Woman jailed for 4 years for hit and run death.

[alas_alas 10]

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 12]

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 12]

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 10]

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 12]

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 12]

 

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.

[Cyclone 10]

 

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

I'm not, she's been convicted of causing death by dangerous driving, of that she is guilty.

It's self evidently not murder though, by the definition of what murder is.

 

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).

 

Thought of potential harm and Intent to cause (serious) harm are very different.

 

Yes, she was extremely reckless and negligent, but at no point did she do anything with the intent to cause harm. Which is pretty key to charging someone with murder.

 

It's not an interpretation, it's a fact.

 

---------- Post added 23-07-2014 at 13:26 ----------

 

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

 

In that case I suggest that you don't know what "intent" means.

[alas_alas 10]

Our difference of opinion stems from social responsibility: I believe, and believe it should be emphasised, that you bear the safety of others' lives when you get in a car, and if you then behave in a way that ends someone's life because of your complete and knowing abdication of that responsibility, then you murdered someone.

[Cyclone 10]

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.

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.

 

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.

 

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 ----------

 

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.

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 ----------

 

Our difference of opinion stems from social responsibility: I believe, and believe it should be emphasised, that you bear the safety of others' lives when you get in a car, and if you then behave in a way that ends someone's life because of your complete and knowing abdication of that responsibility, then you murdered someone.

 

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

 

The closest you can get is manslaughter.

 

Involuntary manslaughter is in contrast to voluntary manslaughter and occurs where a person kills, but does so without the intent to kill or cause GBH. Apart from the absence of the requisite intent, all other elements of the offence are the same as for murder.

 

There are two types of involuntary manslaughter, namely:

 

that caused by the defendant's gross negligence; and

that caused by his unlawful or dangerous act.

[rickiethecat 10]

Our difference of opinion stems from social responsibility: I believe, and believe it should be emphasised, that you bear the safety of others' lives when you get in a car, and if you then behave in a way that ends someone's life because of your complete and knowing abdication of that responsibility, then you murdered someone.

 

You can rephrase it any way you like but you're still wrong.

[alas_alas 10]

That's pretty much as I see it.

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

 

Irrelevant.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

I am.

 

If you think sentences meted out for death by dangerous driving are commensurate, then you have a curious interpretation of justice.

[Eater Sundae 12]

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.

 

The driving offence tariffs are already skewed towards "causing death by..." being much more serious than the core offence it is based on, and there are calls for the difference to be even greater (especially following incidents such as this one, and the case where the lady was killed on Halifax Road by a driver who was racing another) . IMO, the penalties for the core "drink driving" and "dangerous driving" offences should be higher, as that is what the intent is, ie to drink and drive, speed excessively, race etc, and these are serious offences in their own right. Whether or not someone is killed is the luck of the draw, The offence is to put themselves into a position where the outcome is out of their hands. They have put others at risk through their reckless behavior. That is the offence.

 

---------- Post added 23-07-2014 at 13:40 ----------

 

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!

 

She did not intend to crash.