What a joke of a sentence for killing a child

[BarryRiley]

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.

[truman]

 

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.

 

Wasn't he driving without a licence as well? He shouldn't have been on the road...in which case the collision wouldn't have happened...just my 2pn'th.

Edited January 29, 2015 by truman

[JFKvsNixon]

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.

 

How has the man shown remorse?

 

I'd suggest that he's remorseful for having to spend the next few years in prison, and being branded a child killer for the rest of his life. When you consider that, according to some on here, his sentence was towards the upper end of the tariff, the judge did take into account his remorse, or rather the lack of it.

[Plain Talker]

Twice the speed limit and you call that an accident? Did he accidentally leave the scene and accidentally dispose of the vehicle as well?

 

Can I correct you slightly?

 

Driving at twice the speed limit, stoned on cocaine and leaving the scene of an accident

I agree, that is not an accident, in my book, either, its vehicular manslaughter at the very least, and its only Jazzy Chan's brave actions, giving her own life for her friend, Tia, that prevented both girls being killed by this utter idiot, that night.

 

No- one with a ha'porth of common sense would think that getting behind the wheel of a vehicle, stoned off their box, and driving at speed, would not have drastic or tragic consequences...

[BarryRiley]

How has the man shown remorse?

 

I'd suggest that he's remorseful for having to spend the next few years in prison, and being branded a child killer for the rest of his life. When you consider that, according to some on here, his sentence was towards the upper end of the tariff, the judge did take into account his remorse, or rather the lack of it.

 

Where are you getting this from? Is this what he said? Were you in court? That seems like an assumption based on nothing.

 

From the article it seemed like he was genuinely remorseful. He handed himself in, asked police to apologise to the parents and was apparently visibly very shaken in court when hearing the details of the accident. Someone who was only worried about their sentence wouldn't really care about any of that - they'd just be shaken during sentencing. I think the evidence available shows that he is remorseful. This doesn't even come close. However, I do believe that it should be taken in to consideration during sentencing. Should someone who says "I don't care" in court be given the same sentence as someone who shows remorse, regret and lamentation?

 

My main argument is that people take the facts, add emotion and spew all sorts of loaded statements. For example, Denlin a page ago stated that he was "off his face" on cocaine, yet in the article it states that he had snorted two lines. Plain Talker also stated that he was "off his face". For someone used to using the drug, this is unlikely to make them 'off their face' - but then again maybe it did - I don't know as I didn't conduct any interviews, preliminary tests, medical examinations etc. Neither did anyone here.

 

I'm not defending a criminal, I'm defending logic and reason.

Edited January 29, 2015 by BarryRiley

[old tup]

I myself was caught speeding on the same spot of the tragic accident about 15yrs ago,I came that way home from work every afternoon at the time!.I was doing 32mph,I saw the motorcycle cops arm sticking out with the radar gun over 300 yds away,I signalled pulled up to him"You surrended a bit quick!" said he,I thought I was doing the limit but no he did me £35 and 3 points!.I was a bit peeved at the time but the poor girls death puts things into perspective,speeding is criminal it makes my blood boil when time after time some low life like the driver in this case is caught,its a depressingly regular occurance why don,t they make an example of them to make their peers think twice about doing the same thing,the sentencing nowadays is a joke!.

[BarryRiley]

I myself was caught speeding on the same spot of the tragic accident about 15yrs ago,I came that way home from work every afternoon at the time!.I was doing 32mph,I saw the motorcycle cops arm sticking out with the radar gun over 300 yds away,I signalled pulled up to him"You surrended a bit quick!" said he,I thought I was doing the limit but no he did me £35 and 3 points!.I was a bit peeved at the time but the poor girls death puts things into perspective,speeding is criminal it makes my blood boil when time after time some low life like the driver in this case is caught,its a depressingly regular occurance why don,t they make an example of them to make their peers think twice about doing the same thing,the sentencing nowadays is a joke!.

 

A civilised society does not punish people with particularly hefty sentences to 'set examples' to others. It punishes people in accordance with the law and in accordance with the gravity of the crimes they committed and the evidence brought to trial.

 

I do agree that a lot of UK sentencing is just purely ridiculous but at the same time I don't want to live in a Western version of Saudi Arabia.

Edited January 29, 2015 by BarryRiley

[Happ Hazzard]

A 30 year sentence for child-killing would not be particularly hefty IMO. It's not like our prisons are particularly harsh. 7 and a half years is an utter joke of a sentence. Especially when you consider he will likely end up serving half that. It's high time that sentencing reflected the times we live in. 25 years is not a life sentence in 2015 when the average life expectancy is over 80.

[charmer]

Can I correct you slightly?

 

Driving at twice the speed limit, stoned on cocaine and leaving the scene of an accident

I agree, that is not an accident, in my book, either, its vehicular manslaughter at the very least, and its only Jazzy Chan's brave actions, giving her own life for her friend, Tia, that prevented both girls being killed by this utter idiot, that night.

 

No- one with a ha'porth of common sense would think that getting behind the wheel of a vehicle, stoned off their box, and driving at speed, would not have drastic or tragic consequences...

 

 

He was probably not "stoned on cocaine", the effects of cocaine last about 30 minutes. All we know is that he took cocaine that day, if it was longer than 30 minutes before the collision, it is unlikely to have had a measurable influence on his behaviour, reaction times or motor skills.

 

Of course it is an accident, unless you believe he intended to kill Jasmyn? If he did not intend to kill her then her death was an accident, regardless of how tragic and appalling the impact of this accident was.

 

We do not have vehicular manslaughter in this country, we call it death by dangerous driving. This is what he was convicted of.

[Tommo68]

The sentence handed out was in the view if most reasonable people a mere fraction of the one deserved.

 

I believe this is because the courts like insurance companies do not place a very high value on the life of a child as there is no (to them) discernable insurable loss. Funeral costs and the possible costs of grief counselling are the only losses that can normally be shown.

 

In short to the state your children have no value which is why the sentences given out for killing one are so pitifully short.

 

The state's real concern is the cost of imposing the sentence, a dead child costs the state almost nothing, a prison sentence costs on average approximately 37-38K pa. So you can see where the courts' interests lie.

.

.