I could not believe my ears when listening to GMTV this morning, as the stepfather of the 12 year old boy who was killed told, how this man had drove uninsured, with no license and was 1 and a half times over the legal limit, got jailed for just 8 weeks, due to insufficient evidence.

How wrong is this sentence ?

I am appauled at how we can justify this sentence .

I feel so sorry for the parents and my hearts go out to them, I can`t imagine how I would feel if it was my child.

This man has tried for 7 years to stay in this country and been refused 4 times and his solicitors are still appealing for him to stay.

I can`t put on here what I would want done to him for killing someone.

His parents have got a petition together for the justice system to be altered. I would hope it would work, but I don`t believe it will.

What are we to do about people that get off to easily for killing someone.

For the same offence (a repeat offence) Jermaine Pennant (footballer) was sentenced to 12 weeks.

Do you believe someone whould be treated more harshly because they are an illegal immigrant?

I agree that both punishments should have been more severe.

Or are you suggesting that lower burdens of proof should exist for illegall immigrants?

this is an incredibly short sentence.

Especially when in the same paper there's a story on the next page saying that a footballer has been jailed for 3 months for a 2nd drink driving offence whilst banned.

I disagree with the proposed change to the law that the family have made though. A mandatory minimum sentence for a driver killing someone no matter what the circumstances. That's not balanced.

Originally posted by Yodameister
For the same offence (a repeat offence) Jermaine Pennant (footballer) was sentenced to 12 weeks.

Do you believe someone whould be treated more harshly because they are an illegal immigrant?

I agree that both punishments should have been more severe.

Or are you suggesting that lower burdens of proof should exist for illegall immigrants?

It is not the same offence. In the case of the immigrant he killed someone, the footballer didn't.

Originally posted by Cyclone
It is not the same offence. In the case of the immigrant he killed someone, the footballer didn't.

I was assuming that the "insufficient evidence" referred to the inability to convict of causing death by dangerous driving.

Originally posted by Yodameister
I was assuming that the "insufficient evidence" referred to the inability to convict of causing death by dangerous driving.

Either that or because I'm a left wing lunatic. I know which quite a lot of people on here would rather believe.

I am not suggesting that because he is as the home office puts it an overstayer, he should get a worse sentence.

What I am saying is he got into a car knowing he was over the limit and knowing he had no license and no insurance and yet how can that not be careless.

To me anyone in those circumstance should be found guilty of murder because as soon as he got in the car he could kill and he was not bothered.

I don`t care he was an overstayer that`s another story and I have my own opinion to this.

What are we trying to justify by giving the sentence, a child died and if it was mine I would never recover so apart from him killing the child he has killed a family for however long it takes them to come to some sort of peace.

Thats taking more than one life don`t you think.

Sorry, as you used his immigration status in the thread title I assumed that was something that you wanted to discuss.

insufficient evidence.

Was he driving his car carelessly.

What a joke, he had to be, he was careless getting in it, in the first place.

Originally posted by Yodameister
Do you believe someone whould be treated more harshly because they are an illegal immigrant?

I agree that both punishments should have been more severe.

Or are you suggesting that lower burdens of proof should exist for illegall immigrants?

I would think that the immigrant in question should be sentenced once for the drink driving offence, and then again for his second crime of being in the country illegally.

I think that this reaction is more to do with the fact that campaigns are still in place to allow him to stay in the country despite having a criminal record, especially given that he doesn't have any rights to any legal record or support at all. Don't forget what the 'illegal' part of 'illegal immigrant' means.

if you kill someone whilst committing another road traffic act crime should you be automatically charged with causing death by dangerous driving and the dangerous driving be proven by the fact that you have been found guilty of the lesser charge?

Bear in mind that this would include breaking the speed limit. So if doing 31 mph and a child ran in front of you...

The home office have said he is not illegal but an overstayer so how would that change things by taking illegal out.

Originally posted by Cyclone
It is not the same offence. In the case of the immigrant he killed someone, the footballer didn't. killing some one while drunk driving should be at the very least manslaughter and a minimum of seven years inprisonment,

Don`t you think when he got into the car, knowing he was drunk and no license and no insurance that would be enough evidence for a longer sentence.

He had committed offences then. and then to kill someone should have lead to more than 8 weeks.

Originally posted by Yodameister
For the same offence (a repeat offence) Jermaine Pennant (footballer) was sentenced to 12 weeks.

Do you believe someone whould be treated more harshly because they are an illegal immigrant?

I agree that both punishments should have been more severe.

Or are you suggesting that lower burdens of proof should exist for illegall immigrants?

Footballers get off all kinds of offences, be it speeding, drink-driving or assault.

Originally posted by alchresearch
Footballers get off all kinds of offences, be it speeding, drink-driving or assault.

Lots of people "get off" all sorts of things because there isn't enough evidence to convict them. I'm not sure footballers are any different to the rest of us in this respect.

Originally posted by depoix
killing some one while drunk driving should be at the very least manslaughter and a minimum of seven years inprisonment,

I'm glad I re-read what you wrote :? at first I read it as you thought anyone that killed someone in a car should get upto 7 years!

this drunken driver should be up for manslaughter for sure, he shouldn't be here for a start, let alone getting drunk and driving a car dangerously!

where did he get his money to afford getting drunk? obviously he hasn't earned it legally if he's been here illegally for a while!

I'm not sure his visas status has anything to do with the punishement inflicted, it definitely doesn't need to be in the title, but I'm sure he should get more for drink driving AND driving with no liscence/insurance

Originally posted by ginamoi
I'm not sure his visas status has anything to do with the punishement inflicted, it definitely doesn't need to be in the title, but I'm sure he should get more for drink driving AND driving with no liscence/insurance
and KILLING SOMEONE.

and KILLING SOMEONE.

even had he not killed someone he still deserves more that that, also I thought there was no evidence, or witnesses I'm assuming?

I'm pretty sure I read recently that a new offence of causing death whilst driving illegally will carry a maximum sentence of five years.

Don't expect it means in excess of the speed limit but will include, alcohol limit, no insurance, no tax etc.

Also the lesser offence of careless driving will carry a similar max sentence if someone is killed as a result. Does 'Careless Driving' include exceeding the speed limit ?

Should give the judiciary more scope to fit the punishment to the crime, but I still think causing death by gross/wilful negligence of the law deserves longer than five years.

Originally posted by depoix
killing some one while drunk driving should be at the very least manslaughter and a minimum of seven years inprisonment,

You are exactly right. This same scenario happens here in California every day. It's called Vehicular Manslaughter. I'm no lawyer, but I believe that here in the US, the person's intent determines whether they are charged with first degree murder.

While a person may not intend to kill someone, they are still guilty of murder. Hence the manslaughter charge. The difference in the US is that in some states, first degree murder carries a death sentence penalty, while manslaughter does not.

A few years ago, my husband was involved in a minor fender bender with an illegal immigrant. The guy had no license, no registration, was driving someone else's car, and he sure as hell had no insurance. And he smelled like booze at seven in the morning.

The police did NOTHING. They gave Mr. Illegal a ticket which wasn't worth the paper it was printed on, and told my husband he was fortunate he wasn't injured.

This is a huge problem here. And there are those in California who want to give illegals driver's licenses. Thankfully, it looks like it isn't going to happen.

Also, in the US, an automobile can be considered a weapon.

:) Sierra

Originally posted by ginamoi
even had he not killed someone he still deserves more that that, also I thought there was no evidence, or witnesses I'm assuming?

maybe you should read the story.

He pleaded guilty at court.