The Road Maniac and Pathetic Punishment Thread

[roubaixtuesday]

Ah, so you want to go down the USA's route of stuff expertise, just string em up?

Personally, that's not a route I think we should pursue. Still, you enjoy your flaming torches and pitchforks.

I believe this is what's known as a "straw man".

The point being made is that road crime are treated with far greater leniency than other crimes, not that we should bring back the death penalty.

 

[Drago]

Where in the name of Holy Hell did talk of the death penalty come from?

Insofar as this thread has discussed death the only people facing that penalty are the victims.

It would be nice for some of these killers to actually receive a meaningful penalty. I mean, ooooh, a two year ban, how nasty. A punishment that reduces someone to the level of the likes of me who doesn't even own a car at all and who is quite happy with that is hardly a meaningful one.

 

[Dogtrousers]

Ah, so you want to go down the USA's route of stuff expertise, just string em up?

My that's a fine straw man you've built there.

 

[roubaixtuesday]

My that's a fine straw man you've built there.

He's on fire

 

[Alex321]

Plainly it's pointless in discussing this with Icowden, as they appear to be on the side of defendants and not plaintiffs.
Ok, so some of these crimes were not intended , but to be driving with a mobile phone ,operating with out a hands free kit or , with a social media screen open , must suggest that the driver / owner was not excercising full attention to driving, doesn't that make them culpable of inattention ?

Of course. And NOBODY has suggested otherwise.

And if Icowden is using a professional opinion to this, for it seems they are involved with court proceedings.
Surely they ought to give a laymans view rather than a legal one.

Where has he suggested any sort of professional opinion is involved?

I freely admit that having been a victim of a RTA ,that my opinion is coloured by that circumstance, but to lightly dismiss , such things as being acceptable isn't

Again, nobody has suggested otherwise.

Your entire post seems to be a straw man - arguing against things that simply have not been said or suggested.

 

[Alex321]

A punishment that reduces someone to the level of the likes of me who doesn't even own a car at all and who is quite happy with that is hardly a meaningful one.

That is a ridiculous comment. The fact that YOU are happy to not own a car is completely irrelevant, given that a very large majority of the population are not in your position, and would be, at best, very seriously inconvenienced.

 

[icowden]

I believe this is what's known as a "straw man".
The point being made is that road crime are treated with far greater leniency than other crimes, not that we should bring back the death penalty.

Then it wasn't made very well. Either you agree with some of the most senior justices in the land that the sentencing guidelines are correct or you don't on the basis of "I think more people should be sent to jail". The guidelines encompass a range of outcomes and the Judge has imposed what he feels to be a reasonable sentence based on the crime and the likelihood of reoffending.

 

[Dogtrousers]

Either you agree with some of the most senior justices in the land that the sentencing guidelines are correct or you don't on the basis of "I think more people should be sent to jail".

Another straw man.

First tell people what they think. Construct a flimsy caricature. Then knock it down. Result: You look tremendously clever and right. Everyone claps.

 

[roubaixtuesday]

Then it wasn't made very well. Either you agree with some of the most senior justices in the land that the sentencing guidelines are correct or you don't on the basis of "I think more people should be sent to jail". The guidelines encompass a range of outcomes and the Judge has imposed what he feels to be a reasonable sentence based on the crime and the likelihood of reoffending.

Well, you're conflating several things here.

1. The Law
2. Sentencing guidance based on the law
3. Interpretation of the facts of a specific case.

I am suggesting :

- that the combination of 1 and 2 results in unduly lenient sentences for road traffic offences compared to others that have the same impact and
- even within that guidance, on (3) that driving into oncoming traffic is not a "momentary lapse of concentration" (your quote) and that it's perverse to classify it as such; it clearly requires gross negligence or deliberate action to result in that.

 

[icowden]

A thought. Back when I was a bobby if I'd genuinely witnessed a murder and had a clear and unobstructed view of a culprit doing the deed and I knew them then my testimony alone (subject to surviving cross examination, etc) would stand a good chance of being sufficient to gain a conviction in court.

I'm sure no-one can see any flaws at all in that approach...

It's incredible that road criminals get such a high degree of countenance and systemic protection that isn't available to other classes of offender. Under certain circumstances (such as the simplistic ones I desdribe above) potentially greater than that which even murderers are available to avail themselves. That is just nuts.

I'm not sure that having to have evidence is any different for a road crime than it is for ABH or Murder. The Justice system is about being able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that something happened followed by an appropriate sentence for the crime.

The accident cited was devastating but due to a moment's inattention. The prosecution could not prove what that inattention was caused by. I'm not sure what would be gained by locking up the driver who caused the crash for 20 years. It wouldn't prove a deterrent, it wouldn't alter the outcome of the crash, it wouldn't rehabilitate the offender. It would also cost the taxpayer a significant amount of cash.

 

[icowden]

- even within that guidance, on (3) that driving into oncoming traffic is not a "momentary lapse of concentration" (your quote) and that it's perverse to classify it as such; it clearly requires gross negligence or deliberate action to result in that.

The court disagrees with you.

 

[roubaixtuesday]

The court disagrees with you.

Yes, that's the whole point of the thread!

 

[roubaixtuesday]

The accident cited was devastating but due to a moment's inattention

This is completely perverse.

Nobody drives into incoming traffic due to a moment's inattention. It's beyond any credibility.

This is the problem: a cultural acceptance of the unacceptable.

 

[icowden]

Yes, that's the whole point of the thread!

Oh, I hadn't realised that it was a thread for widdling into the wind. I made the mistake of thinking that we were trying to have meaningful discussion.
We can all suggest law changes on the basis of nothing. I'm just not sure how useful it is. The Tories were very fond of it.

 

[FishFright]

Oh, I hadn't realised that it was a thread for widdling into the wind. I made the mistake of thinking that we were trying to have meaningful discussion.
We can all suggest law changes on the basis of nothing. I'm just not sure how useful it is. The Tories were very fond of it.

You're trying to defend the indefensible , what did you expect?