Forgive my poor precis and lack of detail, I didn't catch the whole piece. I think the old law was simply "death by dangerous driving" and anything resulting from a careless driving offence was deemed less serious even though it may have involved fatalities.
Now you know why I sought informed legal opinion :)
|
No worries, volvoman.
But why can they not just adjust the penalties for careless driving so that the effect of that carelessness can be taken into consideration? That could be done via a general comment for all offences - what is so special about careless driving?? For that matter, what is so special about death? Why should a similar penalty not apply if the victim ends up in a long term coma?
It's just another tiny example of micromanagement by this bunch. Parliament should be there to set the principles and leave it to the Courts to decide the individual cases. You can't legislate for every possibility. You have to delegate; but this is impossible if you are a control freak.
|
|
|
|
Not a new offence, new penalties. The option of imprisonment will now be available; hitherto only a fine was.
|
Ah. I must learn to research first, rant second.
They're still control freaks, though. ;-)
|
|
|
Not a new offence, new penalties. The option of imprisonment will now be available; hitherto only a fine was.
According to a spokesman on Radio 5 this is a new offence which carries a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment.
It has been introduced because in some cases it was difficult to convict of dangerous driving. In these instances the offender pleaded guilty to careless driving and would not face imprisonment.
|
What is this concept of "difficult to convict"? I keep hearing it as justification for a new offence - especially in respect of motoring.
If thorough, rigorous investigation fails to reveal sufficient evidence to secure a conviction, what does that tell us? Surely, the message is that we cannot be confident that the accused was guilty.
So, if getting a conviction is difficult, the message is that either our investigation is not good enough or that we shouldn't be getting a conviction at all.
|
Its blame culture. Someone does something wrong so someone needs to be punished.
Despite the fact our prisons are full to overflowing, Depite the fact the 14 year old scroat that nicks your car, the 30th he has nicked that year gets a discharge, despite this Mr Average motorist who has a careless moment and someone dies will get 5 years in Jail.
Super.
|
Its blame culture. Someone does something wrong so someone needs to be punished. Despite the fact our prisons are full to overflowing, Depite the fact the 14 year old scroat that nicks your car, the 30th he has nicked that year gets a discharge, despite this Mr Average motorist who has a careless moment and someone dies will get 5 years in Jail. Super.
At the risk of starting a huge arguement are you suggesting that if someone steals your car then they should go to prison but if they knock your son or daughter off their bike and kill them then they shouldn't?
|
He might not be but I am. It would depend on the circumstances. If my son or daughter leapt out into the road, how could it possibly be the driver's fault.
Not forgetting what RF said. Stealing a car is a deliberate act but losing concentration for a few fateful moments is an accident.
|
He might not be but I am. It would depend on the circumstances. If my son or daughter leapt out into the road, how could it possibly be the driver's fault.
In the example you have given the driver would only be guilty if they were unable to stop because they were careless (i.e. travelling too fast, not paying attention, on the phone etc).
|
This is a fascinating argument, and one I have never really been able to resolve in my own mind.
There are two positions at each end of the argument. At one end, it is said that we ought to be punished for the severity of our actions/carelessness, regardless of the outcome. An example of that is drunk driving. You get a ban and a fine not because you have hurt anyone, but because you put other roadusers in potential danger.
At the other end of the scale, it is held that we ought to be punished as a result of the consequences of our actions.
Of course in the real world it is a bit of both (the drunk driver who kills someone will rightly get hammered.)
These proposals have come about because there have always been high profile cases where people have been killed but the driver at fault only gets a fine. The driver is not prosecuted (or convicted) of causing death by dangerous driving or manslaughter, because perhaps he/she has only been guilty of a moment of inattention or an ill judged manouvre. The relatives of the deceased are then interviewed on telly immediately after the hearing (often right outside the court door) and perhaps understandably they make a point of comparing the £500 fine with the loss of a life.
What these new laws are doing is saying that the consequences of carelessness are going to become a more important consideration for the courts. So yes, you can now theoretically go to jail for a moment of inattention.
I am not sure that I agree, but it is not a black and white issue. a lot of it has to do with teh view that the criminal justice system should take the victims of crime into account more than they do at present.
|
|
If they drunkenly kill them, kill them because of stupid speed, because a phone was being used etc etc then yes Jail is the right recourse.
If it happened because someone had a momentarily careless moment? What happened to human fraility and accidents?
|
If they drunkenly kill them, kill them because of stupid speed, because a phone was being used etc etc then yes Jail is the right recourse. If it happened because someone had a momentarily careless moment? What happened to human fraility and accidents?
It depends on how you define a 'momentarily careless moment'. I believe that you should always be concentrating on your driving. I do not find it acceptable that someone should be able to walk free from a court having caused a collision that resulted in the death of another because: "I was changing the tape."
|
|
|
If it happened because someone had a momentarily careless moment? What happened to human fraility and accidents?
It's more than blame culture - it's "I-must-have-my-pound-of-flesh" culture, where 'justice' (as in "My child was killed and the driver only got a fine - I want justice") is spelled Are Ee Vee Ee En Gee Ee.
I find it sad that our politicians are willing to go down this road. (And I'd be curious to know what happens in other countries.) Is this really what prison is for? It's a good thing capital punishment has been removed from the statute book, otherwise I'm sure we'd have people demanding death for drivers who succumb to human frailty and have accidents.
|
|
|
|
|
|
What is this concept of "difficult to convict"? I keep hearing it as justification for a new offence - especially in respect of motoring. If thorough, rigorous investigation fails to reveal sufficient evidence to secure a conviction, what does that tell us? Surely, the message is that we cannot be confident that the accused was guilty. So, if getting a conviction is difficult, the message is that either our investigation is not good enough or that we shouldn't be getting a conviction at all.
My understanding (and I am not a lawyer) is that the current offence of "Causing death by dangerous driving" requires the prosecution to prove that the accused had intended to drive in a dangerous manner. The usual defence is that the defendant did not intend their actions to be dangerous.
For example: "I only took my eyes off the road for a second to change a tape" - an act that can have fatal consequences but would be difficult to prove that the driver intended their actions to be dangerous.
|
My understanding (and I am not a lawyer) is that the current offence of "Causing death by dangerous driving" requires the prosecution to prove that the accused had intended to drive in a dangerous manner. The usual defence is that the defendant did not intend their actions to be dangerous. For example: "I only took my eyes off the road for a second to change a tape" - an act that can have fatal consequences but would be difficult to prove that the driver intended their actions to be dangerous.
I didn't think it was necessary to prove 'intent' to drive dangerously for a conviction. A drunk might feel that it was not dangerous to drive at 90mph in a built up area and have no intent to drive dangerously. My understanding was that it was sufficient grounds for a conviction if the court felt it was dangerous.
On the news report I heard they gave possible examples that could be covered under the new sentencing guidelines - a driver speeding or on a hand held mobile phone causing an accident. e.g. they were committing an offence and drove carelessly.
|
I didn't think it was necessary to prove 'intent' to drive dangerously for a conviction. A drunk might feel that it was not dangerous to drive at 90mph in a built up area and have no intent to drive dangerously. My understanding was that it was sufficient grounds for a conviction if the court felt it was dangerous.
That would already be covered by an existing offence: 'Causing death by careless driving whilst under the influence of drink or drugs'.
|
|
Despite tying up a couple of loopholes I must say that this is a good move. Highly unlikely that anyone will cop a five year year strecth, but the five year bit fills a nice little gap. A five year max. sentence makes it an arrestable offence a very useful little tool.
|
I welcome the new penalties, which are maximums for 'maximum blame' situations.
I would like to see more use of permanent disqualification for repeat careless / dangerous / reckless / drink drivers before they cause death or serious injury.
Cheers, Sofa Spud
|
For those of you wanting to be hard on careless driving, think on (and try to be honest).
Have you ever been distracted while at the wheel? Seen anything out of the window that distracted you? A woman/man/new building site/police car/drunk shouting at his wife/fireworks/a jet flies low over you car...the list goes on. Have you ever been distracted by kids fighting in the back seat of the car/an odd noise from the car/something falling off a seat, etc, etc?
I have to be blunt and say that if you say nothing has EVER distracted you from the road, then you are lying.
Well, if while any of these things were happening, you clipped a cyclist and killed him, you would now face 5 years in prison. Think about that. Think about being taken to court and prosecuted, and the impotent rage of shouting out "it was just a lapse in concentration". Think about being taken to the cells then onto a prison. Think about losing your job and possibly your family. Think of two and a half years spent in the animal factory that is prison. Really, think about it.
If you think that's proportionate to the offence (which was, say, losing your rag with your much loved kids after their hundredth fight) then that's OK.
There's a belief these days that accidents don't happen. They do. And they should be treated as such.
V
|
Brilliant post Vin, you put one side of the argument perfectly. however, as persuasive as your agument is, would you try and run it with a family who had just had a child killed in these circumstances. I doubt it.
There is every public sympathy for the victims, but legislators don't listen to rational argument any more.
|
Brilliant post Vin, you put one side of the argument perfectly. however, as persuasive as your agument is, would you try and run it with a family who had just had a child killed in these circumstances. I doubt it.
Possibly not, but only because common decency says to let people grieve their loved ones without mawkish intrusion or attempts at rationalisation. But the kind of penalty being described for an accident seems to be based on a fundamentalist view of retribution, not justice.
Justice has become synonymous with revenge in this small-minded, tabloid-reading armpit of a country we inhabit. The need for revenge is constantly fuelled by the increasingly rabid press, with each editor stooping that bit lower than the next to maintain their position as defender of the (im)moral masses.
There is every public sympathy for the victims, but legislators don't listen to rational argument any more.
And right there I hear the sound of a hammer meeting a nail in the prescribed fashion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
