This is what we need over here.

[JoshM]

This was not premeditated murder, they did not intend to kill, rather it is a death due to recklessness, it's a death due to them not understanding the possible consequences of their actions. I'm all in favour of tougher punishment when someone's driving has caused death or injury but I think we need to consider intent. There's a difference between someone being reckless and someone deliberately using a vehicle as a weapon.

I agree there was no intent to kill someone, but to say the death was caused by "them not understanding the possible consequences of their action" is a little bit of a leap isn't it? Doesn't every adult know that hitting someone at over 100mph will kill them? I don't remember being in much doubt about it, and a srraw poll round the office suggests neither have my colleagues.

 

[Deleted member 26715]

I understand maybe a rifle was a bad example, let's change that to a knife, I have known people who used to carry a knife, when challenged they always said it was for their own defence, I also know/knew somebody who was attacked, drew the knife & killed somebody, he made a single stab, unfortunately it went straight through the attacker's clothing, ribcage & straight into the heart. He knew the possible consequences before going out with the knife just as anybody does doing 100mph through the city.

Although I also know that under certain circumstances either within or beyond my control that I potentially also have a killing machine with me everytime I go out in my car.

 

[Deleted member 1258]

I agree there was no intent to kill someone, but to say the death was caused by "them not understanding the possible consequences of their action" is a little bit of a leap isn't it? Doesn't every adult know that hitting someone at over 100mph will kill them? I don't remember being in much doubt about it, and a srraw poll round the office suggests neither have my colleagues.

The car is such a familiar machine, we see it every day, a lot of us use it every day. I'm sure there are people driving who see it as something thats a convenient way of getting around and have no idea how dangerous this familiar machine can be, cannot understand how much damage it can cause. I don't think its a leap to say they didn't understand the possible consequences of their actions, they're young men and young men often don't understand danger.

 

[Drago]

This was not premeditated murder, they did not intend to kill, rather it is a death due to recklessness, it's a death due to them not understanding the possible consequences of their actions. I'm all in favour of tougher punishment when someone's driving has caused death or injury but I think we need to consider intent. There's a difference between someone being reckless and someone deliberately using a vehicle as a weapon.

The intent was to break the law.

They freely, willingly, and deliberately chose to break the law.

Someone then lost their life due to their deliberate willingness to break the law, as a result of the deliberate actions of another.

That they maybe did not intend to kill is, in my book, neither here nor there - someone died as a result of their disregard for the law, laws that are designed and intended to protect people.

Such a thing is an entirely foreseeable outcome of such behaviour. As it is foreseeable and they still chose to act in that way, they should be dealt with as if they were murderers. The intent may not have been to kill, but the intent to carry out an act that could foreseeable kill was still present, and they should not be permitted this type of mitigation in such circumstances.

Same with 'one punch' killings, drink driving deaths etc. Someone died as a result of an offenders intent to carry out an unlawful act that had, no matter how unlikely, the death of another as a foreseeable consequence. They should be treated and sentenced as murderers.

 

[swee'pea99]

The intent was to break the law.

They freely, willingly, and deliberately chose to break the law.

Someone then lost their life due to their deliberate willingness to break the law, as a result of the deliberate actions of another.

That they maybe did not intend to kill is, in my book, neither here nor there - someone died as a result of their disregard for the law, laws that are designed and intended to protect people.

Such a thing is an entirely foreseeable outcome of such behaviour. As it is foreseeable and they still chose to act in that way, they should be dealt with as if they were murderers. The intent may not have been to kill, but the intent to carry out an act that could foreseeable kill was still present, and they should not be permitted this type of mitigation in such circumstances.

Same with 'one punch' killings, drink driving deaths etc. Someone died as a result of an offenders intent to carry out an unlawful act that had, no matter how unlikely, the death of another as a foreseeable consequence. They should be treated and sentenced as murderers.

Interestingly (arguably) this absolutely chimes with an account I once read of a take on such matters widely prevalent in much of sub-Saharan Africa; one in which intentions are neither here nor there; only consequences matter.

The example cited was that in such regions, absolutely no distinction is drawn between a man whose felled tree falls entirely by chance on a neighbour's child and one who leaps out from behind a tree to kill that child by intent. The upshot is the same: a dead child. And the 'verdict of the court' (the village elders) will be the same: compensation must be paid. The fact that one death was premeditated, the other accidental, simply doesn't matter.

We tend to view things differently. Our legal system does recognise intent as an important aspect of the matter. Hence the distinction between manslaughter and murder, for just one obvious illustration. And FWIW, I think it is a worthwhile distinction, and should be recognised in law. To quote Drago's example, I do think there's a difference between someone who punches someone who turns out to have had a dodger ticker and someone who shoots someone in the head, and the law should treat them differently.

Which isn't to say the law can't - or shouldn't - deal very harshly with offenders like those in the OP. It should.