Are the courts too soft?

[El Cid]

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.

 

 

Someone died, was killed, because this man lied, to his optician. Any sane person knows that the one thing needed to be a safe driver, is good eyesight.

If this man, due to his age, did not understand that, then perhaps the public need protecting from him.

[Santo]

Someone died, was killed, because this man lied, to his optician. Any sane person knows that the one thing needed to be a safe driver, is good eyesight.

If this man, due to his age, did not understand that, then perhaps the public need protecting from him.

 

Post the story.

[El Cid]

Post the story.

 

Some of the facts are in the first post.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-37098778

[Santo]

Some of the facts are in the first post.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-37098778

 

You asked if there are guidelines for sentencing. Yes, there are.

 

Thread can be closed.

[El Cid]

You asked if there are guidelines for sentencing. Yes, there are. Thread can be closed.

 

Good job you are not a moderator then

[999tigger]

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?

 

Do you realise that judges have to follow guidelines? Where one side is unhappy the rules have been applied then the sentence can be appealed.

 

The guidelines are provided by government, who are formed after being elected by the public. Dont blame the judges, but look at the people making the rules or those electing them.

 

For some offences of causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving or causing death by driving whilst unlicensed, disqualified or uninsured where the offender is not considered to pose a danger of re-offending and the level of fault is low, a community sentence may be deemed a more effective form of punishment and rehabilitation than imprisonment. In some cases where the level of fault is very low the offender may be fined.

If the offender pleads guilty the sentence will be reduced by up to one third depending on how early the plea was made.

 

All sentences will include a minimum period of disqualification from driving followed by:

 

a compulsory extended re-test for causing death by dangerous driving

or careless driving while under the influence of drink or drugs; or

 

a discretionary re-test for causing death by careless driving or while unlicensed, disqualified or uninsured.

Edited August 17, 2016 by 999tigger

[Santo]

Good job you are not a moderator then

 

Enjoy.

 

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/web_causing_death_by_driving_definitive_guideline.pdf

 

Now it can be closed.

[Cyclone]

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.

 

Lying about being able to see, punching someone or fraudulently putting almond powder in a nut free curry, none of these are any kind of accident and someone is to blame.

[El Cid]

Enjoy.

 

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/web_causing_death_by_driving_definitive_guideline.pdf

 

Now it can be closed.

 

That is it then, he should have received 2 years in jail(page 11), the minimum sentence for dangerous driving.

"Disqualification for a minimum of two years is obligatory on conviction."

The BBC news item is very poor though, because it does not specify whether he was convicted of dangerous or careless driving; or a driving license offence.

 

Edit, According to the guidelines he should have got 8 years

 

Level 1 - The most serious offences encompassing driving that involved a deliberate decision to ignore (or a flagrant disregard for) the rules of the road and an apparent disregard for the great danger being caused to others

[Cyclone]

He was probably charged with a lesser offence then, due to a higher likelihood of conviction.

 

Guidelines are exactly that as well. There is no ongoing danger to the public, this man is never likely to drive again now that he's banned, and there is no good to be achieved by putting extremely old people in jail to die.

You seem to be focusing on the role of jail as punishment, but it's primary purpose is rehabilitation and to protect the public from any further harm.