El Cid Posted August 16, 2016 Share Posted August 16, 2016 An 81-year-old driver whose poor eyesight meant he should not be on the road has been given a suspended jail sentence after he hit and killed a woman. Geoffrey Sutcliffe admitted causing the death of Lucille Abraham, 92. When applying to renew his driving licence, a court heard, Sutcliffe said he met the "required eyesight standard" and did not need glasses to drive. He was sentenced to eight months in prison, suspended for two years. I generally think the likelihood of re-offending is more important than punishment. But if you kill someone, as a result of telling lies, that should carry a jail sentence. Is there a sentencing guideline that covers all killings? A mans dog, in Huddersfield killed a man, maximum sentence is 14 years; I am guessing he will get somewhere close to that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Santo Posted August 16, 2016 Share Posted August 16, 2016 An 81-year-old driver whose poor eyesight meant he should not be on the road has been given a suspended jail sentence after he hit and killed a woman. Geoffrey Sutcliffe admitted causing the death of Lucille Abraham, 92. When applying to renew his driving licence, a court heard, Sutcliffe said he met the "required eyesight standard" and did not need glasses to drive. He was sentenced to eight months in prison, suspended for two years. I generally think the likelihood of re-offending is more important than punishment. But if you kill someone, as a result of telling lies, that should carry a jail sentence. Is there a sentencing guideline that covers all killings? A mans dog, in Huddersfield killed a man, maximum sentence is 14 years; I am guessing he will get somewhere close to that? Is there a guideline? Lol. Ermmm, what to you think the judge used when passing sentence? The force? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECCOnoob Posted August 16, 2016 Share Posted August 16, 2016 What's the "required standard" ? What was the lie he told? What was the mitigating circumtances of the case? What was the circumstances of the collision with the victim? What was the speed of the impact? Was was the causal injuries to the victim? What is the Defendant's driving history? What was the contents of his DVLA records? When were his eyes tested by a medical examiner? What was the opinion of an independant medical examiner? What was the opinion from an independant expert of his ability to drive? ....... These are questions that need to be answered before anyone can comment upon whether a judgment is "soft" Hearing all facts and evidence is what puts you in a position to make a determination not selected highlights and media interpretations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Cid Posted August 16, 2016 Author Share Posted August 16, 2016 Is there a guideline? Lol. Ermmm, what to you think the judge used when passing sentence? The force? A guideline for driving offenses, would that be the same guideline for a street brawl resulting in death? ---------- Post added 16-08-2016 at 23:35 ---------- ....... These are questions that need to be answered before anyone can comment upon whether a judgment is "soft" Hearing all facts and evidence is what puts you in a position to make a determination not selected highlights and media interpretations. The sentence of life imprisonment is mandatory on a conviction for murder. One punch killings have been in the news recently, is that be classed as murder? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Santo Posted August 16, 2016 Share Posted August 16, 2016 A guideline for driving offenses, would that be the same guideline for a street brawl resulting in death? ---------- Post added 16-08-2016 at 23:35 ---------- The sentence of life imprisonment is mandatory on a conviction for murder. One punch killings have been in the news recently, is that be classed as murder? What do you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Cid Posted August 16, 2016 Author Share Posted August 16, 2016 What do you think? On 23 May 2015, restaurant owner Mohammed Zaman was convicted of manslaughter. Zaman owned the Indian Garden restaurant in North Yorkshire along with another five restaurants. Zaman was said to have swapped almond powder, used in numerous dishes served by the restaurants, for a cheaper alternative. That alternative however contained peanuts. A man died because he had a reaction to eating the curry that contained peanuts. A minimum 2 year jail term for killing someone, manslaughter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted August 16, 2016 Share Posted August 16, 2016 What do you think? No they can't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Hans Posted August 16, 2016 Share Posted August 16, 2016 I think it's all about intent...it's the balance between, 'I didn't mean to kill someone' and 'I may have done something which may have contributed to this person's death'. If it was a genuine accident then nobody is to blame, it is just that, an accident. Sometimes in life, this is what the police don't understand, that sometimes nobody is to blame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eater Sundae Posted August 16, 2016 Share Posted August 16, 2016 The I think it's all about intent...it's the balance between, 'I didn't mean to kill someone' and 'I may have done something which may have contributed to this person's death'. If it was a genuine accident then nobody is to blame, it is just that, an accident. Sometimes in life, this is what the police don't understand, that sometimes nobody is to blame. I'm sure in this case that he didn't mean to kill anyone, so in that sense it was an accident. However, his decision to lie to his optician and say that he didn't drive even though he did, and his decision to drive when he knew his sight was impaired, These were not accidents,and they brought about an avoidable death. His main punishment should be for his lie and his decision to drive when he knew he shouldn't. I think that the case of the indian restaurant, above, is very comparable. Behaviour and deceipt for the defendants own ends, which resulted in a death. Edit. Reckless behaviour, resulting in someones death. That's manslaughter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Santo Posted August 16, 2016 Share Posted August 16, 2016 On 23 May 2015, restaurant owner Mohammed Zaman was convicted of manslaughter. Zaman owned the Indian Garden restaurant in North Yorkshire along with another five restaurants. Zaman was said to have swapped almond powder, used in numerous dishes served by the restaurants, for a cheaper alternative. That alternative however contained peanuts. A man died because he had a reaction to eating the curry that contained peanuts. A minimum 2 year jail term for killing someone, manslaughter? Your point being? I remember the case. Didn't the guy that died specifically say, 'no peanuts?' You seem to not understand mitigating and aggravating circumstances, what someone is charged with and how they plead. All of which determine sentence. All murder is homicide but not all homicide is murder. 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