Cyclone   10 #73 Posted November 11, 2018 In what circumstances would that sentence be imposed? The Todwick slaughterer only got 10 years, which we all know means five. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1325311/13-pint-driver-found-guilty-over-6-deaths.html  Wasn't that case well before the offence of "death by dangerous driving" existed though?  Edit - not according to the reporting...  It was 2001 though, so it could well have been different sentencing guidelines and maximums. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Top Cats Hat   10 #74 Posted November 11, 2018 Of course not - read my last post   I did.  That's why I posted! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Mr Gobby   10 #75 Posted November 11, 2018 Our prisons are overcrowded, violent, degrading and dehumanising places. In 2016 there were 25,049 assaults, 37,784 incidents of self harm and 119 suicides.  You're talking rubbish.  I don't think their victims would see it like that: If they suffer so what, i have very little sympathy for them. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
tinfoilhat   11 #76 Posted November 11, 2018 I don't think their victims would see it like that: If they suffer so what, i have very little sympathy for them.  It depends if you have any intention of rehabilitating criminals whilst their inside. If you aren't, we'll, treat people like dog **** or never let them out at all. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
kidley   48 #77 Posted November 11, 2018 That's correct. ---------- Post added 11-11-2018 at 12:55 ----------    It depends if you have any intention of rehabilitating criminals whilst their inside. If you aren't, we'll, treat people like dog **** or never let them out at all.  i wonder why saudi arabia has one of or, the lowest crime rates in the world Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Jim Hardie   496 #78 Posted November 11, 2018 Wasn't that case well before the offence of "death by dangerous driving" existed though? Edit - not according to the reporting...  It was 2001 though, so it could well have been different sentencing guidelines and maximums.  The trial judge imposed a fifteen year sentence which may or may not have been the maximum at the time. I'm assuming here that a High Court judge would have known what the maximum was for that particular offence and did not exceed it. The appeal court then reduced the sentence to ten years, so we must assume that in the eyes of the court, the original sentence was unduly harsh. My point was this: if that crime didn't merit a fifteen year sentence, what else would have been necessary for it to have done so? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
kidley   48 #79 Posted November 11, 2018 The trial judge imposed a fifteen year sentence which may or may not have been the maximum at the time. I'm assuming here that a High Court judge would have known what the maximum was for that particular offence and did not exceed it. The appeal court then reduced the sentence to ten years, so we must assume that in the eyes of the court, the original sentence was unduly harsh. My point was this: if that crime didn't merit a fifteen year sentence, what else would have been necessary for it to have done so?  you didn't read it correctly did you?  P+P  Noble, of Thorpe Salvin, South Yorks, was sentenced to three concurrent 10-year sentences for the Holmes deaths, to be followed by three concurrent five-year terms for the deaths of his friends. He was also given five months for driving while disqualified. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Jen17   10 #80 Posted November 11, 2018 I did. That's why I posted!   Well then you should be able to appreciate the difference between a genuine accident -probably includes a lack of judgement/timing/weather conditions etc but no dangerous driving, no drugs, alcohol, speeding etc or people who drive dangerously - manslaughter if causing death (under the influence, speeding etc) AND as in the case of the woman you describe - she has a responsibility not to drive without being able to see properly whatever her age or be able to be charged with murder if they deliberately drive into people or disobey the orders of the police to stop.  My opinion anyway. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Jim Hardie   496 #81 Posted November 11, 2018 you didn't read it correctly did you? P+P  Noble, of Thorpe Salvin, South Yorks, was sentenced to three concurrent 10-year sentences for the Holmes deaths, to be followed by three concurrent five-year terms for the deaths of his friends. He was also given five months for driving while disqualified.  This is hard work. Three concurrent 10 year sentences = 10 years Three concurrent 5 year sentences = 5 years 10 + 5 = 15 Appeal court reduces sentence by 5 years 15 - 5 = 10 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
kidley   48 #82 Posted November 11, 2018 This is hard work. Three concurrent 10 year sentences = 10 years Three concurrent 5 year sentences = 5 years 10 + 5 = 15 Appeal court reduces sentence by 5 years 15 - 5 = 10  i suggest you read again  it was the 5 year sentence that was unlawful. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Jim Hardie   496 #83 Posted November 11, 2018 i suggest you read again it was the 5 year sentence that was unlawful.  What am I supposed to be reading? Could you give me a link please? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
kidley   48 #84 Posted November 11, 2018 What am I supposed to be reading? Could you give me a link please?  the link is below   https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1325496/15-years-for-drink-driver-who-killed-six.html Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...