The Road Maniac and Pathetic Punishment Thread
- Thread starter Drago
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
mjr
Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
- Location
- mostly Norfolk, sometimes Somerset
I guess my adblocker works then! I think this is basically the same site with a different banner and I can't find other sites publishing it yet:
https://www.wattonandswaffhamtimes....-driver-spared-jail-causing-a143-fatal-crash/
The story has been updated to include mention of a suspended sentence: "Judge Alice Robinson said it had been a “very difficult decision” to suspend a seven month sentence for two years with a requirement to complete 250 hours unpaid work. She said she had been mindful of the impact on his wife and his own young disabled son of immediate custody."
OP
OP
Drago
Legendary Member
- Location
- Suburban Poshshire
It's a shame the offender didn't consider the consequences for the victims family before deciding to commit road crime.
raleighnut
Legendary Member
- Location
- One of the 'Elite'
But would that stop the fecker driving, so many banned and 'un insured cars on the road these days.
There is no evidence that he decided to commit road crime. That's rather the point of the sentence. The Judge agreed that he was guilty of inattention, but it couldn't be proven that he was watching YouTube at the time, only that his phone was playing it (i.e. he could have been listening to music or a videocast for example).
Given his clear remorse, early guilty plea and disabled son, the Judge was minded to suspend his prison sentence.
OP
OP
Drago
Legendary Member
- Location
- Suburban Poshshire
But would that stop the fecker driving, so many banned and 'un insured cars on the road these days.
Crush their cars, and make disqual driving an obligatory prison sentence. They won't be so keen on driving after they've dropped the soap a few times.
Dogtrousers
Kilometre nibbler
He made the decision to prioritse whatever it was that was going on with his phone, youtube or not, over controlling his vehicle. He decided to stop looking where he was going. It was entirely his doing.
And he has a sob story. Oh boo hoo.
Neither of those things can be proven. The Judge has to work with what can be proven, not what can be imagined.
Well not really. It is the Judge's job to work out the best way of sentencing the offender within the guidelines. He/she has to take into account the punitive aspect as well as the likelihood of reoffending and at the moment, also balance that with the lack of available prison places and the welfare of the defendant's family. In this case he showed clear remorse, the Judge felt that reoffending was unlikely and given his child is disabled and both wife and child may be dependent on his income, decided that suspending the sentence was the best course of action. It doesn't mean that "he got away with it". He is still serving his sentence and has to comply with conditions, and breach of which will then involve him going to prison. He will still have a criminal record.
Dogtrousers
Kilometre nibbler
You're probably right. But the burden of proof seems wrong. If you veer into the wrong carriageway it would seem that unless you can prove that you had a medical emergency it's your fault.
There seems to be a magical grey area where if we cannot absolutely prove that you were watching YouTube then it's just one of those things. Hey, cars veer onto the wrong carriageway of their own volition all the time.
grldtnr
Über Member
Plainly a miscarriage of justice, the fact he has a disabled son doesn't mitigate the crime.
Through his act , of Careless Driving, a family has been devastated, whoever died was a parent or siblings that will be missed, but for the defendants transgress , would still be alive and living a full life, the defendant killed someone let's not forget, ok it may not have been premeditated, but clearly the defendant was responsible, or more accurately irresponsible.
Let s all be reminded, when your at the controls of any vehicle, there is an overiding duty of care that must be considered.
Every time I use the public roads, I am mindfull that I am in control of a maiming machine,that I drive with consideration to others.
We were discussing the matter of culpability further up thread, so, what degree of culpability makes this a fit & proper penalty, there wasn't any mention of a financial penalty.
The defendant might has well be given a stern talking too,and not to do it again.
There really has to be a cultural change in road behaviour, ,this particular case isn't going to change that.
My feelings go to the poor family of the victim, they are the ones that should be doing the forgiving, not the judge or the bench, they are there to determine guilt , the degree of culpability and a fit and just sentence.
Through his act , of Careless Driving, a family has been devastated, whoever died was a parent or siblings that will be missed, but for the defendants transgress , would still be alive and living a full life, the defendant killed someone let's not forget, ok it may not have been premeditated, but clearly the defendant was responsible, or more accurately irresponsible.
Let s all be reminded, when your at the controls of any vehicle, there is an overiding duty of care that must be considered.
Every time I use the public roads, I am mindfull that I am in control of a maiming machine,that I drive with consideration to others.
We were discussing the matter of culpability further up thread, so, what degree of culpability makes this a fit & proper penalty, there wasn't any mention of a financial penalty.
The defendant might has well be given a stern talking too,and not to do it again.
There really has to be a cultural change in road behaviour, ,this particular case isn't going to change that.
My feelings go to the poor family of the victim, they are the ones that should be doing the forgiving, not the judge or the bench, they are there to determine guilt , the degree of culpability and a fit and just sentence.
OP
OP
Drago
Legendary Member
- Location
- Suburban Poshshire
It's a shame the victim's family didn't get that level of consideration from the killer.
People should be held to account for their actions. The state should not be protecting killers from the foreseeable consequences of their own behaviour.
You need to understand the justice system. He pled guilty. There is no miscarriage. All crimes have aggravating and mitigating circumstances that the Judge is required to weigh up.
Correct. He admitted to this and pled guilty.
He wasn't given a financial penalty.
Why, he was given a custodial sentence. He has a criminal record. His movement and behaviour will be monitored for the duration of his sentence (7 months) plus the additional 13 months it has been suspended for.
Well clearly not, as it was prosecuted as (presumably) death by careless driving.
Yes. The Judge did that. Yet you still disagree with the Judge.
He was and he wasn't
mjr
Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
- Location
- mostly Norfolk, sometimes Somerset
be even less likely if banned from driving for nore than 2 years! (a chunk of which he'll be working for Community Payback anyway)
lazybloke
Priest of the cult of Chris Rea
- Location
- Leafy Surrey
Many people consider an overly lenient sentence to be a miscarriage of justice.
