Woman jailed for 4 years for hit and run death.

[Eater Sundae 12]

If you fire a gun around at random in town you may not actually kill someone, but it's quite likely. Same goes for drink driving, you are doing something that is reasonably likely to harm or kill others.

 

---------- Post added 25-07-2014 at 16:49 ----------

 

No it wasn't an accident. Someone deliberately behaved in a way that is well known to cause deaths or harm to others.

Just like my example with a gun in post above. If someone had died in that example, would you also claim that was an 'accident' because they didn't actually intend to hurt anyone.

 

---------- Post added 25-07-2014 at 16:54 ----------

 

The charge would be manslaughter as murder refers to a specific intent to kill, but 'manslaughterer' is a clunky word.

Driving after getting drunk is very different from having an unexpected reaction to medicine or a split second mistake. The latter two are genuine accidents and the former involves a deliberate choice to do something that is known to be lethal to others. Very big difference.

 

I agree to some extent wih your randomly firing a gun analogy, although that is a more extreme and readily recognisable danger.

 

But in both cases, the crime is the act of behaving recklessly, without care for the safety of others. The outcome is down to luck. In my opinion, the punishment for drink driving should be higher, with just a small increase if the drink driving results in a death. The same should apply to other forms of dangerous driving, including racing, and to actions such as firing a gun randomly.

 

At present, the law doesn't seem very bothered by dangerous or reckless behaviour. It only really starts to flex its muscles when someone is killed. This is too late.

 

In recent years the construction industry has started to concentrate on behaviours as opposed to outcomes. This is the way forward. It is about time that driving was viewed in the same way.

 

---------- Post added 26-07-2014 at 06:54 ----------

 

I agree to some extent wih your randomly firing a gun analogy, although that is a more extreme and readily recognisable danger.

 

But in both cases, the crime is the act of behaving recklessly, without care for the safety of others. The outcome is down to luck. In my opinion, the punishment for drink driving should be higher, with just a small increase if the drink driving results in a death. The same should apply to other forms of dangerous driving, including racing, and to actions such as firing a gun randomly.

 

At present, the law doesn't seem very bothered by dangerous or reckless behaviour. It only really starts to flex its muscles when someone is killed. This is too late.

 

In recent years the construction industry has started to concentrate on behaviours as opposed to outcomes. This is the way forward. It is about time that driving was viewed in the same way.

 

Further to my post above, this is the sort of thing about behaviour.

 

http://www.hse.gov.uk/humanfactors/topics/behaviouralsafety.htm

 

The HSE seem to be pushing this as a way of improving safety, ie instead of focusing on the dangerous outcome, focus on the sorts of behaviours which enable those outcomes.

Edited July 26, 2014 by Eater Sundae

[Klondike Kid 10]

Which is why society decides on punishment via the justice system, and not loved ones.

 

This programme would suggest there is a great deal of complacency when it comes to serious motoring offences.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b04c01vs/panorama-drivers-who-kill

[woodmally 10]

Totally understandable, but if, say you accidentally killed a person with your car because you were tired or had an unknown reaction to a prescription or you might have lost concentration for a split second, would you say that you were a murderer or someone that had unintentionally killed? Would you want to be labelled a "murderer" because of something you hadn't intentionally set out to do? Its so easy to tar this woman as a murderer, because lets face it we all hate drunk drivers, but that is exactly what she was. A drunk driver. Not a shoe bomber or psychopath, she was a drunk driver who made a life changing mistake that had dire consequences for all involved. But she wasn't a murderer.

 

Your making an obvious error here everyone knows that drink driving is wrong and why its wrong. She made that decision so should be punished severely. Someone who took medicine that inadvertantly made them lose concentration. Well they wernt to know that were they. Its not like alcohol where everyone knows the effects.

[kidley 48]

Totally understandable, but if, say you accidentally killed a person with your car because you were tired or had an unknown reaction to a prescription or you might have lost concentration for a split second, would you say that you were a murderer or someone that had unintentionally killed? Would you want to be labelled a "murderer" because of something you hadn't intentionally set out to do? Its so easy to tar this woman as a murderer, because lets face it we all hate drunk drivers, but that is exactly what she was. A drunk driver. Not a shoe bomber or psychopath, she was a drunk driver who made a life changing mistake that had dire consequences for all involved. But she wasn't a murderer.

 

She was two times over the limit and chasing her boyfriend who had just packed her in [jilted her] recipe for disaster, she deserves more time in prison.

[stressconsul 10]

I don't think more prison time is necessary or will make any difference to the behaviour of this young woman. I do think she has demonstrated she is unfit to be in charge of a vehicle and to my mind a life-time driving ban is the only just punishment.

[Green scrubs 10]

Nope not long enough. People who drink/take drugs and drive should be banned from driving for life. 4 years is reasonable I guess, although I'd personally push for 5-7 years. Just my opinion though

[Eater Sundae 12]

This programme would suggest there is a great deal of complacency when it comes to serious motoring offences.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b04c01vs/panorama-drivers-who-kill

 

The initiative by the police on the M62 looks to be a good idea. The more people who are educated to not use their mobile, the better.

 

One of the other points the programme covered, about the inclusion of more and more media features on cars is a worry. I use a sat nav, and think that it is a safety feature as I feel it lets me concentrate on the road, and not having to worry about learning the route on a road I'm not familiar with. I must admit I have reprogrammed it on the move, in the past. I'll not do that any more.

 

I tend to listen to the radio, but rarely change channels when driving. Just the occasional change to another preset if the transmitter goes out of range.

 

I never use my mobile when driving. Not even hands free. My employer offered to fit hands free kits to our cars for our works mobiles, for free. I declined. They have since had a change of heart and advised us to not use tem, which is a good change.

 

A final point. They touched on the fact that public opinion will decide whether a particular offence is treated as careless or dangerous - so there is hope that public opinion will make risky driving as unacceptable as drink driving has become.

[Klondike Kid 10]

The initiative by the police on the M62 looks to be a good idea. The more people who are educated to not use their mobile, the better.

 

One of the other points the programme covered, about the inclusion of more and more media features on cars is a worry. I use a sat nav, and think that it is a safety feature as I feel it lets me concentrate on the road, and not having to worry about learning the route on a road I'm not familiar with. I must admit I have reprogrammed it on the move, in the past. I'll not do that any more.

 

I tend to listen to the radio, but rarely change channels when driving. Just the occasional change to another preset if the transmitter goes out of range.

 

I never use my mobile when driving. Not even hands free. My employer offered to fit hands free kits to our cars for our works mobiles, for free. I declined. They have since had a change of heart and advised us to not use tem, which is a good change.

 

A final point. They touched on the fact that public opinion will decide whether a particular offence is treated as careless or dangerous - so there is hope that public opinion will make risky driving as unacceptable as drink driving has become.

 

The most notable thing for me was the apparent belief by the judiciary that killing someone with a vehicle is acceptable. I find this to be very worrying.

[Eater Sundae 12]

The most notable thing for me was the apparent belief by the judiciary that killing someone with a vehicle is acceptable. I find this to be very worrying.

 

I think it is irrelevant. To even be able to appear lenient to someone who has killed with a vehicle, they must have already accepted the bad driving that caused it. Once someone has been killed, the system has already failed.

 

I took heart by some of the realization that people are failing to drive safely, and that distraction can be seen to be a major issue.

 

I was worried by the complacent attitude of the man from the SMMT, regarding the move towards more media based features in newer cars.

 

However, on the basis that we usually finish up with the initiatives and changes that come over from the USA, then the work by the US politition (Senator Rockerfeller?) regarding car makers adding more and more distractions, may lead towards improvements here.

[Sooperdooper 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?

 

She would have probably killed herself, which would have been, to me preferable to killing my husband

[SUZIFACE 10]

http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/crime/killer-driver-jailed-for-four-years-1-6734484

 

Just picked up on this one from The Star website. I knew of Eric through a relative who worked with him and they couldn't speak any more higher of him and said he was a lovely man.

 

The driver was over the drink drive limit and was travelling at 69 mph at the time of the accident that cost Eric his life.

 

Is four years long enough when you think about the above?

 

I believe the relatives of Eric have used this site in the past. First and foremost I hope you don't mind me starting up this thread regarding the sentencing and secondly please accept my sincerest thoughts at what must still be a very tough time for you all.

 

Dont hold out much hope for a big sentence being given to the scum that called our jasmyn

[Sooperdooper 10]

Dont hold out much hope for a big sentence being given to the scum that called our jasmyn

 

Hello, I am Eric's wife I truely hope you get a much better outcome than we did. Although we know it will never bring Eric or Jazzy back to us

 

Sending you my deepest condolences xx