How should we punish reckless, dangerous behaviour?

[Eater Sundae]

Spindrift recently started a thread comparing the punishment given to the chap who threw a fire extinguisher off a building with punishment (or lack of) given to someone (IIRC) who caused the death of a cyclist. There were some good discussion points raised and opinions aired. However, the thread kept going off topic and was ultimately closed.

 

I would like to start a new thread in more general terms to discuss how we, as a society, view reckless behaviour which puts other people’s health at risk.

 

In many areas of life people can and do act in ways that put other people at risk. Some of these cases make the news and may lead to prosecution and punishment, whereas others do not. There are a wide variety of views, often based on the outcome. In recent months some that spring to mind are the man who died after being pushed over by a policeman, and the recent case of the fire extinguisher thrower. There are also many driving related cases. There seem to be very different outcomes which fail to satisfy many. I think one of the problems with the present system and the apparent variation in punishment is that there is not a clear method of assessing the event.

 

In most areas of business it is normal to undertake risk assessments before undertaking certain activities. It is usual (certainly in the industry in which I work, but methods may vary) to assess the activity in terms of the likelihood of something happening (L) and the severity of the event (S). A common method is to give each category a value, say between 1 and 4 (or even a bigger range), and then multiply the two values to give a result ®. So different activities score differently. For example:

 

Low Likelihood, Low Severity. L=1, S=1. R = 1x1 = 1. An example of this might be if I were to spit in the street. It is possible that someone may slip on this, but it is very unlikely to happen, therefore L = 1. Even if someone does slip, they are unlikely to fall over, but even if they do they would probably only suffer minor or no injuries. Therefore S = 1 also.

 

Low Likelihood, High Severity. L=1, S=4. R = 1x4 = 4. An example of this might be if I set off a very large and heavy home made rocket, in the country. Such a rocket is very unlikely to hit anyone (L=1), but if it did it would probably kill or seriously injure them (S=4)

 

High Likelihood, Low Severity. L=4, S=1. R = 4x1 = 4. Example: If I decide to clear the pavement outside my house on a wintry day by washing it with a hose pipe, but in doing so I leave a clear sheet of ice over it, which is very slippy and impossible to see. The likelihood of someone slipping is high (L = 4), but the risk of serious injury is still low (S=1).

 

High Likelihood, High Severity. L = 4, S =4. R = 4x4 = 16. Example. I take my home made rocket into a busy shopping centre, and decide to set it off horizontally. It is likely to hit someone (L=4) and if it does hit someone it is likely to either kill or seriously injure them, so S=4.

 

I appreciate that my examples are pretty poor, but I was trying to avoid actual events. Any activity can be considered in these terms. And each can vary both in the value of L and the value of S. For example, if I washed the pavement outside an old people’s home, then maybe the severity associated with a fall would increase so S would be higher than 1, as such people are more likely to be hurt if they fall.

 

Also, I am specifically talking about reckless behaviour. By this I mean action by which you give up control of the situation. In my examples above, once you have spit in the street, or have made the pavement icy, you have no control over whether anyone steps on it, slips on it, or actually suffer injury. Once you have set off the rocket, you have no control over where it goes and whether it hits anyone. In each case, what happens afterwards is down to luck, fate or God’s will, depending on your outlook on life. The point is that it is out of your own control. Your actions have resulted in you giving up control of the outcome.

 

In the hypothetical examples I have given, there are a whole range of possible outcomes. The expectation is that if someone spits in the street, nobody will be hurt. However, it is possible that someone slips on this, falls, bangs their head and dies. At the other end of the scale, a rocket set off horizontally in a busy shopping centre may miss everyone and cause no harm.

 

In the real world, the courts have to deal with a whole range of actions, some apparently innocuous that cause death and some which look particularly reckless but cause no injury at all. And a whole range in between.

 

Recently, we have had the case of the newspaper seller who dies after being pushed over by a policeman. If a risk assessment were done on this action, the result would be low. A push is unlikely to cause someone to fall. Even if they do fall, they are unlikely to be hurt. At a much higher level we have the case of the fire extinguisher being thrown from the top of a building. In this case, I believe that the likelihood of hitting someone was fairly high (despite claims that he was aiming for a space) and that the severity was high in that if hit, the person would be likely to be killed or seriously injured. People do not do a formal risk assessment before they take any course of action, but they do an informal one in their own mind. (There is an issue with the way people understand risk, confusing the likelihood and the severity, but that is a separate issue. I’m already writing enough without opening that can of worms, although it is important).

 

In these two real cases I believe that the justice system worked fairly well. The policeman “got off” even though someone died, because the expectation would be that such an action would not normally cause much harm, but the extinguisher thrower was jailed because his actions were likely to cause harm, even though nobody was hurt on that occasion.

 

I realise that this does not satisfy everyone. “The policeman killed someone he should be charged with murder” or “but the fire extinguisher didn’t hit anyone, therefore he’s done no real harm. He shouldn’t be jailed”. Both of these approaches look at the outcome. I think this is the wrong approach.

 

It appears that the justice system has followed a risk based approach. It does not dwell on the actual outcome, but concentrates on the likely outcome of such an action. In my opinion this is good.

 

However, in the case of driving offences we appear to have a different approach. In my opinion, too much emphasis is placed on the outcome, and this is counterproductive. When people drive recklessly (ie dangerously), they drive in a way that gives up control of the situation. For example, overtaking over a blind brow, or pulling out of a junction at speed without looking etc. Once they have committed to the action, there is a (variable) likelihood of an accident and a variable outcome in terms of injury, all of which is outside their control. Reckless drivers (for the most part, but there might be psychopathic exceptions) do not expect to kill or injure anyone. If they truly did think they would kill someone, then their driving would improve. We tend to punish those who kill more severely than we punish those who do not kill, for what is otherwise the same offence. This is not a deterrent. If a driver does not expect to kill someone, then he/she will not be deterred by the level of punishment associated with “causing death by dangerous (or careless) driving”. I realise that some people believe causing death should result in a greater punishment regardless, but I do not. However, I do think that reckless driving which is more risky (ie a high number when calculated as above) should be punished more harshly than at present. I think this is done to some extent, but the courts do not make it clear that this is what they are doing. I think they should be more open, and clearly objective. By objective I mean that they should look at the risk assessment only, and punish accordingly. They should not be swayed by the actual outcome and the subjective distress that this may cause, as that may imply that another serious offence which did not cause death or injury is in some way OK. The (comparatively) recent introductions of “causing death by careless driving” and the inclusion of victim witness statements (I may have got the actual name wrong – its where, for example, relatives of people who have been killed describe how the events have affected them) are, in my opinion, counter productive, and take away from the seriousness of the original crime. If careless driving is risky, it should be punished as such – in effect, the higher the risk calculation, the higher the penalty. By that I mean that the crime was the reckless driving. The fact that someone died was a matter of luck. Whether that person would be particularly missed or not is also a matter of luck. The safety of people should be paramount, and the only way we can do that is to improve the behaviour which puts them at risk in the first place, not argue over the degree of damage actually done. Bad driving covers a range. At the lower end it is what is now called careless driving. As it moves up the scale it becomes careless driving. At the top end it would be assault with a deadly weapon or even murder, but these are not actually reckless, they would involve a conscious intent.

 

Going back to one of Spindrift’s points regarding drivers overtaking cyclists at speed and leaving, say, only a twelve inch gap. If we risk assess this, the likelihood of an accident is fairly small. Most people know the width of their vehicle, and will miss the cyclist. Most cyclists do not wobble and will stay on course. However, things can go wrong, and if they do the cyclist is at risk of death or serious injury, so the severity is quite high. However, if overtaking a car in a similar manner, the likelihood of a collision is the same or even less (cars don’t wobble), but more importantly if there is a collision, its likely to be limited to a couple of broken wing mirrors. Because the severity is lower, the overall risk score would be lower. On this basis, close overtaking of a cyclist is more dangerous than close overtaking of another car, and should be punished accordingly.

 

In summary, I think that we should punish reckless behaviour more harshly than at present, and be less influenced by the outcome. In the case of driving offences, I would like to see an end to the specific offences of “causing death by…”. However, if caught driving recklessly, (regardless of whether or not they cause a collision) motorists should expect bans and possible prison sentences, depending on the degree of recklessness. The degree of recklessness is determined as outlined above. The actual outcome is ignored.

 

I read recently of a clampdown on bad driving (IIRC by Dorset Police) which has resulted in a marked drop in deaths and serious injury. (I haven’t got access to a link at present). This should be the way forward. Its not much good punishing someone after the event (of causing a death) much better to punish and re-educate them (or keep them off the roads if they cannot or will not be re-educated) before they have caused the death. If people have a real fear of losing their licence if they drive recklessly, then they might drive more safely.

 

Sorry for the long post, I was just trying to give some context to my thoughts.

 

What do others think? (Assuming you’ve managed to read this far).

 

I will probably be offline for the next 2 days, but look forward to any comments/questions on my return.

 

Thanks for your interest.

[mart]

Personally i think making a post that long will generate less interest. I only wanted to read as far as the first paragraph.

[melthebell]

Sorry i lost interest after the spitting in the street bit, did make me lol tho at slipping

[mj.scuba]

Probability of spindrift comparing anything to speeding motorists = 1.

[the_rudeboy]

I didn't even bother to start reading it when I saw how long the post was, sorry.

[mart]

I didn't even bother to start reading it when I saw how long the post was, sorry.

 

See what i mean? Condense the post. Imagine the problem if everyone`s post was that long.

[spindrift]

More on the chap who threw the fire extinguisher, same judge, different case.

 

Hussain’s minicab pulled in front of a truck on Bishopsgate and the vehicles crashed into each other. The impact left one of the passengers, Toyoko Rask, a 66-year-old grandmother, with fatal injuries. Her 3-year-old grand-daughter suffered severe facial injuries and her 6-month-old baby brother a fractured skull.

 

HUSSAIN pleaded guilty at an earlier hearing to Careless Driving, Fraud by False Representation, and No Insurance.

 

Imprisoning Hussain for 12 months, Judge Geoffrey Rivlin QC, said the sentence should be a deterrent to

 

“spell out to unlicensed drivers that it will be imprisonment.”

 

Lob a fire extinguisher off a building and hurt nobody=32 months.

 

Unlicensed driver who kills someone = 12 months.

 

Unfortunately Judge Rivlin’s pious assertion that

 

"the courts have a duty to provide the community with such protection from violence as they can"

 

is, when it comes to reckless drivers who kill other road users, complete crap.

[mj.scuba]

More on the chap who threw the fire extinguisher, same judge, different case.

 

Hussain’s minicab pulled in front of a truck on Bishopsgate and the vehicles crashed into each other. The impact left one of the passengers, Toyoko Rask, a 66-year-old grandmother, with fatal injuries. Her 3-year-old grand-daughter suffered severe facial injuries and her 6-month-old baby brother a fractured skull.

 

HUSSAIN pleaded guilty at an earlier hearing to Careless Driving, Fraud by False Representation, and No Insurance.

 

Imprisoning Hussain for 12 months, Judge Geoffrey Rivlin QC, said the sentence should be a deterrent to

 

“spell out to unlicensed drivers that it will be imprisonment.”

 

Lob a fire extinguisher off a building and hurt nobody=32 months.

 

Unlicensed driver who kills someone = 12 months.

 

Unfortunately Judge Rivlin’s pious assertion that

 

"the courts have a duty to provide the community with such protection from violence as they can"

 

is, when it comes to reckless drivers who kill other road users, complete crap.

 

He was convicted of careless driving, not reckless.

The chap on the roof was reckless, not careless.

 

Get it?

[spindrift]

It is not merely "careless" to drive with no insurance and kill someone.

 

That's the whole point.

 

Hussain deliberately and with intent drove around with no insurance and killed somebody- it was no accident, he knew he was uninsured. We, people who pay insurance premiums, will be the ones paying out to the Rask family.

[mj.scuba]

It is not merely "careless" to drive with no insurance and kill someone.

 

That's the whole point.

 

Hussain deliberately and with intent drove around with no insurance and killed somebody- it was no accident, he knew he was uninsured. We, people who pay insurance premiums, will be the ones paying out to the Rask family.

 

He pleaded guilty to Careless Driving, and to having no insurance, which are two seperate offences. Read your own post.