# Some proper sentencing?



## Drago (14 Sep 2020)

A change to the law is being considered so that those convicted of causing the death of another while driving could face life sentences:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54141729

Let us hope that is successful.

All we need now is a law that prevents road killers from ever being allowed to drive again.


----------



## HMS_Dave (14 Sep 2020)

Rightly so. I would also like to see the council bosses in the nick for the state of the roads which cause untold misery to thousands and have been attributed to terrible road accidents for motorists, cyclists and even horses reported.

I give that odds of between 0 and 0.


----------



## davidphilips (14 Sep 2020)

Hope its successful, pity the rules for using a mobile phone when driving would not be increased along with a few brownie points for close passes.


----------



## screenman (14 Sep 2020)

HMS_Dave said:


> Rightly so. I would also like to see the council bosses in the nick for the state of the roads which cause untold misery to thousands and have been attributed to terrible road accidents for motorists, cyclists and even horses reported.
> 
> I give that odds of between 0 and 0.



Empty roads do not cause accidents though, also much as I disagree with a lot of what councils do we cannot blame them alone for the state of our roads, they have limited funds for a kick off. Most collisions are caused by people not tarmac, I love in an area of extremely bad roads, the nearest S road is 8 miles from here and best avoided, not because of its condition but the people using it.


----------



## HMS_Dave (14 Sep 2020)

screenman said:


> Empty roads do not cause accidents though, also much as I disagree with a lot of what councils do we cannot blame them alone for the state of our roads, they have limited funds for a kick off. Most collisions are caused by people not tarmac, I love in an area of extremely bad roads, the nearest S road is 8 miles from here and best avoided, not because of its condition but the people using it.


The potholes around here are not because of lack of usage! Councils are constantly fighting claims which cost money which could have put the potholes right in the first place. It's so bad, many solicitors are running no win no fee claims against them, even which? have an article on how to claim. We pay for the roads to be maintained through our council tax, often supported by government grants which often run into the billions, yet the roads are truly awful here in Staffordshire...


----------



## screenman (14 Sep 2020)

HMS_Dave said:


> The potholes around here are not because of lack of usage! Councils are constantly fighting claims which cost money which could have put the potholes right in the first place. It's so bad, many solicitors are running no win no fee claims against them, even which? have an article on how to claim. We pay for the roads to be maintained through our council tax, often supported by government grants which often run into the billions, yet the roads are truly awful here in Staffordshire...




Funny but when I am over your way I often think how good they are compared with over here, I like to think the council are doing their best, with limited funds and resources. They just cannot keep up with the damage being done daily, I would just hate a job that when you worked all day was worse than when you started.


----------



## HMS_Dave (14 Sep 2020)

screenman said:


> Funny but when I am over your way I often think how good they are compared with over here, I like to think the council are doing their best, with limited funds and resources. They just cannot keep up with the damage being done daily, I would just hate a job that when you worked all day was worse than when you started.


Are you for real? Which parts have you been? 

The councils in your opinion might be doing their best but in actual fact its a legal requirement to ensure the roads are kept safe and well maintained.


----------



## mjr (14 Sep 2020)

screenman said:


> I like to think the council are doing their best, with limited funds and resources. They just cannot keep up with the damage being done daily, [...]


Councils have the powers to reduce that damage by reducing the number of heavy vehicles on susceptible roads with Traffic Regulation Orders and other restrictions. Few councils use them much and most prefer to bleat about lack of resources to literally pour into holes in the ground! They should face facts and get serious about enabling lightweight travel before they kill us all with the looming inactivity health crisis.


----------



## screenman (14 Sep 2020)

All over it, we spend a good deal of time over your way. Honestly come over here and pay us a visit, pot holes, roads falling away into 20ft dykes, tarmac missing all over the place, often voted worst roads in UK. I am not saying they are good over there just better, we all need to pay a lot more if we want better roads, I do best part of 500 miles most weeks to see how it is. I agree legal requirement, but I cannot blame the guys working in the councils in most cases.


----------



## screenman (14 Sep 2020)

mjr said:


> Councils have the powers to reduce that damage by reducing the number of heavy vehicles on susceptible roads with Traffic Regulation Orders and other restrictions. Few councils use them much and most prefer to bleat about lack of resources to literally pour into holes in the ground! They should face facts and get serious about enabling lightweight travel before they kill us all with the looming inactivity health crisis.



We have 2 major lorry operators in our small village, the nearest A road being 8 miles away in one direction and 6 in the other, even those are single carriageways, surely smaller vehicles which I would like to see would mean more vehicles as the same loads would need to be transported.


----------



## mjr (14 Sep 2020)

screenman said:


> We have 2 major lorry operators in our small village, the nearest A road being 8 miles away in one direction and 6 in the other, even those are single carriageways, surely smaller vehicles which I would like to see would mean more vehicles as the same loads would need to be transported.


Excluding time travel (as operators' licences should probably not have been granted for a location with weak roads, or the access road not adopted), the operators should be taxed enough to maintain the access road.

We've several lorry operators here (Carter Cabin and Crane Hire, Kier and probably others) but the road from their estate to the A road is private (and a bridleway).

It is simply impossible for us ever to pay enough to repair the damage done by unrestricted motoring. It must be factored into usage costs somehow.


----------



## screenman (14 Sep 2020)

British Sugar was there a very long time ago, I agree we all have to pay more and I would welcome that.


----------



## matticus (14 Sep 2020)

Drago said:


> ...
> All we need now is a law that prevents road killers from ever being allowed to drive again.


The hard part is not dis-allowing them, it's STOPPING them driving. Taking away licences doesn't seem to help much. :-( 
It's like taking a gun licence away from a murderer - perfectly sound idea, but unlikely to prevent re-offending.

(I'd almost prefer to tax them, or make them drive shitheap cars. Neither are likely solutions of course ... )


----------



## tom73 (14 Sep 2020)

Only time will tell it's long over due death on the roads was treated more serious. Sadly it's just been bundled in with a load of other stuff that's just playing to the gallery.


----------



## Arjimlad (14 Sep 2020)

Without proper enforcement, laws are useless. 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Thousands of people drive in a dangerous way daily...but are not caught... therein lies the problem, sentencing isn&#39;t the problem or a deterrent, a credible policing plan is. <br><br>BBC News - Drivers who kill others could receive life sentences under new laws<a href="https://t.co/sZuEWRhOZt">https://t.co/sZuEWRhOZt</a></p>&mdash; Mark Hodson (@markandcharlie) <a href="
View: https://twitter.com/markandcharlie/status/1305414945060814848?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
">September 14, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>


----------



## glasgowcyclist (14 Sep 2020)

It will be of zero deterrence. People commit dangerous driving offences in their many thousands every day, confident that the chances of being detected by police are miniscule. What’s needed is a properly funded and resourced police service, with many more traffic patrols, unmarked and marked to make dangerous drivers feel it’s too risky to break the law. Oh, and a nationwide system whereby the public can submit video evidence of traffic offences to police for prosecution. The cops can’t be everywhere but the public can.


----------



## Cycleops (14 Sep 2020)

Stiffer sentencing really is needed, especially when you read about cases like this: https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/insult-anthony-family-blast-porsche-18898052
Suspeneed sentence after killing a cyclist by dangerous driving, beggars belief.


----------



## Drago (14 Sep 2020)

glasgowcyclist said:


> It will be of zero deterrence. People commit dangerous driving offences in their many thousands every day, confident that the chances of being detected by police are miniscule. What’s needed is a properly funded and resourced police service, with many more traffic patrols, unmarked and marked to make dangerous drivers feel it’s too risky to break the law. Oh, and a nationwide system whereby the public can submit video evidence of traffic offences to police for prosecution. The cops can’t be everywhere but the public can.


absolutely, it will be of little deterrent effect. On the other hand, there is nothing wrong at all with punishing people for behaving badly, and while they are on ice the rest of us are safe from their murderous behaviour.


----------



## mjr (14 Sep 2020)

We need the laws on the books, else there's nothing worth enforcing (suspended sentence for killing? Wow) when we do finally get more traffic police again.


----------



## matticus (14 Sep 2020)

If we said that murder sentences were being reduced to 1-week in jail per victim, don't people think that would be a bad thing?

I think having appropriate sentences can only have good effects - even if the other part of the system needs beefing up more urgently. And it would avoid tragic situations like https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/insult-anthony-family-blast-porsche-18898052


----------



## Chris S (14 Sep 2020)

People around here have big bore exhausts and heavily tinted front windows that invalidate their insurance. The police could crush their cars if they could be bothered to do something about it.


----------



## icowden (14 Sep 2020)

Cycleops said:


> Stiffer sentencing really is needed, especially when you read about cases like this: https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/insult-anthony-family-blast-porsche-18898052
> Suspeneed sentence after killing a cyclist by dangerous driving, beggars belief.



Absolutely. I mean the collected wisdom of Cyclechat clearly has a better idea of the appropriate punishment in this specific case then a Crown Court Judge who only has 5 years of legal training plus a minimum 5-7 years of experience as a Barrister, who has to follow sentencing guidelines laid down by the UK Sentencing Council when dealing with a prosecution case for death by careless driving under a specific offence, and who has heard a detailed presentation of the facts, mitigations and defence and prosecution arguments.

Sentencing by newspaper headline seems an eminently sensible approach. I would suggest that we arrange for a joint letter to the Justice Secretary. It's a shame it isn't still Liz Truss as I am sure she would have absolutely gone for it.

Alternatively we could actually try to understand the sentence...

Firstly the defendant pled guilty to Causing Death by Careless Driving. This was the offence which the CPS decided to prosecute. They did *not* try to get him for causing death by dangerous driving for example. The Judge must first consider the starting point. The maximum starting point is 36 weeks to 3 years custody.
Then aggravating factors must be taken into account - the driver was speeding. Then mitigating factors - the driver pled guilty from the beginning. And those are just the ones we know about from the newspaper article.

So it looks like the Judge went probably for the middle starting point 36 weeks custody to 2 years + high level community order, and worked it out from there. They clearly felt it would be more productive for the defendant to have a suspended sentence and carry out community service than to be placed in prison. Again, we have no knowledge of how or why the Judge came to that decision.

So does the sentence beggar belief? No. Would "tougher sentencing" have made a difference? 

The changes being considered are:-



> Drivers who kill others after speeding, racing or using a phone could receive life sentences under new legislation.
> Those who cause death by careless driving under the influence of drink or drugs could also get a life sentence.



He falls under "speeding". But without the specifics of the sentencing guidelines there is nothing to suggest that this man would have received a longer sentence. Would it have been helpful to send him to prison for life?

If he had known he could get a life sentence, would he have acted differently? Almost certainly not. I very much doubt that he was thinking of sentencing guidelines whilst he was driving. Would it deter others from doing the same if he had received a life sentence? Probably not. It would have cost the tax payer £63,000 per year to house him in prison. Given that he pled guilty and likely showed remorse, is there a rehabilitation effect of sending him to prison? Again, probably not.

So what's the actual point of sending him to prison for 25 years (1/3 off for pleading guilty, + parole after 2/3rds of remaining, so cost £700,000 ish)?


----------



## mjr (14 Sep 2020)

icowden said:


> who has to follow sentencing guidelines laid down by the UK Sentencing Council


Quango! Let's look at what sort of representative panel of people is representing our interests there in scaling the min and max sentences set in legislation: https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/about-us/council-members/

Anyone see people like their community there?


----------



## dave r (14 Sep 2020)

Drago said:


> absolutely, it will be of little deterrent effect. On the other hand, there is nothing wrong at all with punishing people for behaving badly, and while they are on ice the rest of us are safe from their murderous behaviour.



Without a deterrent effect nothing will change, at the moment people aren't worried about getting caught and will just do what they want, we need enough enforcement to make people think they could get caught, then we can think about making the punishment fit the crime.


----------



## classic33 (14 Sep 2020)

Chris S said:


> People around here have big bore exhausts and heavily tinted front windows that invalidate their insurance. The police could crush their cars if they could be bothered to do something about it.


Donate them to the emergency services for public demonstration days, and/or for practicing on.


----------



## HMS_Dave (14 Sep 2020)

icowden said:


> He falls under "speeding". But without the specifics of the sentencing guidelines there is nothing to suggest that this man would have received a longer sentence. Would it have been helpful to send him to prison for life?
> 
> *If he had known he could get a life sentence, would he have acted differently? Almost certainly not.* I very much doubt that he was thinking of sentencing guidelines whilst he was driving. Would it deter others from doing the same if he had received a life sentence? Probably not. It would have cost the tax payer £63,000 per year to house him in prison. Given that he pled guilty and likely showed remorse, is there a rehabilitation effect of sending him to prison? Again, probably not.
> 
> So what's the actual point of sending him to prison for 25 years (1/3 off for pleading guilty, + parole after 2/3rds of remaining, so cost £700,000 ish)?



How do you know this?
Drink driver rates, although too high still, have fallen dramatically since 1980 and that is including much increased road side testing.

They clamped down hard on drink drivers and this surely had an effect.

Clamping down hard on killer drivers is simply the only way forward to encourage better better behaviour on our roads and if that means tougher sentencing then so be it. You seem to concentrate hard on how much it costs to send people to prison without considering how much it has cost the victim, their family and whatever contribution the victim has made or may have made to society...


----------



## icowden (14 Sep 2020)

HMS_Dave said:


> Clamping down hard on killer drivers is simply the only way forward to encourage better better behaviour on our roads and if that means tougher sentencing then so be it. You seem to concentrate hard on how much it costs to send people to prison without considering how much it has cost the victim, their family and whatever contribution the victim has made or may have made to society...



Costs and prison capacity are important. They are paid for by us, the tax payers. What is the point of prison? To house those who would otherwise be a threat to society and to rehabilitate those that can be rehabilitated so that they do not re-offend but can be a contributing member of society.



> Drink driver rates, although too high still, have fallen dramatically since 1980 and that is including much increased road side testing.



But that isn't because people are terrified of sentencing. That's because people know that there is a high risk of getting caught, and that if they have an accident, the penalty will be much worse.

The archetypal example of "deterrent sentencing" is the Death Penalty. How well would you say that is working in the US? If it was truly a deterrent then they would have a very low murder rate right?


----------



## HMS_Dave (14 Sep 2020)

icowden said:


> But that isn't because people are terrified of sentencing. That's because people know that there is a high risk of getting caught, *and that if they have an accident, the penalty will be much worse.*
> 
> The archetypal example of "deterrent sentencing" is the Death Penalty. How well would you say that is working in the US? If it was truly a deterrent then they would have a very low murder rate right?



Exactly. So it works...


----------



## Drago (14 Sep 2020)

dave r said:


> Without a deterrent effect nothing will change, at the moment people aren't worried about getting caught and will just do what they want, we need enough enforcement to make people think they could get caught, then we can think about making the punishment fit the crime.


When they're all in prison, it will change.

Even batter, if anyone who lost their licence lost it permanetly then the roads would quickly change for the better. You actually have to work quite hard at losing a licence, so there's no reason to blest if youmgot a ban and were never allowed to drive again.

As for the desth penalty, many murderers do go on to murder again after their release. The difference there is the dead ones don't do so.


----------



## DaveReading (14 Sep 2020)

Drago said:


> As for the dasth penalty, many murderers do go on to murder again after their release.



That would be "many" as in a minute percentage.


----------



## Cycleops (14 Sep 2020)

The judiciary are constrained by sentencing guidelines which resulted in the pathetic sentence of the speeding Porsche driver who killed the cyclist I outlined above. I don’t think the family of the man think justice was done and neither would you if it was your wife or son.
icowden left out another reason for prison, for the victim or their family 
to feel they have got some sort of justice.


----------



## icowden (14 Sep 2020)

Cycleops said:


> The judiciary are constrained by sentencing guidelines which resulted in the pathetic sentence of the speeding Porsche driver who killed the cyclist I outlined above. I don’t think the family of the man think justice was done and neither would you if it was your wife or son.
> icowden left out another reason for prison, for the victim or their family
> to feel they have got some sort of justice.



Personally if I were in that situation I would want restorative justice rather than to know I was paying for this guy to have 3 meals a day, access to a library and full time supervision in an open prison.


----------



## icowden (14 Sep 2020)

HMS_Dave said:


> Exactly. So it works...



Um no. The US has a massive prison population high crime and a high murder rate. There is no evidence that deterrent sentencing works.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20180514-do-long-prison-sentences-deter-crime


----------



## Cycleops (14 Sep 2020)

icowden said:


> Personally if I were in that situation I would want restorative justice rather than to know I was paying for this guy to have 3 meals a day, access to a library and full time supervision in an open prison.


We are all different then but it wouldn’t be my preference.


----------



## HMS_Dave (14 Sep 2020)

icowden said:


> Um no. The US has a massive prison population high crime and a high murder rate. There is no evidence that deterrent sentencing works.
> https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20180514-do-long-prison-sentences-deter-crime


And so we further devolve away from the topic... Murders are committed through a variety of reasons, Impulsiveness, Revenge, Lust, Anger, Mental Health Issues, Terrorist, Hatred towards a group, religion, race etc... All of which require complex, lengthy and expensive court procedures which are different entirely from killing a pedestrian, cyclist or other because you are speeding in your car.


----------



## dave r (14 Sep 2020)

icowden said:


> Costs and prison capacity are important. They are paid for by us, the tax payers. What is the point of prison? To house those who would otherwise be a threat to society and to rehabilitate those that can be rehabilitated so that they do not re-offend but can be a contributing member of society.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Why are you quoting hms dave and putting my name against it?


----------



## classic33 (14 Sep 2020)

mjr said:


> Excluding time travel (as operators' licences should probably not have been granted for a location with weak roads, or the access road not adopted), the operators should be taxed enough to maintain the access road.
> 
> We've several lorry operators here (Carter Cabin and Crane Hire, Kier and probably others) but the road from their estate to the A road is private (and a bridleway).
> 
> It is simply impossible for us ever to pay enough to repair the damage done by unrestricted motoring. It must be factored into usage costs somehow.


We had a number of heavy engineering companies in a small, concentrated, area. Many now gone, but smaller ones remain. How are you planning on stopping them from operating as a business?

We've two local specialist heavy haulage companies, in the same area. Seldom do their loads not have a police escort out, stopping traffic at junctions for them. Keeping dual carriage ways open as a single lane. 

You want to see firms close down?


----------



## Pale Rider (15 Sep 2020)

glasgowcyclist said:


> It will be of zero deterrence. People commit dangerous driving offences in their many thousands every day, confident that the chances of being detected by police are miniscule. What’s needed is a properly funded and resourced police service, with many more traffic patrols, unmarked and marked to make dangerous drivers feel it’s too risky to break the law. Oh, and a nationwide system whereby the public can submit video evidence of traffic offences to police for prosecution. The cops can’t be everywhere but the public can.



I agree with much of this post, but we are talking about 'death by' offences and sentencing.

Detection is not a problem with these offences.

In other words, killer drivers are nearly always caught.

The problem is sentences the public see as excessively lenient.

The proposed reform is to up the maximum for death by dangerous from 14 years to life, which might mean the worst killer drivers may serve an extra year or two.

The majority will still receive determinate sentences.

The lesser offence of death by careless remains, which has a starting point of a non-custodial sentence.

Unfortunately, we will still see excessively lenient sentences such as the case referred to a couple of times in this thread.

Bartering a dangerous charge down to careless happens far to often.

No easy answer to that one.


----------



## Cycleops (15 Sep 2020)

Pale Rider said:


> Unfortunately, we will still see excessively lenient sentences such as the case referred to a couple of times in this thread.
> 
> Bartering a dangerous charge down to careless happens far to often.


I might suggest that the driver in that case was offered a deal to plead guilty to if the charge was reduced to causing death by careless driving.


----------



## mjr (15 Sep 2020)

classic33 said:


> You want to see firms close down?


No, just pay for the damage they do to the roads so we stop this endless cycle of potholes and bailouts.


----------



## matticus (15 Sep 2020)

Do stiffer sentences work? Clearly it's complex; all the studies referenced so far - and I googled some more - show that other deterrents are BETTER.

For me, the step change between bans+fines and actual _time behind bars_ is significant. In most drivers' heads (and I'm sure I've done this), driving is about keeping yourself safe, and avoiding fines.
If we can get people thinking that they will GO TO PRISON if they feck-up badly - just as they will with drink-driving - we WOULD see a step-change in behaviour.


----------



## matticus (15 Sep 2020)

mjr said:


> No, just pay for the damage they do to the roads so we stop this endless cycle of potholes and bailouts.


amen.

And if you're paying for damage, you do a lot more to avoid that damage.


----------



## icowden (15 Sep 2020)

dave r said:


> Why are you quoting hms dave and putting my name against it?



Twas a reply / edit error. Fixed it now. Apols.


----------



## icowden (15 Sep 2020)

Pale Rider said:


> Unfortunately, we will still see excessively lenient sentences such as the case referred to a couple of times in this thread.



I do wish however that we could stop calling sentences "excessively lenient" based on our very sparse knowledge of events, and without seeing the actual Judgement in question. There is no way that we can gauge whether the sentence was "excessively lenient" unless we attended the full trial. 

I agree with @Cycleops that it's altogether possible that the CPS considered the risk of failing to get a conviction for death by dangerous driving was too high as the accused was prepared to plead guilty to the lower charge. I suspect part of the problem is that there really isn't much definition as to what constitutes dangerous driving rather than careless driving.


----------



## Cycleops (15 Sep 2020)

The family of the victim were in court so I think I'll go with their verdict on the sentence.


----------



## classic33 (15 Sep 2020)

mjr said:


> No, just pay for the damage they do to the roads so we stop this endless cycle of potholes and bailouts.


Power steering does more damage than the actual weight of the vehicle.


----------



## matticus (15 Sep 2020)

icowden said:


> I do wish however that we could stop calling sentences "excessively lenient" based on our very sparse knowledge of events, and without seeing the actual Judgement in question. *There is no way that we can gauge whether the sentence was "excessively lenient"* unless we attended the full trial.


Yes we bloody well can; we can read the facts of the case, then look at the sentence. It is that simple. 

You can defend the judge for just following the rules - and you may be right in this situation - but it's all a bit
"I was only following orders!" 
Our justice system is supposed to protect us; it is not a pension scheme for lawyers and court staff. It should be fair and reasonable - it should not be a game where clever people sift through the rulebook for loopholes.



> ... there really isn't much definition as to what constitutes dangerous driving rather than careless driving.


Again, another easy one; *negligent driving that led to someone dying*. /sensible_layman_view


----------



## icowden (15 Sep 2020)

matticus said:


> Yes we bloody well can; we can read the facts of the case, then look at the sentence. It is that simple.



Where can we read them? The best I have found is a brief summary. I haven't found the case for the prosecution, the case for the defense, the arguments and mitigating factors. Knee jerk law is bad law.



matticus said:


> Our justice system is supposed to protect us; it is not a pension scheme for lawyers and court staff. It should be fair and reasonable - it should not be a game where clever people sift through the rulebook for loopholes.



I would suggest reading @secretbarrister - he/she will soon disabuse you of this sort of notion. There is no loophole in this case, only the law as it has been laid down by government.


matticus said:


> Again, another easy one; *negligent driving that led to someone dying*. /sensible_layman_view



OK - so now define the difference between death by careless driving and death by dangerous driving.
All you have defined is a category that doesn't exist.


----------



## icowden (15 Sep 2020)

Cycleops said:


> The family of the victim were in court so I think I'll go with their verdict on the sentence.



I'm not sure that a bereaved family are the best people to go to for an objective opinion about the sentence. This is why we have knee jerk petitions for laws like "harper's law" which would make terrible law if implemented - unless you want a penal system like America where you just throw everyone in prison for ever regardless of the severity of their crime.


----------



## Pale Rider (15 Sep 2020)

icowden said:


> There is no way that we can gauge whether the sentence was "excessively lenient" unless we attended the full trial.



I explained earlier in the thread the sentence in the Boxter case was almost certainly correct, according to sentencing guidelines.

However, the facts are clear.

He was speeding in the wet, lost control, hit a tree, and whacked a cyclist hard enough to kill him.

Anyone is perfectly entitled to say that anything less than a decent stretch for doing that is 'excessively lenient'.


----------



## Cycleops (15 Sep 2020)

The bereaved family are the ones affected by the actions of the speeding driver so have to be considered. Although he used a car instead of a knife or a gun the result was the same. And while we’re being objective to say the US penal system throws everyone in Jail for ever is simply untrue.


----------



## Pale Rider (15 Sep 2020)

Cycleops said:


> The bereaved family are the ones affected by the actions of the speeding driver so have to be considered



As do the opinions of ordinary members of the public - the prosecution is primarily in the public interest.

Just because I happen to understand the trial and sentencing process doesn't make my opinion in any way superior.

I reckon most people would agree the sentence in the Boxter case is excessively lenient.

If so, there is a strong case for reforming the system that produced it.

As remarked earlier in the thread, the system is not there to produce six figure incomes and five figure pensions for lawyers and judges.

It is there to see justice is done in the interests of the public.

Which doesn't mean we have sentences decided by a braying mob, but it does mean sentences must make sense to a reasonable person.


----------



## matticus (15 Sep 2020)

icowden said:


> _matticus said:
> Our justice system is supposed to protect us; it is not a pension scheme for lawyers and court staff. It should be fair and reasonable - it should not be a game where clever people sift through the rulebook for loopholes._
> 
> I would suggest reading @secretbarrister - he/she will soon disabuse you of this sort of notion. There is no loophole in this case, only the law as it has been laid down by government.


I don't think he will disabuse me of anything! I've read his stuff, but I'll say it again:
_Our justice system is supposed to protect us; it is not a pension scheme for lawyers and court staff. It should be fair and reasonable_

Do you have a problem with that?


----------



## Pale Rider (15 Sep 2020)

The Secret Barrister is often quoted by those outside the system.

He probably is a barrister, but some of his patter doesn't make much sense to me, or to some others who inhabit the same crown courts as I do.

His stuff, like mine on here, is inevitably a mixture of fact and opinion, which may explain our differences.

It's rather like two keen football fans discussing a game - their views will differ in some respects.


----------



## icowden (15 Sep 2020)

matticus said:


> I don't think he will disabuse me of anything! I've read his stuff, but I'll say it again:
> _Our justice system is supposed to protect us; it is not a pension scheme for lawyers and court staff. It should be fair and reasonable_
> 
> Do you have a problem with that?



Nope. I don't think anyone has ever suggested that the Justice system is a pension scheme. It should be fair and reasonable. Most of the time it is.
The things that suggest that it isn't tend to be the baying hounds of the tabloids trying to sell newspapers, trying to make capital out of others misfortune.


----------



## matticus (15 Sep 2020)

Ok, then we agree on many things! But it's not just the "baying hounds" who find some sentences risible; I'm seeing fairly reasonable people (such as the fine folk here on Cyclechat) who judge many sentences for motoring offences to be unreasonably low.

It doesn't help matters to defend the individuals involved, as merely doing their jobs; these cases suggest a systematic problem. Which is contributing to the insane death-toll on our roads.


----------



## DaveReading (15 Sep 2020)

Cycleops said:


> I might suggest that the driver in that case was offered a deal to plead guilty to if the charge was reduced to causing death by careless driving.



Which is another way of saying that the CPS weren't sufficiently confident of getting a jury to deliver a guilty verdict on death by dangerous.


----------



## Mugshot (15 Sep 2020)

matticus said:


> If we can get people thinking that they will GO TO PRISON if they feck-up badly - just as they will with drink-driving - we WOULD see a step-change in behaviour.


Wasn't much of the success in combating drink driving down to changing the public's perception of its acceptability? 
I'm not convinced that tougher sentences would be that much of a deterrent, even if I often find myself thinking that they should be handed out. Perhaps a more psychological approach would be more effective.


----------



## HMS_Dave (15 Sep 2020)

Mugshot said:


> Wasn't much of the success in combating drink driving down to changing the public's perception of its acceptability?
> I'm not convinced that tougher sentences would be that much of a deterrent, even if I often find myself thinking that they should be handed out. Perhaps a more psychological approach would be more effective.


In part for certain, public awareness programs do work to a point. But even when the law changed in 1991 effectively meaning those causing death by dangerous driving must serve a sentence up to 5 years, the numbers of drink driving fell for a short period before dramatically rising again throughout the late 90's early 00's. When in 2003/4 the law changed to a maximum of 14 years it fell dramatically again.

There is statistical evidence for both methods working. A combination of the two in effects to what is currently being proposed would have the maximum effect on road safety... This for me isn't about banging people up for 14 odd years, its about a strong deterrent to those with weak impulse control. Yes, some will still ignore everything and kill somebody, they rightly should be made an example. It could result in less people going to jail and not more in the long run, save lives and save money... What is the problem with that?


----------



## theclaud (18 Sep 2020)

Pale Rider said:


> The Secret Barrister is often quoted by those outside the system.
> 
> He probably is a barrister, but some of his patter doesn't make much sense to me, or to some others who inhabit the same crown courts as I do.
> 
> ...


----------



## mjr (18 Sep 2020)

DaveReading said:


> That would be "many" as in a minute percentage.


1-2% of released murderers were convicted of another murder. Not many (an average of 3 a year 2000-2009 in the UK), but not "minute" either.



icowden said:


> Costs and prison capacity are important. They are paid for by us, the tax payers. What is the point of prison? To house those who would otherwise be a threat to society and to rehabilitate those that can be rehabilitated so that they do not re-offend but can be a contributing member of society.


Isn't a "driver" who won't plead guilty after killing someone in what some people still insist on calling an "accident" a threat to others? Don't they need some rehabilitation so they don't continue as before and kill again?



icowden said:


> But that isn't because people are terrified of sentencing. That's because people know that there is a high risk of getting caught, and that if they have an accident, the penalty will be much worse.


How do you know this? Are you extrapolating from the US Death Penalty?


----------



## Notafettler (18 Sep 2020)

HMS_Dave said:


> Are you for real? Which parts have you been?
> 
> The councils in your opinion might be doing their best but in actual fact its a legal requirement to ensure the roads are kept safe and well maintained.


Then they will have reduce funding somewhere else. Where do you think they should reduce funding to pay for better roads?


----------



## HMS_Dave (19 Sep 2020)

Notafettler said:


> Then they will have reduce funding somewhere else. Where do you think they should reduce funding to pay for better roads?


Halve council bosses pay, id start there...


----------



## Notafettler (19 Sep 2020)

HMS_Dave said:


> Halve council bosses pay, id start there...


Silly answer you know well that would result in a minscule saving. So to sum you can come with no way of creating savings in council budgets. So your whole argument is worthless. "I want better roads and I can not think of any way the council can afford it. The council can just make the money appear by....fill the rest in.


----------



## HMS_Dave (19 Sep 2020)

Notafettler said:


> Silly answer you know well that would result in a minscule saving. So to sum you can come with no way of creating savings in council budgets. So your whole argument is worthless. "I want better roads and I can not think of any way the council can afford it. The council can just make the money appear by....fill the rest in.


A silly question deserves a silly answer... Im glad you picked up on that.

If you are prepared to delve into council funding, you need to understand their exact spending. Im not talking about their colourful little leaflets they send out each year, but a proper breakdown of their spending. How about the Gov't grants given to councils that are supposedly spent on potholes? Break it down...

You can't ask a question like "where do councils get their funding from?" when you almost certainly don't know the breakdowns of their spending "including third party resources" yourself. We've read in the papers that they're skint, but then Boris Johnson has reportedly said a number of times over the past that his salary is not "enough to live on". 

Lets deal in facts if you want to but then prove to me that councils are skint to the point that they can no longer maintain a legal requirement to maintain the road infrastructure...


----------



## Notafettler (20 Sep 2020)

HMS_Dave said:


> A silly question deserves a silly answer... Im glad you picked up on that.
> 
> If you are prepared to delve into council funding, you need to understand their exact spending. Im not talking about their colourful little leaflets they send out each year, but a proper breakdown of their spending. How about the Gov't grants given to councils that are supposedly spent on potholes? Break it down...
> 
> ...


Surely you should be the one supplying the proof that they have the money? And as I said cuttings council bosses wages will not add any meaningful amount to the coffers. A silly view to suggest it would. And now you bring Boris Johnson salary into your argument. That is so so silly.


----------



## Notafettler (20 Sep 2020)

glasgowcyclist said:


> It will be of zero deterrence. People commit dangerous driving offences in their many thousands every day, confident that the chances of being detected by police are miniscule. What’s needed is a properly funded and resourced police service, with many more traffic patrols, unmarked and marked to make dangerous drivers feel it’s too risky to break the law. Oh, and a nationwide system whereby the public can submit video evidence of traffic offences to police for prosecution. The cops can’t be everywhere but the public can.


I agree with your argument over public submitting evidence But so few have cameras in there cars. I think it's Finland where nearly everyone has them. I think they should be encouraged via insurance companies?


----------



## HMS_Dave (20 Sep 2020)

My point wasn't specifically Boris wages, more the REPORTING of it as it is with council funding. It is not evidence of anything... You are refuting my argument based on opinion. That is fine. But isn't factual which is my point.... I've made my point and had my say and that is the end of my contribution to this thread.


----------



## icowden (21 Sep 2020)

mjr said:


> Isn't a "driver" who won't plead guilty after killing someone in what some people still insist on calling an "accident" a threat to others? Don't they need some rehabilitation so they don't continue as before and kill again?



He did plead guilty though. Isn't that the point?



mjr said:


> How do you know this? Are you extrapolating from the US Death Penalty?



No. I just feel that most people changed their attitude (certainly many of my friends did) to drink driving when there was a high risk of being banned from driving, not from conjecture about how many years they might spend in prison. Similarly, people in the US don't refrain from shooting each other because they are worried about a life in prison or the death sentence. If they did, then the US would have a very low death rate.

Or take this guy:-

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/08/08/us/man-freed-life-sentence-marijuana-trnd/index.html

He clearly lived in fear of being sentence to life in prison for being in possession of a small amount of marijuana. The US thrives on excessive sentencing. The costs of keeping this man in prison rather than actually getting him some help must have been astronomical. It makes no economic sense, It fails to help anyone.

Sentences just don't act as a deterrent:-

https://www.transformjustice.org.uk/do-tough-sentences-deter-crime/#:~:text=If deterrent sentencing works, this,new law than before it.

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20180514-do-long-prison-sentences-deter-crime

https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/five-things-about-deterrence

The only people who support them are jingoistic morons like Priti Patel who want to use them to get votes from the "string em up" section of society.


----------



## matticus (21 Sep 2020)

icowden said:


> Sentences just don't act as a deterrent:-
> 
> https://www.transformjustice.org.uk/do-tough-sentences-deter-crime/#:~:text=If deterrent sentencing works, this,new law than before it.
> 
> ...


It's funny how people can read the same thing, and make different conclusions. (Like I said upthread) I've read a number of these articles about deterrence; they broadly all gave me the same impression.
I read your BBC link above (as I find BBC make things easy for me to read): it seemed to say:
- long sentences aren't the _best _deterrence,
- they _aren't as effective_ as most people instinctively think.

You've concluded differently. <gallic shrug>


----------



## icowden (21 Sep 2020)

Horses for courses 

The Norwegian approach seems to be particularly effective, particularly at rehabilitating those that can be rehabilitated. Whereas the US approach of lock em up forever is massively ineffective.


----------



## matticus (21 Sep 2020)

icowden said:


> Horses for courses
> 
> The Norwegian approach seems to be particularly effective, particularly at rehabilitating those that can be rehabilitated. Whereas the US approach of lock em up forever is massively ineffective.


Do you think sentence length is the only difference between the two systems?

[I'm tempted to write a very long sentence here - as a hilarious play on words - but can't be arsed. Sorry.]


----------



## icowden (21 Sep 2020)

matticus said:


> Do you think sentence length is the only difference between the two systems?



Obviously not. The Norwegian model is about rehabilitation. About trying to ensure that the offender does not re offend. As the BBC article states - 20% re offending rate vs 67% in the US over two and three years of leaving prison. Average prison sentence in Norway is 8 months. A stat from 2003 in the In the US is 54.7 months for guilty pleas and 153.7 months for offences resolved by trial. Yep. 12 years and 9 months. Now whether that includes stupid outliers I don't know.

Sometimes it feels very odd in both directions. For example in the US the Oklahoma Bomber was given 162 consecutive life sentences and Charles Scott Robinson was sentenced to serve 30,000 years for 6 counts of child rape. Whereas Anders Brevik despite the severity of his crimes will serve 21 years in prison (although this may be extended if he does not become rehabilitated). That is the longest sentence available in Norway. Norway believes in restorative justice whereas the US believes in retributive justice.


----------



## snorri (21 Jun 2021)

We've heard this message before, but it seems more powerful when coming from the lips of one so young who has suffered, and will continue to suffer from the actions of an inattentive driver .

View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1002111063637180417


----------



## glasgowcyclist (21 Jun 2021)

snorri said:


> We've heard this message before, but it seems more powerful when coming from the lips of one so young who has suffered, and will continue to suffer from the actions of an inattentive driver .
> 
> View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1002111063637180417




The pain and frustration in her voice. 

She's one of hundreds with heart-breaking accounts and injuries but the system is not geared up to properly deter or punish drivers.


----------



## Badger_Boom (21 Jun 2021)

glasgowcyclist said:


> The pain and frustration in her voice.
> 
> She's one of hundreds with heart-breaking accounts and injuries but the system is not geared up to properly deter or punish drivers.


It also boggles my mind that so many people flatly refuse to accept that using your mobile is a 'distraction' at the wheel.


----------



## icowden (21 Jun 2021)

glasgowcyclist said:


> She's one of hundreds with heart-breaking accounts and injuries but the system is not geared up to properly deter or punish drivers.



I'm not sure I totally agree with that statement. There are appropriate sentencing guidelines in place for causing death by careless or dangerous driving, with a custodial sentence of up to 14 years in prison. 

Where I would agree with Imogen is that there is a gap between Dangerous Driving and Causing Death by Dangerous Driving, in that if you almost kill someone or severely injure someone, there is no difference between that and injuring no-one. The maximum sentence for Dangerous Driving is 2 years. I think there was talk of bringing in a charge of Causing Serious Injury by Dangerous Driviing with a maximum sentence of 5 years, but I'm not sure that it got enacted.


----------



## Edwardoka (21 Jun 2021)

Badger_Boom said:


> It also boggles my mind that so many people flatly refuse to accept that using your mobile is a 'distraction' at the wheel.


I think it's a case of knowing intellectualy that it's dangerous behaviour, but not really engaging with it or seeing what the potential impact is, after all everyone else does it and no-one they knew has ever had anything bad come of it, so it can't be that bad... until it is.

Like the same people who swore they wouldn't get covid right until they got it.


----------



## icowden (21 Jun 2021)

Edwardoka said:


> I think it's a case of knowing intellectualy that it's dangerous behaviour, but not really engaging with it or seeing what the potential impact is, after all everyone else does it and no-one they knew has ever had anything bad come of it, so it can't be that bad... until it is.



Yep. This is why it doesn't matter how heart wrenching the story is from the person who wants "tougher sentences", there is just no evidence that tougher sentences are in any way a deterrent. This is modelled perfectly for us by the US Justice system. That "Death penalty" they have in some states - hasn't reduced the murder rate.


----------

