Some proper sentencing?
- Thread starter Drago
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
matticus
Guru
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.
Again, another easy one; negligent driving that led to someone dying. /sensible_layman_view
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.
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.
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.
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
Legendary Member
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
Legendary Member
- Location
- Accra, Ghana
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
Legendary Member
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
Guru
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
Legendary Member
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.
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.
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
Guru
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.
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
Don't suffer fools gladly (must try harder!)
- Location
- Reading, obvs
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
Cracking a solo.
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
Grand Old Lady
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?
