Please at least educate yourself on the basics.

 

[brommieinkorea]

This is utter nonsense.

The rules on evidence are the same for all crimes. Please at least educate yourself on the basics.

People have been convicted of murder without a body (possibly not in the UK recently). Yet, if you go 'mall sniping' it is pretty much assumed that you meant to kill the people you shot.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

People have been convicted of murder without a body (possibly not in the UK recently). Yet, if you go 'mall sniping' it is pretty much assumed that you meant to kill the people you shot.

I have no idea what point you are trying to make here or how this relates to the post it was replying to.