Woman jailed for 4 years for hit and run death.

[Ridgewalk 101]

Read the link, and make your judgement.

 

 

 

I've just read the CycleSheffield link is that the one you are referring ?

[Cyclone 10]

It is "premeditated", but it's not "premeditated" killing. You could be charged both with causing death by dangerous/careless/inconsiderate driving, and with driving while disqualified/uninsured/unlicensed. Or, where it can't be established that you were driving dangerously/carelessly/inconsiderately, they could at least charge you with driving while disqualified/uninsured/unlicensed.

 

However, there are plans afoot to increase penalties:

http://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/may/06/disqualified-drivers-cause-death-banned-10-years-jail

 

This research on attitudes is interesting:

http://www.icpr.org.uk/media/10375/Attitudes%20to%20sentencing%20of%20Death%20Driving%20offences.pdf

 

It points out that many people judge the seriousness of the crime primarily in terms of the harm caused, rather than the culpability of the offender. So if someone dies as a result of your driving, it's equivalent to murder. But our justice system takes both into account, and doesn't consider it to be murder.

 

I mean, there are very few cases where someone deliberately kills someone with their car - which would be clearly murder. Most people guilty of killing someone with a car have made a mistake of the kind which in other circumstances would not lead to death.

 

So you have to look at whether the driver just made an error, or was drunk, or was driving like an utter idiot. Those a different levels of culpability. But you have to keep sentencing in proportion to murder.

 

---------- Post added 23-07-2014 at 07:42 ----------

 

 

 

To take an example from the second link there in relation to driving uninsured/disqualified etc, you might cause death while driving if you hit and kill a child who runs in front of your car without warning. This could happen even if no fault can be found with your driving.

 

As the law stands, you could still get a sentence of up to 2 years in prison. If the proposed changes come in, you could get up to 10 years.

 

But think about it. It's true that you shouldn't have been driving at all and so you'll be punished for that. However, you weren't drunk or on drugs, or driving dangerously, or carelessly, or inconsiderately. You were within the speed limit. There was no way to avoid the accident, and anyone else in the same circumstances would probably have ended up killing the child too.

 

In those circumstances, is 10 years in prison (as has been campaigned for) a just sentence? As it stands you could get 2 years. That's also a long time for basically driving illegally and being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

 

You have to assess culpability as well as harm.

 

Surely it's more equivalent to manslaughter, which makes not killing someone by dangerous driving more equivalent to assault (although there is no specific victim of course in that case).

[Eater Sundae 12]

I think the move towards increased sentences for "causing death by..." driving crimes is totally the wrong approach. We (ie society and the justice system) should concentrate on the actions of the perpetrators, and punish that action, not the outcome.

 

Drivers don't set out to kill, so the expectation of a long prison sentence if they do kill does not act as a deterrent. They do not think it will happen to them.

 

If someone sets out to, say, rob a bank, then they do that in the knowledge that, if caught, they will face a certain length of prison sentence. In those circumstances, the level of punishment may act as a deterrent. This does not apply where drivers cause a death. In these circumstances, any punishment is not a deterrent, it is simply a punishment. It seems to me to be a little irrelevant to punish for the causing death aspect alone, as it already too late. Someone has already died.

 

However, if punishment were for the "dangerous driving" aspect of the crime, then this could act as a deterrent. If someone driving dangerously (even if they hadn't caused a crash) were to be charged, convicted and heavily punished, then that could be seen as a deterrent against dangerous driving. For example, if someone caught racing had a 3 or 4 year ban, it might make others think twice before racing. Similarly, someone who grossly exceeds a speed limit, say 60 in a 30 limit.

 

Or drink drivers - maybe a longer sentence for a first offence, and an indeterminate ban for a second offence. (They would only be able to apply for their licence back if and when they prove that they no longer drink as up until then they had proven that they cannot do one without the other, then their only hope would be to show that they no longer drink -not an easy task, but their problem to sort it out if they ever want to drive again).

[Cyclone 10]

The vast majority of our laws act on the outcomes of behaviour, not so many act on the potential or intended outcome.

Possibly that's because it's very hard to prove an intent and the potential is such a nebulous thing.

 

Most people who drive dangerously for example, don't expect to be caught at all, and in the event that they don't cause an accident they are most likely correct.

 

I broke the speed limit yesterday, for about 10 seconds, I got carried away pulling out of a junction where I needed to be quite quick, stayed on the gas too long, exceeded the speed limit. Potential realistic consequence, nothing, which is exactly what happened, I slowed down again and continued on my way. Potential unlikely consequence, pedestrian appears from out of my sight line, fails to see the car and steps out, they die.

 

If we were routinely somehow catching and punishing everyone for the potential of their actions then we'd jail the majority of the driving population within a few weeks for no appreciable benefit (and a massive detriment).

 

I suspect that people caught racing would be quite heavily punished though, it's catching them that's difficult.

[alas_alas 10]

Having read the witness-bearing write-up, it seems more apparent to me how derisory the sentence was in response to the circumstances of Eric's death.

 

A number of factors seem to have been minimised to reach that decision, such as:

 

1. Consideration of the excessive speed. It is likely that Egan's speedometer read above 70mph. 65mph is a conservative estimate reached through reference to domestic cctv images.

 

2. The level of drunkenness both on record and as testified. A reading was only gained nearly 2 hours after the incident. Egan claims to have only drunk 3/4 of a bottle of wine. Really? When, exactly? The incident occurred at c. 8am.

 

3. Her level of remorse. As the sister of a family member killed by a drunk driver, why would she drive in such a manner in the first place, under the influence, way over the speed limit, and then flee the scene?

 

Those are just three of the questionable aspects of this case and the sentencing.

 

In my opinion, considering the circumstances, Eric's death was premeditated by the murderous irresponsibility of Egan. It was murder and should be treated as such. Sentencing should distinguish between genuine accidents, such as a child running in front of a car doing the speed limit, and murderously reckless drivers such as Egan.

 

If one of the sentencing considerations was deterrence, what is the message given by the court's decision? The message given is that if you act in such a way as to endanger life, kill someone, but do it in a car, you're likely to get off lightly if you show some remorse if and when you get found out.

[Eater Sundae 12]

The vast majority of our laws act on the outcomes of behaviour, not so many act on the potential or intended outcome.

Possibly that's because it's very hard to prove an intent and the potential is such a nebulous thing.

 

Most people who drive dangerously for example, don't expect to be caught at all, and in the event that they don't cause an accident they are most likely correct.

 

I broke the speed limit yesterday, for about 10 seconds, I got carried away pulling out of a junction where I needed to be quite quick, stayed on the gas too long, exceeded the speed limit. Potential realistic consequence, nothing, which is exactly what happened, I slowed down again and continued on my way. Potential unlikely consequence, pedestrian appears from out of my sight line, fails to see the car and steps out, they die.

 

If we were routinely somehow catching and punishing everyone for the potential of their actions then we'd jail the majority of the driving population within a few weeks for no appreciable benefit (and a massive detriment).

 

I suspect that people caught racing would be quite heavily punished though, it's catching them that's difficult.

 

Many laws are based on behavior with the outcome being an aggravating factor. The would be bank robber would still be charged, even if he got away with nothing. The intent can often be proven. In fact, in driving terms it is often easy. Nobody could successfully argue that they were driving at 60 in a 30 limit by accident. Surely it had to be intentional. Similarly the drink driver makes a conscious decision to drive, after drinking. That shows intent. I believe a lot more driving offences could be considered as intentional than are currently.

 

Then there are the careless driving actions, which are mistakes through lack of concentration, without intent. These are currently punished (when caught) with a small fine and a few points.

 

I agree that currently there is little expectation of being caught. It would require a lot more police presence and action to be effective. But also, punishments are often low. Where people are caught exceeding the speed limit by large margins, such that they get a ban, it is typically just a few months. Why not a few years instead? That might change behavior.

 

Why not an indeterminate (or life) ban for a second drink driving offence? Should such people ever be on the road. One drink driving offence is bad enough, but if that person does not learn their lesson and so does it again, in my opinion he should be nowhere near the driving seat.

 

If people were routinely punished for low level indiscretions, ie something like now (3 points and a fine for careless driving offences), but with more police on the street so an increased likelihood of being caught, then I believe driving would improve. It is the expectation of being caught that will cause the improvement. Of course, if people choose to not improve, or are unable to improve, then they can expect to be further punished by totting up.

[milquetoast1 10]

If we were routinely somehow catching and punishing everyone for the potential of their actions then we'd jail the majority of the driving population within a few weeks for no appreciable benefit (and a massive detriment).

 

But that's precisely what we do when we punish people for speeding, dangerous driving, driving whilst drunk, etc ... we punish people for the potential of their actions.

 

It's merely luck that differentiates the dangerous driver that causes harm from the dangerous driver that does not, so I agree with Easter Sundae that punishment should reflect this.

 

It's not about punishing everybody, or even more people, just apportioning the punishment across all those that drive with intent to be dangerous rather than those that drive with intent to be dangerous and cause harm.

[Eater Sundae 12]

Having read the witness-bearing write-up, it seems more apparent to me how derisory the sentence was in response to the circumstances of Eric's death.

 

A number of factors seem to have been minimised to reach that decision, such as:

 

1. Consideration of the excessive speed. It is likely that Egan's speedometer read above 70mph. 65mph is a conservative estimate reached through reference to domestic cctv images.

 

2. The level of drunkenness both on record and as testified. A reading was only gained nearly 2 hours after the incident. Egan claims to have only drunk 3/4 of a bottle of wine. Really? When, exactly? The incident occurred at c. 8am.

 

3. Her level of remorse. As the sister of a family member killed by a drunk driver, why would she drive in such a manner in the first place, under the influence, way over the speed limit, and then flee the scene?

 

Those are just three of the questionable aspects of this case and the sentencing.

 

In my opinion, considering the circumstances, Eric's death was premeditated by the murderous irresponsibility of Egan. It was murder and should be treated as such. Sentencing should distinguish between genuine accidents, such as a child running in front of a car doing the speed limit, and murderously reckless drivers such as Egan.

 

If one of the sentencing considerations was deterrence, what is the message given by the court's decision? The message given is that if you act in such a way as to endanger life, kill someone, but do it in a car, you're likely to get off lightly if you show some remorse if and when you get found out.

 

If she had missed Eric Codling and, say, hit a tree, (but with all other aspects of the case being the same), then what would have been the appropriate punishment, in your opinion?

[alas_alas 10]

If she had missed Eric Codling and, say, hit a tree, (but with all other aspects of the case being the same), then what would have been the appropriate punishment, in your opinion?

 

It's completely beside the point to ask that. She didn't hit a tree, she killed a man.

[Eater Sundae 12]

It's completely beside the point to ask that. She didn't hit a tree, she killed a man.

 

I'm not surprised that you are unable to answer my question.

 

According to you, she murdered him. If she had missed, would that have been attempted murder?

[alas_alas 10]

I'm not surprised that you are unable to answer my question.

 

According to you, she murdered him. If she had missed, would that have been attempted murder?

 

It's a bizarre line of questioning. I go around with two fists that could potentially kill another human being. I chose not to kill with my fists, so I don't get punished.

 

Likewise with cars. Most people drive and attempt to minimise the risk they cause to others.

 

I'm talking about the specifics of this actual case, not a hypothetical situation.

[Eater Sundae 12]

Having read the witness-bearing write-up, it seems more apparent to me how derisory the sentence was in response to the circumstances of Eric's death.

 

A number of factors seem to have been minimised to reach that decision, such as:

 

1. Consideration of the excessive speed. It is likely that Egan's speedometer read above 70mph. 65mph is a conservative estimate reached through reference to domestic cctv images.

 

2. The level of drunkenness both on record and as testified. A reading was only gained nearly 2 hours after the incident. Egan claims to have only drunk 3/4 of a bottle of wine. Really? When, exactly? The incident occurred at c. 8am.

 

3. Her level of remorse. As the sister of a family member killed by a drunk driver, why would she drive in such a manner in the first place, under the influence, way over the speed limit, and then flee the scene?

 

Those are just three of the questionable aspects of this case and the sentencing.

 

In my opinion, considering the circumstances, Eric's death was premeditated by the murderous irresponsibility of Egan. It was murder and should be treated as such. Sentencing should distinguish between genuine accidents, such as a child running in front of a car doing the speed limit, and murderously reckless drivers such as Egan.

 

If one of the sentencing considerations was deterrence, what is the message given by the court's decision? The message given is that if you act in such a way as to endanger life, kill someone, but do it in a car, you're likely to get off lightly if you show some remorse if and when you get found out.

 

Re BIB. But if the punishment is based predominantly on the basis that you have killed someone, then drivers who drive dangerously, but do not expect to actually kill anyone (ie the vast majority of dangerous drivers), will think that it doesn't apply to them, so punishment based on causing a death is no deterrent at all. That's the problem with the current call for increased punishment for causing a death, it is ONLY a punishment. it is not a deterrent at all.

 

---------- Post added 23-07-2014 at 10:23 ----------

 

It's a bizarre line of questioning. I go around with two fists that could potentially kill another human being. I chose not to kill with my fists, so I don't get punished.

 

Likewise with cars. Most people drive and attempt to minimise the risk they cause to others.

 

I'm talking about the specifics of this actual case, not a hypothetical situation.

 

Right, the specifics of the case.

 

If she had been given a longer sentence as you suggest, who would have been deterred from driving dangerously?

 

Added. In your fists example, you would be punished for using your fists, regardless of whether you actually kill. So asking what punishment a dangerous driver should get even if they don't kill is hardly bizarre.

Edited July 23, 2014 by Eater Sundae