Some proper sentencing?

[Cycleops]

The judiciary are constrained by sentencing guidelines which resulted in the pathetic sentence of the speeding Porsche driver who killed the cyclist I outlined above. I don’t think the family of the man think justice was done and neither would you if it was your wife or son.
icowden left out another reason for prison, for the victim or their family
to feel they have got some sort of justice.

 

[icowden]

The judiciary are constrained by sentencing guidelines which resulted in the pathetic sentence of the speeding Porsche driver who killed the cyclist I outlined above. I don’t think the family of the man think justice was done and neither would you if it was your wife or son.
icowden left out another reason for prison, for the victim or their family
to feel they have got some sort of justice.

Personally if I were in that situation I would want restorative justice rather than to know I was paying for this guy to have 3 meals a day, access to a library and full time supervision in an open prison.

 

[icowden]

Exactly. So it works...

Um no. The US has a massive prison population high crime and a high murder rate. There is no evidence that deterrent sentencing works.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20180514-do-long-prison-sentences-deter-crime

 

[Cycleops]

Personally if I were in that situation I would want restorative justice rather than to know I was paying for this guy to have 3 meals a day, access to a library and full time supervision in an open prison.

We are all different then but it wouldn’t be my preference.

 

[HMS_Dave]

Um no. The US has a massive prison population high crime and a high murder rate. There is no evidence that deterrent sentencing works.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20180514-do-long-prison-sentences-deter-crime

And so we further devolve away from the topic... Murders are committed through a variety of reasons, Impulsiveness, Revenge, Lust, Anger, Mental Health Issues, Terrorist, Hatred towards a group, religion, race etc... All of which require complex, lengthy and expensive court procedures which are different entirely from killing a pedestrian, cyclist or other because you are speeding in your car.

 

[Deleted member 1258]

Costs and prison capacity are important. They are paid for by us, the tax payers. What is the point of prison? To house those who would otherwise be a threat to society and to rehabilitate those that can be rehabilitated so that they do not re-offend but can be a contributing member of society.



But that isn't because people are terrified of sentencing. That's because people know that there is a high risk of getting caught, and that if they have an accident, the penalty will be much worse.

The archetypal example of "deterrent sentencing" is the Death Penalty. How well would you say that is working in the US? If it was truly a deterrent then they would have a very low murder rate right?

Why are you quoting hms dave and putting my name against it?

 

[classic33]

Excluding time travel (as operators' licences should probably not have been granted for a location with weak roads, or the access road not adopted), the operators should be taxed enough to maintain the access road.

We've several lorry operators here (Carter Cabin and Crane Hire, Kier and probably others) but the road from their estate to the A road is private (and a bridleway).

It is simply impossible for us ever to pay enough to repair the damage done by unrestricted motoring. It must be factored into usage costs somehow.

We had a number of heavy engineering companies in a small, concentrated, area. Many now gone, but smaller ones remain. How are you planning on stopping them from operating as a business?

We've two local specialist heavy haulage companies, in the same area. Seldom do their loads not have a police escort out, stopping traffic at junctions for them. Keeping dual carriage ways open as a single lane.

You want to see firms close down?

 

[Pale Rider]

It will be of zero deterrence. People commit dangerous driving offences in their many thousands every day, confident that the chances of being detected by police are miniscule. What’s needed is a properly funded and resourced police service, with many more traffic patrols, unmarked and marked to make dangerous drivers feel it’s too risky to break the law. Oh, and a nationwide system whereby the public can submit video evidence of traffic offences to police for prosecution. The cops can’t be everywhere but the public can.

I agree with much of this post, but we are talking about 'death by' offences and sentencing.

Detection is not a problem with these offences.

In other words, killer drivers are nearly always caught.

The problem is sentences the public see as excessively lenient.

The proposed reform is to up the maximum for death by dangerous from 14 years to life, which might mean the worst killer drivers may serve an extra year or two.

The majority will still receive determinate sentences.

The lesser offence of death by careless remains, which has a starting point of a non-custodial sentence.

Unfortunately, we will still see excessively lenient sentences such as the case referred to a couple of times in this thread.

Bartering a dangerous charge down to careless happens far to often.

No easy answer to that one.

 

[Cycleops]

Unfortunately, we will still see excessively lenient sentences such as the case referred to a couple of times in this thread.

Bartering a dangerous charge down to careless happens far to often.

I might suggest that the driver in that case was offered a deal to plead guilty to if the charge was reduced to causing death by careless driving.

 

[mjr]

You want to see firms close down?

No, just pay for the damage they do to the roads so we stop this endless cycle of potholes and bailouts.

 

[matticus]

Do stiffer sentences work? Clearly it's complex; all the studies referenced so far - and I googled some more - show that other deterrents are BETTER.

For me, the step change between bans+fines and actual time behind bars is significant. In most drivers' heads (and I'm sure I've done this), driving is about keeping yourself safe, and avoiding fines.
If we can get people thinking that they will GO TO PRISON if they feck-up badly - just as they will with drink-driving - we WOULD see a step-change in behaviour.

 

[matticus]

No, just pay for the damage they do to the roads so we stop this endless cycle of potholes and bailouts.

amen.

And if you're paying for damage, you do a lot more to avoid that damage.

 

[icowden]

Why are you quoting hms dave and putting my name against it?

Twas a reply / edit error. Fixed it now. Apols.

 

[icowden]

Unfortunately, we will still see excessively lenient sentences such as the case referred to a couple of times in this thread.

I do wish however that we could stop calling sentences "excessively lenient" based on our very sparse knowledge of events, and without seeing the actual Judgement in question. There is no way that we can gauge whether the sentence was "excessively lenient" unless we attended the full trial.

I agree with @Cycleops that it's altogether possible that the CPS considered the risk of failing to get a conviction for death by dangerous driving was too high as the accused was prepared to plead guilty to the lower charge. I suspect part of the problem is that there really isn't much definition as to what constitutes dangerous driving rather than careless driving.

 

[Cycleops]

The family of the victim were in court so I think I'll go with their verdict on the sentence.