What a joke of a sentence for killing a child

[BarryRiley 10]

How has the man shown remorse?

 

I'd suggest that he's remorseful for having to spend the next few years in prison, and being branded a child killer for the rest of his life. When you consider that, according to some on here, his sentence was towards the upper end of the tariff, the judge did take into account his remorse, or rather the lack of it.

 

Where are you getting this from? Is this what he said? Were you in court? That seems like an assumption based on nothing.

 

From the article it seemed like he was genuinely remorseful. He handed himself in, asked police to apologise to the parents and was apparently visibly very shaken in court when hearing the details of the accident. Someone who was only worried about their sentence wouldn't really care about any of that - they'd just be shaken during sentencing. I think the evidence available shows that he is remorseful. This doesn't even come close. However, I do believe that it should be taken in to consideration during sentencing. Should someone who says "I don't care" in court be given the same sentence as someone who shows remorse, regret and lamentation?

 

My main argument is that people take the facts, add emotion and spew all sorts of loaded statements. For example, Denlin a page ago stated that he was "off his face" on cocaine, yet in the article it states that he had snorted two lines. Plain Talker also stated that he was "off his face". For someone used to using the drug, this is unlikely to make them 'off their face' - but then again maybe it did - I don't know as I didn't conduct any interviews, preliminary tests, medical examinations etc. Neither did anyone here.

 

I'm not defending a criminal, I'm defending logic and reason.

Edited January 29, 2015 by BarryRiley

[old tup 30]

I myself was caught speeding on the same spot of the tragic accident about 15yrs ago,I came that way home from work every afternoon at the time!.I was doing 32mph,I saw the motorcycle cops arm sticking out with the radar gun over 300 yds away,I signalled pulled up to him"You surrended a bit quick!" said he,I thought I was doing the limit but no he did me £35 and 3 points!.I was a bit peeved at the time but the poor girls death puts things into perspective,speeding is criminal it makes my blood boil when time after time some low life like the driver in this case is caught,its a depressingly regular occurance why don,t they make an example of them to make their peers think twice about doing the same thing,the sentencing nowadays is a joke!.

[BarryRiley 10]

I myself was caught speeding on the same spot of the tragic accident about 15yrs ago,I came that way home from work every afternoon at the time!.I was doing 32mph,I saw the motorcycle cops arm sticking out with the radar gun over 300 yds away,I signalled pulled up to him"You surrended a bit quick!" said he,I thought I was doing the limit but no he did me £35 and 3 points!.I was a bit peeved at the time but the poor girls death puts things into perspective,speeding is criminal it makes my blood boil when time after time some low life like the driver in this case is caught,its a depressingly regular occurance why don,t they make an example of them to make their peers think twice about doing the same thing,the sentencing nowadays is a joke!.

 

A civilised society does not punish people with particularly hefty sentences to 'set examples' to others. It punishes people in accordance with the law and in accordance with the gravity of the crimes they committed and the evidence brought to trial.

 

I do agree that a lot of UK sentencing is just purely ridiculous but at the same time I don't want to live in a Western version of Saudi Arabia.

Edited January 29, 2015 by BarryRiley

[Happ Hazzard 10]

A 30 year sentence for child-killing would not be particularly hefty IMO. It's not like our prisons are particularly harsh. 7 and a half years is an utter joke of a sentence. Especially when you consider he will likely end up serving half that. It's high time that sentencing reflected the times we live in. 25 years is not a life sentence in 2015 when the average life expectancy is over 80.

[charmer 10]

Can I correct you slightly?

 

Driving at twice the speed limit, stoned on cocaine and leaving the scene of an accident

I agree, that is not an accident, in my book, either, its vehicular manslaughter at the very least, and its only Jazzy Chan's brave actions, giving her own life for her friend, Tia, that prevented both girls being killed by this utter idiot, that night.

 

No- one with a ha'porth of common sense would think that getting behind the wheel of a vehicle, stoned off their box, and driving at speed, would not have drastic or tragic consequences...

 

 

He was probably not "stoned on cocaine", the effects of cocaine last about 30 minutes. All we know is that he took cocaine that day, if it was longer than 30 minutes before the collision, it is unlikely to have had a measurable influence on his behaviour, reaction times or motor skills.

 

Of course it is an accident, unless you believe he intended to kill Jasmyn? If he did not intend to kill her then her death was an accident, regardless of how tragic and appalling the impact of this accident was.

 

We do not have vehicular manslaughter in this country, we call it death by dangerous driving. This is what he was convicted of.

[Tommo68 10]

The sentence handed out was in the view if most reasonable people a mere fraction of the one deserved.

 

I believe this is because the courts like insurance companies do not place a very high value on the life of a child as there is no (to them) discernable insurable loss. Funeral costs and the possible costs of grief counselling are the only losses that can normally be shown.

 

In short to the state your children have no value which is why the sentences given out for killing one are so pitifully short.

 

The state's real concern is the cost of imposing the sentence, a dead child costs the state almost nothing, a prison sentence costs on average approximately 37-38K pa. So you can see where the courts' interests lie.

.

.

[BarryRiley 10]

The sentence handed out was in the view if most reasonable people a mere fraction of the one deserved.

 

I believe this is because the courts like insurance companies do not place a very high value on the life of a child as there is no (to them) discernable insurable loss. Funeral costs and the possible costs of grief counselling are the only losses that can normally be shown.

 

In short to the state your children have no value which is why the sentences given out for killing one are so pitifully short.

 

The state's real concern is the cost of imposing the sentence, a dead child costs the state almost nothing, a prison sentence costs on average approximately 37-38K pa. So you can see where the courts' interests lie.

.

.

 

You are surely not stupid enough to actually believe what you wrote. Go away, calm down and come back to re-read your ramblings. You will see what I mean.

[Klondike Kid 10]

A civilised society does not punish people with particularly hefty sentences to 'set examples' to others. It punishes people in accordance with the law and in accordance with the gravity of the crimes they committed and the evidence brought to trial.

 

I do agree that a lot of UK sentencing is just purely ridiculous but at the same time I don't want to live in a Western version of Saudi Arabia.

 

He should have been charged with involuntary manslaughter and why he wasn't goes to show how lenient serious road offences are treated'

 

 

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

 

 

Relevant Sentencing Case Law

 

General application

 

Attorney General's Reference (No.60 of 2009); R v Appleby and others [2010] 2 Cr.App.R.(S.) 46 guideline case.

The Court of Appeal endorsed the conclusion in R v Wood [2010] 1 Cr.App.R.(S.) 2 that "Parliament's intention it seems is clear: crimes which result in death should be treated more seriously and dealt with more severely than before." Sentences for unlawful act manslaughter should not equate with sentencing levels in Schedule 21 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 regarding murder, but should ensure that the increased focus on the fact that the victim has died as a consequence of an unlawful act is, in accordance with legislative intention, given greater weight.

 

R v Boyer 3 Cr.App.R.(S.) 35

The Court of Appeal stated that sentences for involuntary manslaughter cover the widest band of sentencing for any offence.

 

Attorney General's References. Nos. 19, 20 and 21 of 2001 (R v Byrne, Field and Cuthbert) [2002] 1 Cr.App.R.(S.) 33.

The Court of Appeal highlighted the following factors:

 

 

1. The context in which death was caused; if particularly reprehensible conduct or conduct which called for deterrence, the court would be bound to impose a sentence longer than might otherwise be the case; examples were burglary and robbery; public concern and the need for deterrence must be reflected in the sentences passed by the courts; this would inevitably mean longer sentences than might have been considered appropriate some years ago.

 

2. Whether any violence of any kind was contemplated or intended by the offender.

 

3. The risk inherent in what was being done of really serious injury or death, and the extent to which this must have been apparent to those involved.

[charmer 10]

He should have been charged with involuntary manslaughter and why he wasn't goes to show how lenient serious road offences are treated'

 

 

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

 

 

Relevant Sentencing Case Law

 

General application

 

Attorney General's Reference (No.60 of 2009); R v Appleby and others [2010] 2 Cr.App.R.(S.) 46 guideline case.

The Court of Appeal endorsed the conclusion in R v Wood [2010] 1 Cr.App.R.(S.) 2 that "Parliament's intention it seems is clear: crimes which result in death should be treated more seriously and dealt with more severely than before." Sentences for unlawful act manslaughter should not equate with sentencing levels in Schedule 21 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 regarding murder, but should ensure that the increased focus on the fact that the victim has died as a consequence of an unlawful act is, in accordance with legislative intention, given greater weight.

 

R v Boyer 3 Cr.App.R.(S.) 35

The Court of Appeal stated that sentences for involuntary manslaughter cover the widest band of sentencing for any offence.

 

Attorney General's References. Nos. 19, 20 and 21 of 2001 (R v Byrne, Field and Cuthbert) [2002] 1 Cr.App.R.(S.) 33.

The Court of Appeal highlighted the following factors:

 

 

1. The context in which death was caused; if particularly reprehensible conduct or conduct which called for deterrence, the court would be bound to impose a sentence longer than might otherwise be the case; examples were burglary and robbery; public concern and the need for deterrence must be reflected in the sentences passed by the courts; this would inevitably mean longer sentences than might have been considered appropriate some years ago.

 

2. Whether any violence of any kind was contemplated or intended by the offender.

 

3. The risk inherent in what was being done of really serious injury or death, and the extent to which this must have been apparent to those involved.

 

 

The sentencing guidelines for involuntary manslaughter is 4 - 7 years, very similar to that of causing death by dangerous driving. I am not sure whether the charge would have made a difference to the sentence.

 

The reason I don't think he was charged with this as opposed to death by dangerous driving is because it is tenuous to suggest that he should have been fearful of causing a collision. Many, many, many people drive whilst incapacitated and very few of these (thankfully) cause a serious incident. So the chances of this happening when driving incapacitated are low. This impairs peoples judgment (how many people reading this have driven whilst they shouldn't have).

 

The guy was sentenced at the higher end of the range for his crime for a good reason. To those who think he has got off lightly, consider the fact that this man has got a longer sentence than the majority of rapists. Although his actions had a terrible consequence and I feel for the poor family, he made a mistake and has been punished for it.

[BHRemovals 10]

i agree entirely

[Klondike Kid 10]

The sentencing guidelines for involuntary manslaughter is 4 - 7 years, very similar to that of causing death by dangerous driving. I am not sure whether the charge would have made a difference to the sentence.

 

The reason I don't think he was charged with this as opposed to death by dangerous driving is because it is tenuous to suggest that he should have been fearful of causing a collision. Many, many, many people drive whilst incapacitated and very few of these (thankfully) cause a serious incident. So the chances of this happening when driving incapacitated are low. This impairs peoples judgment (how many people reading this have driven whilst they shouldn't have).

 

The guy was sentenced at the higher end of the range for his crime for a good reason. To those who think he has got off lightly, consider the fact that this man has got a longer sentence than the majority of rapists. Although his actions had a terrible consequence and I feel for the poor family, he made a mistake and has been punished for it.

 

Involuntary Manslaughter

 

Date Produced: 30 November 2010

Title: Homicide

Offence: Involuntary manslaughter

Legislation: Offences Against the Person Act 1861 section 5

Mode of Trial: Indictable only

Statutory Limitations & Maximum Penalty: Life imprisonment

Sentencing Range: Serious specified violent offence. Schedule 15A CJA 2003 applies

 

Death by dangerous driving

Nature of offence: Level 1

The most serious offences encompassing driving that involved a deliberate decision to ignore (or a flagrant disregard for) the rules of the road and an apparent disregard for the great danger being caused to others

 

Starting point: 8 years custody

[JAZZOMAN 10]

******* should be hung anybody agree with me?no insurance no license no respect and most likely no regrets should be made an example of for future similar offenders