Woman jailed for 4 years for hit and run death.

[alas_alas]

Can we please stop suggesting that to be prosecuted for murder there is a need to prove an intention to kill. What is required is proof of an intention to cause really serious harm - To prove attempted murder you do in fact have to prove an intention to kill.

 

In the circumstances of this case we should perhaps be more concerned about the level of sentence suggested by the guidelines as opposed to arguing about the name of the offence

 

Precisely. Well argued.

 

As I mentioned earlier, this is compounded by the fact Egan's sister died in similar circumstances. She knew very well the potential outcome of her actions by choosing to drive that morning.

[Cyclone]

Can we please stop suggesting that to be prosecuted for murder there is a need to prove an intention to kill. What is required is proof of an intention to cause really serious harm - To prove attempted murder you do in fact have to prove an intention to kill.

 

Happy to stand corrected on the details. The point still stands, she had no intent to cause harm at all, she couldn't be prosecuted for murder.

 

---------- Post added 23-07-2014 at 12:50 ----------

 

Yes, so in order to deter dangerous drivers from driving dangerously, it is necessary to punish dangerous driving.

No, there is little evidence that harsh punishments act as any kind of deterrent.

 

If you then choose to punish much more heavily those that go on to kill someone, then that punishment is not a deterrent, it is purely a punishment.

This is also one of the purposes of justice in this country.

 

Lets say we have 2 levels of punishment:

 

Dangerous driving - a 2 year ban

Causing death by dangerous driving - life imprisonment.

 

If (but only if) there was an expectation of being caught, then these punishments might act as a deterrent.

 

The potential dangerous driver might see the 2 year ban as a deterrent to put him off driving dangerously, but the threat of life imprisonment will be no deterrent at all, as he isn't intending (or expecting) to kill anyone, so it doesn't apply to him.

 

Heavy punishment for "causing death by" as an add on to another driving offence is a punishment. It is not a deterrent.

 

Neither sentence is a deterrent really as people don't expect a) to be caught, b) for it to happen.

It is valid to punish people for the outcome of their actions though.

 

---------- Post added 23-07-2014 at 12:51 ----------

 

Yes I know, but we are talking about motoring offences. We do punish people based on potential for motoring offences, and you have accepted that.

 

Easter Sundae and myself are not arguing for potential based prosecutions for common assault, merely that in a system where we have already established that potential based prosecutions are appropriate (motoring), less harm would result if the punishment was more front-loaded.

 

There is another thread on here about a driver who clearly drives in a dangerous manner, and is known to many here because of her driving. Drivers like this need to be deterred from driving like this now, rather than throwing the book at them when it's too late.

 

She is not deterred because there is little chance of being caught. She probably doesn't even know (or care) what the potential sentences are.

 

If she were caught today and prosecuted today, the current tariff would be sufficient to see her off the road and her behaviour likely changed in the future.

 

---------- Post added 23-07-2014 at 12:52 ----------

 

(As it happens I'm all for increased punishment for the sorts of assaults which occasionally cause death, purely because they are a known cause of occasional death - it happens enough to not be a surprise when it does happen. Someone who decides to punch someone knows that it can happen. But that's for another thread).

 

It is highly unlikely though, I think each case should be judged on it's merits.

[alas_alas]

Happy to stand corrected on the details. The point still stands, she had no intent to cause harm at all, she couldn't be prosecuted for murder.

 

I can't really understand why you're arguing for Egan's relative 'innocence' in this case.

 

Do you think there is no thought of harm to others if you got in your car, drunk, then drove almost double (if not more) the speed limit in a residential area, crashing out of control, resulting in the instantaneous death of a cyclist? Your interpretation is there is no intent to cause harm, mine is that this is murderously reckless, similar to carrying a knife to a fight (then using it).

Edited September 8, 2017 by esme
quote tags

[Halibut]

 

I can't really understand why you're arguing for Egan's relative 'innocence' in this case.

 

Do you think there is no thought of harm to others if you got in your car, drunk, then drove almost double (if not more) the speed limit in a residential area, crashing out of control, resulting in the instantaneous death of a cyclist? Your interpretation is there is no intent to cause harm, mine is that this is murderously reckless, similar to carrying a knife to a fight (then using it).

 

That's it in a nutshell. Miss Egan had no intention of causing harm.

 

Your 'murderously reckless' is a concept which doesn't exist in law.

[alas_alas]

My argument suggests it would be impossible to get in and drive a car in that state without intending to cause harm.

 

I'm not saying there's a category in law called being 'murderously reckless', but rather that the driving offence tariffs do not recognise the severity of Egan's crime.

[Eater Sundae]

Happy to stand corrected on the details. The point still stands, she had no intent to cause harm at all, she couldn't be prosecuted for murder.

 

---------- Post added 23-07-2014 at 12:50 ----------

 

No, there is little evidence that harsh punishments act as any kind of deterrent.

This is also one of the purposes of justice in this country.

 

Neither sentence is a deterrent really as people don't expect a) to be caught, b) for it to happen.

It is valid to punish people for the outcome of their actions though.

 

---------- Post added 23-07-2014 at 12:51 ----------

 

 

She is not deterred because there is little chance of being caught. She probably doesn't even know (or care) what the potential sentences are.

 

If she were caught today and prosecuted today, the current tariff would be sufficient to see her off the road and her behaviour likely changed in the future.

 

---------- Post added 23-07-2014 at 12:52 ----------

 

 

It is highly unlikely though, I think each case should be judged on it's merits.

 

Re bib. This is the key, and was one of my main points above. The sentences themselves aren't the important point, it's the fact that at present people are not caught. They are mostly only caught following a crash. When this involves serious injury or death, then there is the demand for severe punishment. Otherwise, there isn't. (We don't see threads where posters recommend a life sentence for dangerous driving. It's cases such as this one that gets the headlines and highlight the level of punishment. However, once the death has occurred, the level of punishment does nothing towards future road safety.

 

Addressing the behavior of other drivers can help to reduce the frequency of similar crashes in future.

 

There is a place for the punishment of bad driving, but I don't see the benefit of reserving that primarily for those who have already killed.

 

Even if the risk of disqualification for bad driving is not in itself a deterrent, the actuality of disqualification through totting up will still keep the bad drivers off the road, but only if there is enough policing to catch them in the first place.

[Halibut]

My argument suggests it would be impossible to get in and drive a car in that state without intending to cause harm.

 

 

With respect that argument is rubbish. Of course it's possible to get in a car when over the limit and not intend to do harm. Thousands of people do it every year.

[alas_alas]

With respect that argument is rubbish. Of course it's possible to get in a car when over the limit and not intend to do harm. Thousands of people do it every year.

 

And drive at around 70mph in residential streets, with speed limits of 30 and 40mph. Furious and drunk. No intention to cause harm?

 

I'm sure those who take knives to fights 'never intended to cause harm', yet it just so happens that you're more likely to die of a stab wound than a gun shot wound.

 

I think society at large and the judiciary need to have a serious re-think about the dangers inherent in car driving.

 

I thought you were interested in social justice, Halibut!

Edited July 23, 2014 by alas_alas

[Eater Sundae]

Happy to stand corrected on the details. The point still stands, she had no intent to cause harm at all, she couldn't be prosecuted for murder.

 

I can't really understand why you're arguing for Egan's relative 'innocence' in this case.

 

Do you think there is no thought of harm to others if you got in your car, drunk, then drove almost double (if not more) the speed limit in a residential area, crashing out of control, resulting in the instantaneous death of a cyclist? Your interpretation is there is no intent to cause harm, mine is that this is murderously reckless, similar to carrying a knife to a fight (then using it).

 

Of course she had no intent to cause harm to the cyclist. Her intent was to catch her ex boyfriend.

 

She intended to drive despite having consumed alcohol.

 

She intended to speed.

 

and in doing the above, she drove dangerously, and recklessly. She was reckless regarding the welfare of others, and these are serious offences in their themselves.

 

But she never intended to crash, let alone kill anyone.

 

(Edit. I don't know what's happened regarding quotes - this was not in response to Cyclone).

Edited September 8, 2017 by esme
quote tags

[Halibut]

 

Of course she had no intent to cause harm to the cyclist. Her intent was to catch her ex boyfriend.

 

She intended to drive despite having consumed alcohol.

 

She intended to speed.

 

and in doing the above, she drove dangerously, and recklessly. She was reckless regarding the welfare of others, and these are serious offences in their themselves.

 

But she never intended to crash, let alone kill anyone.

 

That's pretty much as I see it.

 

---------- Post added 23-07-2014 at 13:25 ----------

 

And drive at around 70mph in residential streets, with speed limits of 30 and 40mph. Furious and drunk. No intention to cause harm?

 

Correct; there's no evidence to suggest she intended to cause.

 

I'm sure those who take knives to fights 'never intended to cause harm', yet it just so happens that you're more likely to die of a stab wound than a gun shot wound.

 

Irrelevant.

 

I think society at large and the judiciary need to have a serious re-think about the dangers inherent in car driving.

 

I don't. I think we have it largely correct.

 

I thought you were interested in social justice, Halibut!

 

I am.