Benggo Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 Just think,sat in a cell,no bills to worry about.No meals to get ready,all food provided. Scum are treated better than a state pensioner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WallBuilder Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 Maybe three years to be served in full, never to be allowed to hold a license and possibly never allowed a passport, may start getting the message home Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iansheff Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 But won't it be 18 months with time off for good behaviour? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
morrisminor Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 heres another troubling sentence, perhaps Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doom Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 I don't think 3 years is unreasonable. She's been incredibly stupid, but there was no intent on her part to cause harm. How many people on here can hand on heart say they've never been distracted whilst driving, whether that be eating, phoning, rubber necking, staring at an attractive woman in a short dress etc?....There but for the grace of God. I wouldn't say this woman is any real threat to society, just as I'd say the guy responsible for the Selby railway disaster isn't any real threat, because there was no malicious intent on their part. To my mind someone regularly stealing cars and trying to escape the police by driving on the wrong side of the road is far more of a threat, regardless of whether they do actually cause an accident and kill somebody.....But they usually end up with only 6 months. Sometimes you can just be the victim of a very unfortunate freak set of events mixed with a degree of carelessness/stupidity (ie. Selby guy), but I'd judge the length of sentence more by the level of malicious intent rather than the outcome of the event. Regards Doom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Staffy23 Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 I don't think 3 years is unreasonable. She's been incredibly stupid, but there was no intent on her part to cause harm. How many people on here can hand on heart say they've never been distracted whilst driving, whether that be eating, phoning, rubber necking, staring at an attractive woman in a short dress etc?....There but for the grace of God. I wouldn't say this woman is any real threat to society, just as I'd say the guy responsible for the Selby railway disaster isn't any real threat, because there was no malicious intent on their part. To my mind someone regularly stealing cars and trying to escape the police by driving on the wrong side of the road is far more of a threat, regardless of whether they do actually cause an accident and kill somebody.....But they usually end up with only 6 months. Sometimes you can just be the victim of a very unfortunate freak set of events mixed with a degree of carelessness/stupidity (ie. Selby guy), but I'd judge the length of sentence more by the level of malicious intent rather than the outcome of the event. Regards Doom Her actions cost an innocent member of the public their life. Whos to say she wont do it again? How would you feel if the next person she robbed of a future was a loved one of yours? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doom Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 Her actions cost an innocent member of the public their life. Whos to say she wont do it again? How would you feel if the next person she robbed of a future was a loved one of yours? I'd be upset, but I'd still consider 3 years to be fair. I've seen loads of people texting and phoning whilst driving and it drives me up the wall, but should they all be locked up for 3+ years or do we just wait until someone dies/gets hurt due to their actions before locking them up? It should be the former, because what the outcome is comes down to pure chance, but if it is the former we'll need to build a lot more prisons, because I reckon you'll be locking up about 50% of drivers. Regards Doom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 It should be the former, because what the outcome is comes down to pure chance, but if it is the former we'll need to build a lot more prisons, because I reckon you'll be locking up about 50% of drivers. Regards Doom Not really, because once you jail a few people, a lot of the others would stop texting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Staffy23 Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 I'd be upset, but I'd still consider 3 years to be fair. Your son? Your daughter? Your mum or your dad was killed because someone considered their social life to be more important than your families actual life? And youd be ok with a sentence of 3 years (less in real terms) ? Sorry but i highly doubt that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eater Sundae Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 If someone texts while driving, loses control and crashes, but luckily there was nobody in the way, so nobody was hurt. What should the sentence be? If someone texts while driving, loses control and crashes, killing an innocent person who unfortunately happened to be in the way. What should the sentence be? Should the sentences be the same or different? If different, is it right that the sentence should be set purely on whether or not somebody happened to be killed, purely on the luck of the draw? How would that be justice? Such justice would be equivalent to basing the length of sentence on the toss of a coin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.