I am not sure about my figures but I am sure that someone can put me right.
Manslaughter = max sentence 14 years
Death by dangerous/recless driving = max 10 years
I can never see why someone who is banned from or not qualified for driving (inc no insurnace etc) and kills someone should not be done for manslaughter and get given 14 years. Even then the sentence gets reduced too much but that debate is not for this forum.
|
I can never see why someone who is banned from or not qualified for driving (inc no insurnace etc) and kills someone should not be done for manslaughter and get given 14 years.
DavidHM's post above sums up my feeling about this person.
However she was not drunk(she passed the breathalyser) and was convicted of careless driving - she was dealt with for the disqualified/no insurance etc earlier.
Surely to be charged with manslaughter there must be evidence of intent or knowledge that her action was likely to cause harm - and presumably she did not intend any harm to come to her child and, as David said, her risk asessment would be lacking.
Please do not construe this as defending her. I would not care if she is locked up for many years - but it won't act as a deterrent for those of her ilk.
|
|
Locking them up for years may not act as a deterrent but it certainly reduces their opportunities for further transgressions and in the absence of a cure for feckless behaviour such as this I'd settle for that...
|
Having to live with the memory of what she has done may be a more effective deterrent than any sentence that any court could impose - but what a way to learn how not to behave. It's a very sad case really.
|
|
Surely the crucial factor here is that she has *never* been legally able to drive unaccompanied as she has not passed (sat?) a driving test. She chose to drive despite this and a death resulted. She has not proved her ability to handle what is in effect a dangerous piece of equipment so manslaughter would not be unjustified.
|
Steve,
So using that logic anyone who drives without a licence is guilty
(in law)of what? Endangering the lives of other road users? Conspiracy to commit GBH?
I am all for jailing disqualified drivers and even, in some cases, those without insurance. However her offence on this charge was careless driving - in that she crossed onto the other side of the road. That would not normally attract a custodial sentence; but she, quite rightly, will be jailed.
C
|
Problem is, there is no really sensible answer to dealing with highly irresponsible types like her.
Sure, send them to prison simply to keep them out of the way, but this means us paying around £3,000 per week to keep what many regard as a simple waste of space.
|
|
What about the police officer who recently had a case of dangerous driving against him dropped, because he was on a career break in Spain as a golf professional. Can anyone throw any light on why that happened? Is it normal to escape from prosecution in cases like this, just because a person is abroad?
|
|
One of us has got that one wrong, Machika. I understood that someone else was charged, and he was an essential witness which is why the case was dropped.
|
.>> One of us has got that one wrong, Machika. I understoodthat someone else was charged, and he was an essential witness which is why the case was dropped.
In that case, why could he not attend as a witness? The court authorities and police must have known where he was and he surely knew he was an essential witness. A case of dangerous driving is surely important enough to get a person over from Spain
|
>> The court authorities and police must have known where hewas and he surely knew he was an essential witness. A case of dangerous driving is surely important enough to get a person over from Spain
Evidently not Machika - it seems playing golf in Spain takes precedence!
|
In that case, why could he not attend as a witness? The court authorities and police must have known where he was and he surely knew he was an essential witness. A case of dangerous driving is surely important enough to get a person over from Spain
It seems that they forgot to tell him about the trial.
|
If it protects us from the likes of her then the cost of detention is fully justified IMO. After all we spend ££££ billions on defence for the same reason don't we?
If someone can be locked up for refusing (or being unable) to pay their council tax or buy a TV licence (posing no risk to anyone) then people like her should surely be incarcerated. Agree in large part with David Hm but perhaps such a policy would focus the minds of these irresponsible people. The present shambles of a system actually encourages them to carry on regardless.
|
Yes, Cardew, it's a tricky one really. On the charge put to her you are right that her ability to drive does not really come in to it as they are proving what she did was careless.
I guess my point was that there should be a different charge in these cases.
IMO, driving without a licence is different to driving while disqualified, as the latter sort of suggests you are able to drive. (I know in practice it does not, but again this is more down to the terms of the law rather IYSWIM) If you have not proved yourself able to safely control a car then you should be dealt with more harshly than otherwise.
Of course, thinking about it again, I guess it's little different from, for example, driving while drunk - you know you can't safely control the car. Still, in this case that appears to be irrelevant to the charge brought.
|
Well this is another huge can of worms opening.
Why the hell (sorry if forceful language here but as a mother I feel strongly about this) does the full force of the law not come to ANYBODY who is driving illegally, in whatever capacity?
Driving without licence, whilst banned, etc etc - it's all breaking the law and yet it seems that these scum do not pay any heftier price than anyone else.
We have had *so* many cases of this type recently, from the illegal immegrants who drive unqualified, to the type of people like this woman in the subject here. Why does *anybody* show them any tolerance in a court of law, unless there are absolutely and utterly mitigating circumstances?
What the hell is going on here?
|
Why does *anybody* show them any tolerance in a court of law, unless there are absolutely and utterly mitigating circumstances? What the hell is going on here?
>>
well, apparently plenty of replies justifying the tolerance here:
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=22720&...f
KILLER DRIVER FINED JUST £83.34 Jun 3 2004
|
We have had *so* many cases of this type recently, from the illegal immegrants who drive unqualified, to the type of people like this woman in the subject here. Why does *anybody* show them any tolerance in a court of law, unless there are absolutely and utterly mitigating circumstances? What the hell is going on here?
HF,
What tolerance is being shown to her?
She is(rightly) going to jail for careless driving - an offence that would not normally attract a custodial sentence.
She has been responsible for the death of her child and when she is released she will probably drive again while banned. With this type of person I suspect a death sentence for motoring offences would not deter them.
C
C
|
With this type of person I suspect a death sentence for motoring offences would not deter them.
Are you sure, or do you believe in reincarnation? ;)
|
Why should any consideration be given to the effect on a child just because the accused is female?
If a man is jailed it has at least as much an effect on the family as not only is one parent absent but in most cases that person is the principle source of income, leading maybe to the loss of the family home and re-housing in Council accomodation, maybe miles away from friends and family, change of school etc.: just as disrupting/traumatic.
|
Cardew, Dalgliesh,
I know, I know, I cannot help being me, and I cannot help from making an angry or upset response about this subject.
You're all right, I suppose. I just find it utterly sick that sentences differ so much from case to case.
I also agree with Brian. There should be, in a 'normal' family, no extra leniencies given towards females purely because they are female.
A horrible case, and one of far too many we have seen of late. I just cannot help feeling that the punishment often really does not fit the crime these days.
HF
Just realised that might sound political, it isn't.
|
Sentencing:-
Hull: Motoring groups today criticised a "lenient" sentence given to a woman who caused the death of her five-year-old daughter.
Donna Marie Butler avoided jail by being given a three-month suspended sentence and was disqualified from driving for two years when she appeared at Hull Magistrates' Court yesterday.
And you go to jail for speeding. Something seriously wrong somewhere.
|
|
If the argument ever was that jail was inappropriate for this woman as it would deprive a child of its mother then this is a classic case of how such a policy often backfires. Despite the fact that she's repeatedly and cynically flouted the law and tragically killed an innocent child she's still free to do it again if she so decides! Just great!
|
|
