32 months for student who chucked the fire extinguisher.

[mj.scuba]

Was that meant to be a new thread?

[Digsy]

This kid is going to start his time in a juvenile detention centre, he'll be moved when his age changes past the centre's acceptable limit, then he'll be thrown in with the big boys so to speak.

It is said they don't like people that grass, this kid grassed himself up, what do you think his chances will be.

[Magilla]

The student damaged a fire extinguisher. The driver killed someone when he drove drunk. The student got the higher sentence.

 

Yep, that strikes me as utterly wrong and completely insane.

 

I doubt many would disagree, however it's not the student's sentence that's wrong in this scenario, it's the drunk drivers. (IMHO)

[donuticus]

He wasn't unlucky, he was very very very lucky.

 

While nearly three years may seem excessive a couple of feet either way and he could've have been facing 20+.

 

A foolish reckless act that only by sheer luck didn't end up causing serious injury or death to either a Police Officer or one of his fellow protesters.

 

Peaceful protest is a democratic right and something everyone should be entitled, if not encouraged to partake in, wanton thuggery and mindless vandalism are not.

[quisquose]

Some examples I've just made up.

 

1. Mr A intends to leave his car in the car park, but after drinking 10 pints his judgement is flawed as he leaves the pub and he gets in his car and drives home.

 

2. Mr B intends to leave his car in the car park, but after drinking 10 pints his judgement is flawed as he leaves the pub and he gets in his car and drives home. He hits and kills a pedestrian.

 

3. Mr C intends to drive home, as he always does, after drinking 10 pints.

 

4. Mr D doesn't drink, but he loves his car, and he thinks speed limits are for girls. Unfortunately, whilst doing 40mph in a 30mph zone, he loses control of his car and kills a pedestrian.

 

5. Mr E throws a heavy object from a building into a crowd. It misses a pedestrian by inches.

 

6. Mr F throws a heavy object from a building into a crowd. It misses a pedestrian, but bounces into the head of another one and kills her.

 

For me, guilt is all about intent. Mr A is just as guilty as Mr B, but the law is currently favourable to Mr A in comparison to Mr B. The law is likely to punish Mr B much more so than Mr C, D, E and F despite the fact that they have shown intent, and a sober disregard for others.

 

If spindrift's arguments hold any credibility, it's that people who stupidly drive with raised alcohol levels, or a phone attached to their ear, should receive fines/punishments more in-line with the risk that their actions pose. But to try and compare these actions with people that show genuine intent is wrong imho.

[willman]

The student damaged a fire extinguisher. The driver killed someone when he drove drunk. The student got the higher sentence.

 

Yep, that strikes me as utterly wrong and completely insane.

 

The student was punished for INTENTIONALLY committing damage, anti social behaviour, breach of the peace.

The drunk driver was punished for an accident.

[Dustin]

I just love the fact that when he gets out, if he still wants to go to university; he'll have to pay increased tuition fees..

 

 

Whatever next though, MP's being locked up for fiddling expenses?

 

It is more expensive now to keep someone in prison than it is to send them to Eton. I contend that it would be more cost effective to let him serve his sentence in Eton. They are all crooks when they leave either establishment anyhow.

[spindrift]

Some examples I've just made up.

 

 

 

For me, guilt is all about intent. Mr A is just as guilty as Mr B, but the law is currently favourable to Mr A in comparison to Mr B. The law is likely to punish Mr B much more so than Mr C, D, E and F despite the fact that they have shown intent, and a sober disregard for others.

 

If spindrift's arguments hold any credibility, it's that people who stupidly drive with raised alcohol levels, or a phone attached to their ear, should receive fines/punishments more in-line with the risk that their actions pose. But to try and compare these actions with people that show genuine intent is wrong imho.

 

The driver fully intended to drive whilst seriously impaired.

 

If he offered in mitigation: "Yebbut, I didn't mean to hurt anyone!" would you really accept that as an excuse?

 

We can only speculate about the student's intentions. Regardless, he missed, yet a driver who doesn't miss a cyclist or pedestrian might expect a non-custodial sentence.

 

I'm angry because the CPS, police and courts are all too ready to accept similar excuses from drivers.

 

"Yes, I was speeding/on a mobile/driving with bad eyesight/******, but, you see, I didn't MEAN to hurt anyone"

[spindrift]

The student was punished for INTENTIONALLY committing damage, anti social behaviour, breach of the peace.

The drunk driver was punished for an accident.

 

The drunk driver did not "accidentally" get in a car and drive it whilst impaired.

 

This may seem like a triviality, but it matters. While "accident" has become a common term for these types of vehicular incidents, it also carries a connotation of being beyond the reasonable control of any person.

 

While certainly crashes are unplanned and even unforeseen by the parties involved, they are often not unforeseeable; many so-called "accidents" stem from drunk driving or speeding, both conscious acts carried out deliberately by the driver.

[INTERVIEWER]

32 months is way too short a sentence. A message needs to be sent to these Far-left thugs that their anti-social, potentially murderous activities will no longer be tolerated.

 

He should have got ten years maximum security. Then we would see what the pampered middle-class freak is truly made of.