Woman jailed for 4 years for hit and run death.

[Cyclone]

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/death_by_dangerous_driving/

 

The only question I can see to ask really is how the judge decided that it was a level 2 offence and not level 1, there is some overlap, but he could conceivably have said it was level 1 and the starting tariff was thus 8 years, resulting in 7, not the 4 she received.

 

---------- Post added 23-07-2014 at 14:05 ----------

 

And Egan will serve 2 years and be back on the road in 7. I don't think that's just.

 

---------- Post added 23-07-2014 at 14:04 ----------

 

I would agree with John Oldham in this case:

 

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3317831.ece

 

And there's a handy index of current tariffs at the bottom of the page. In too many instances, as in this case, sentences are derisory for the killing of cyclists and pedestrians.

 

I agree with a lot of the points in that article as well.

[Eater Sundae]

With regards to punishment I believe that it's only fair to punish people for what has actually happened. That's a personal opinion of course.

 

You don't tot up points for "dangerous driving", don't confuse speeding with dangerous driving, the motoring offence.

 

---------- Post added 23-07-2014 at 13:31 ----------

 

Stabbing someone demonstrates an intent to cause harm.

 

Driving recklessly, illegally, drunk, demonstrates a lot of things, but not an intent to cause harm.

 

---------- Post added 23-07-2014 at 13:35 ----------

 

 

Then you have to redefine murder because that is not what it means.

 

The closest you can get is manslaughter.

 

Re bib. Yes, fair point, but if a driver starts picking up points, not specifically or just for speeding, but other examples of careless driving then he has the opportunity to improve his driving. If he fails to do so, then maybe totting up will help to concentrate his mind. He either improves his driving, or he is kept off the road for a period.

 

(Re use of the term "careless driving". In my opinion some aspects of bad driving which are currently seen as "careless" should really be treated more seriously if they are done on purpose, ie with intent - careless should be reserved for mistakes typically due to lack of concentration, not intent).

 

Of course, at the end of the day if you've caused death by dangerous driving or caused death by careless driving, it doesn't make any difference to the person you've killed. But I think the legal system should approach each differently, in terms of intent.

[alas_alas]

The police don't have the capacity to police the volume of careless driving on the roads at any one time. Which is one argument for making death by dangerous driving more heavily punished, if not actually include it in the law on homicides.

 

Having been run over myself and been told I hadn't been seen and further that the police wouldn't prosecute even though it was a clear cut case, I'm a firm believer that something is seriously screwed up about national driving behaviour and the law that responds to it.

[Eater Sundae]

With regards to punishment I believe that it's only fair to punish people for what has actually happened. That's a personal opinion of course.

You don't tot up points for "dangerous driving", don't confuse speeding with dangerous driving, the motoring offence.

 

---------- Post added 23-07-2014 at 13:31 ----------

 

Stabbing someone demonstrates an intent to cause harm.

 

Driving recklessly, illegally, drunk, demonstrates a lot of things, but not an intent to cause harm.

 

---------- Post added 23-07-2014 at 13:35 ----------

 

 

Then you have to redefine murder because that is not what it means.

 

The closest you can get is manslaughter.

 

Re this BIB. Yes I appreciate that. My opinion is that the crime in these sorts of situation is the setting up of a dangerous situation and giving up control. As well as driving it applies in other situations:

Driving after drinking alcohol,

Racing on the roads,

Punching someone in the street,

and an example from some riots (I cant remember which) of a couple of years ago where a man threw a fire extinguisher from the top of a building.

 

In each case, the likelihood is that nobody will come to any serious or life threatening harm. However, in each case the perpetrator has caused a situation where the results are out of his hands, and someone being killed is not so unlikely as to be discounted. The behaviour was reckless as to the safety of others. In each case there would be no intent to kill (although in the case of punching someone there was probably an intent to hurt - unless it was in self defence).

 

In these cases, I see the crime as being the creation of this situation where the outcome is a matter of chance. That is the reckless behaviour that should be punished. It seems wrong to heavily weight the punishment in terms of the outcome, when, in my opinion, it should be weighted in terms of the actions of the perpetrator.

 

For example, I thought that the case of the man throwing the fire extinguisher was much more serious than the resultant court case decided, simply because of the recklessness and lack of consideration for other peoples safety.

[alas_alas]

In those examples, nobody was actually hurt or seriously injured. You're talking about hypothetical situations - how can the law prosecute the possibility that a serious injury or death could have occurred, but didn't?

 

This death, of Eric Codling, did happen. You can't legislate for all eventualities, but the legal system can pass appropriate sentences when actual incidents occur.

[Eater Sundae]

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/death_by_dangerous_driving/

 

The only question I can see to ask really is how the judge decided that it was a level 2 offence and not level 1, there is some overlap, but he could conceivably have said it was level 1 and the starting tariff was thus 8 years, resulting in 7, not the 4 she received.

 

---------- Post added 23-07-2014 at 14:05 ----------

 

 

I agree with a lot of the points in that article as well.

 

Yes, speeding/racing AND drink driving together would, I would have thought, made it more likely to be level 1.

[Cyclone]

As millquetoast already pointed out, we have many motoring offences where nobody is the victim, yet we still punish the person breaking the law.

[alas_alas]

Yes, where an offence actually took place. E S seems to be suggesting people should be prosecuted and treated more harshly if the outcome of their actions could have been worse.

 

In this instance, I don't really see how the consequences could have been worse, bar multiple deaths.

[Cyclone]

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/death_by_dangerous_driving/

 

Search this for "dangerously leaded" and then someone explain what it means to me please?

[Eater Sundae]

The police don't have the capacity to police the volume of careless driving on the roads at any one time. Which is one argument for making death by dangerous driving more heavily punished, if not actually include it in the law on homicides.

 

Having been run over myself and been told I hadn't been seen and further that the police wouldn't prosecute even though it was a clear cut case, I'm a firm believer that something is seriously screwed up about national driving behaviour and the law that responds to it.

 

At present the police cannot police the roads in the way I am suggesting. To change things requires a change at a political level, and a decision to fund the police to tackle bad driving. It is a matter of political will.

 

Over the years, road deaths have steadily reduced, even though the number of vehicles has increased.. This has been mostly due, in my opinion, to improvements in vehicle crash worthiness and better design of roads (more motorway standard roads). However, we haven't seen a corresponding reduction in death and serious injury to the most vulnerable users such as pedestrians and cyclists.

 

Governments appear to be going further down the route of severe punishment for drivers causing death. This might satisfy those calling for long prison sentences, but it does nothing to improve road safety going forward.

 

Each time that there is a high profile death and what looks like a derisory punishment, then the calls seem to concentrate on the punishment and not on trying to prevent more deaths.

 

There are exceptions (eg the move towards improved mirrors on HGVs), but these are not the norm.

 

---------- Post added 23-07-2014 at 15:25 ----------

 

In those examples, nobody was actually hurt or seriously injured. You're talking about hypothetical situations - how can the law prosecute the possibility that a serious injury or death could have occurred, but didn't?

 

This death, of Eric Codling, did happen. You can't legislate for all eventualities, but the legal system can pass appropriate sentences when actual incidents occur.

 

We do already prosecute in these situations. People are charged with dangerous driving exactly because of the danger they might put other people in due to their reckless bahaviour. The man who threw the fire extinguisher was charged exactly because his reckless behaviour could have seriously injured other people.

 

We already prosecute based on hypothetical outcomes (note, not a hypothetical situation, the situation and the dangers are real). What I'm calling for is for the punishment to be based mostly on these actions, as the real crime, not so much on the outcome.