indiechick Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 Or, maybe, if a loved one of YOURS was killed by a 'texter' would you be:- "Oh that's a blow! .... Still I hope the driver gets rehabilitated" .... and everything is tickety-boo .... as you start arranging the funeral? I don't think so. And that is why judges make sentencing decisions and not relatives, of course everyone would see things differently if it was their loved one involved Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Momma Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 Then we should bring in long driving bans for texting while driving, and not wait until she or anyone else kills someone. Now that's common sense. Over the limit but just breathalysed (no crash, nobody killed) = long ban. Drink-driving + kill someone = long sentence. ------------------------------------------------------ Texting/using mobile whilst driving = 3 pts. Texting/using mobile whilst driving AND kill someone = 3 years (+ driving ban). Insane. Should be the same punishment IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benggo Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 I would almost guarantee most people calling for bigger sentences have done this, the majority of times they have got away with it. Not ever,Never,break the law and reap the consequenses Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Momma Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 And that is why judges make sentencing decisions and not relatives, of course everyone would see things differently if it was their loved one involved Here's poser then:- You have a loved one killed by one of these douches. Whilst they're awaiting trial you go for them and kill them .... you'd get a long sentence for murder. Right or wrong and whatever sympathy you'd receive - that would be it. End of. However if you simply wait on their road til you see them crossing and run them over (and I mean PROPERLY ... doughnut-ing & wheel-spinning on their skull, etc.) BUT you're on the phone (say, tot he police reporting your 'accident') you'd only get 3 years? Result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike.sufc Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 Yes. She's off the roads and the roads are safer whilst she's away. That driver was 18, in my link the driver was 29 ... both 'adults'. And warnings & simple logic don't appear to work so get tough with these kind of people. Maybe remove their fingers & thumbs so they can NEVER do it again? And that would "stop anyone else ever being so stupid!" too. (Some STILL drive while banned so THAT method obviously doesn't work). You didn't quite answer my question here - we are both in agreement that this girl should not be behind the wheel of a car! I wouldn't be adverse to giving her a lifetime ban. My issue is the prison sentence. She won't learn anything in by sentencing her. Why should she be put in prison? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Momma Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 You didn't quite answer my question here - we are both in agreement that this girl should not be behind the wheel of a car! I wouldn't be adverse to giving her a lifetime ban. My issue is the prison sentence. She won't learn anything in by sentencing her. Why should she be put in prison? Are you for real? Or just WUM-ing? Cos the Law & simple 'common sense' obviously mean nothing to her ... Someone (innocent) is dead and it's her fault. A ban isn't enough. She's taken a life = she should have a chunk of hers taken from her. Prison should give her time to (finally) realise the gravity of what she's done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 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 A sane, rational post. The foolish lady in question made a terrible mistake which sadly resulted in the loss of someone's life, but that wasn't her intention when she set out on her journey. Three years in prison (or even 18 months) will be a total nightmare as far as she's concerned, Playstation or no Playstation, I think the sentence is about right. Jailing her for life as some have suggested lacks any reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike.sufc Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 Are you for real? Or just WUM-ing? Cos the Law & simple 'common sense' obviously mean nothing to her ... Someone (innocent) is dead and it's her fault. A ban isn't enough. She's taken a life = she should have a chunk of hers taken from her. Prison should give her time to (finally) realise the gravity of what she's done. No, no I'm not trying to wind up - I agree people cannot get away with things like this - as you say, she needs to understand the gravity of what she has done. What I don't understand is prison sentences for cases like this but am quite open for it to be explained to me. The reason you have gone for is "She's taken a life = she should have a chunk of hers taken from her." which I understand is a popular view but I guess I just don't like it or agree with it - I just see it as vindictive. The old "2 wrongs don't make a right" is what I would think to that. Prison reportedly costs £41,000/year for 1 person. For 3 years, that is£123,000 that could be used to educate and stop people doing this again. A lifetime ban for her and some serious community service would 100% assure she won't be doing it again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benggo Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 My issue is the prison sentence. She won't learn anything in by sentencing her. Why should she be put in prison? Firstly it will take her off the streets,secondly she can sit and reflect the harm she has done,thirdly,it gives the family of the victim a sense that justice has been done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike.sufc Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 Firstly it will take her off the streets,secondly she can sit and reflect the harm she has done,thirdly,it gives the family of the victim a sense that justice has been done. From what I have seen, providing she is banned from driving she isn't a menace to the streets, so this is just a horrifyingly expensive naughty step. I understand I am in a minority but seeking justice like this just isn't what I would be after - however I do hope by the end of her sentence that she has learned to not be so foolish in the future and will be able to come to terms with what she's done enough to carry on with the rest of her life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.