sgtkate Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 ******* should be hung anybody agree with me?no insurance no license no respect and most likely no regrets should be made an example of for future similar offenders No. I don't think anyone agrees with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 Yes he should be hung in a public square for all to see, or maybe stoned to death. We could remove his head and put it on a spike to deter others. I wish people wouldn't include 'no insurance' alongside the severity of no licence. More people would drive with insurance if it wasn't a government sanctioned cartel of scummy companies raping the public for all they've got and offering nothing in return. It's often 4 times the price of the car for a young person to be insured, the government allow it to go on and then everyone complains about uninsured drivers. You can do just as much damage with a cheap car as an expensive one... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevvy Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 ******* should be hung anybody agree with me?no insurance no license no respect and most likely no regrets should be made an example of for future similar offenders I would agree. The sentences here are to lenient. That's why there's no deterrent to stop people doing what he did. He chose to drive without the required documentation and over the speed limit and possibly under the influence of drugs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgtkate Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 I would agree. The sentences here are to lenient. That's why there's no deterrent to stop people doing what he did. He chose to drive without the required documentation and over the speed limit and possibly under the influence of drugs. So you'd have the guy hanged? As that was what I was asking...not that you think sentences were too lenient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonJeremy Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 I would agree. The sentences here are to lenient. That's why there's no deterrent to stop people doing what he did. He chose to drive without the required documentation and over the speed limit and possibly under the influence of drugs. Ever driven after a strong cup of coffee? If yes - you have driven under the influence of drugs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevvy Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 So you'd have the guy hanged? As that was what I was asking...not that you think sentences were too lenient. I would bring back the Death penalty. We need stronger sentences. As I said earlier the sentences are to soft, not a deterrent. ---------- Post added 31-01-2015 at 06:06 ---------- Ever driven after a strong cup of coffee? If yes - you have driven under the influence of drugs. Don't drink coffee. sorry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eater Sundae Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 I would bring back the Death penalty. We need stronger sentences. As I said earlier the sentences are to soft, not a deterrent. ---------- Post added 31-01-2015 at 06:06 ---------- Don't drink coffee. sorry Bad drivers are not expecting to kill someone, so a harsher sentence will still not act as a deterrent. Harsh sentences, after the event, are about punishment and keeping dangerous drivers off the roads (for a while at least). But they are limited because they are "after the event". It's too late by then. The only effective way, IMO, of deterring bad drivers would be by higher levels of policing to find and punish the bad drivers before they cause irrepairable harm. Then either educate them to be better drivers, or if that's not possible then keep them off the roads. This would cost a lot, though, and I can't see it every happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevvy Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 I'm not just referring to this case in particular. I think the whole legal system needs reworking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
denlin Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 The general consensus here seems to be that if someone loses their life ("I life sentence for the parents" as many people have said) then the perpetrator must also lose their life (in terms of prison). This just doesn't make any sense rationally, and is just the emotionally charged knee jerk response that you see on these threads. The amount of remorse that the guy showed has to somewhat weigh in on the sentence. The reason we have prisons in civilised society is to rehabilitate and protect the public while rehabilitation is going on. If the perpetrator shows genuine remorse, reflection and acceptance of the gravity of what they have done, and the judge takes this as an indication as to whether the crime is likely to be repeated then the sentence should be reduced accordingly from whatever maximum set levy it starts at. It's also worth adding that while driving without insurance is an offence, it didn't add to the likelihood of the accident occurring and should be treated as a separate offence and not included in a list of things the perpetrator did which led up to the accident happening. Why do the PC brigade always favour the criminal over the victim? Lets get this straight, knee jerk reaction? This moron high on drugs, no licence, no insurance makes the decision to get into what in effect is a loaded gun, drives at double the speed limit. Something was bound to happen. As for showing remorse, it took him nearly a week to hand himself in. The thing that added to the 'accident' was that he was off his face. Perhaps you would like to tell her parents that it's a knee jerk reaction. If you get in a vehicle under the circumstances he did the sentence should have been longer. Imagine if it was your daughter. Saying sorry won't bring her back or lessen the life sentence the idiot has given her parents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BarryRiley Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 (edited) You can do just as much damage with a cheap car as an expensive one... In Manchester a few years ago the average price of car insurance for a young person was £5000. Are you telling me that on average, each young person was making £5000 worth of claims in a year? The figures just don't add up unless you accept colossal profit margins. ---------- Post added 31-01-2015 at 07:30 ---------- Why do the PC brigade always favour the criminal over the victim? Lets get this straight, knee jerk reaction? This moron high on drugs, no licence, no insurance makes the decision to get into what in effect is a loaded gun, drives at double the speed limit. Something was bound to happen. As for showing remorse, it took him nearly a week to hand himself in. The thing that added to the 'accident' was that he was off his face. Perhaps you would like to tell her parents that it's a knee jerk reaction. If you get in a vehicle under the circumstances he did the sentence should have been longer. Imagine if it was your daughter. Saying sorry won't bring her back or lessen the life sentence the idiot has given her parents. Something wasn't bound to happen, and your deliberate use of inflammatory language (a car is not in effect a loaded gun?) doesn't make your point any stronger. Not believing in mediaeval type sentencing and punishment does not equal siding with the criminal. Also, what do you mean by high on drugs? Edited January 31, 2015 by BarryRiley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now