Are the courts too soft?

[ECCOnoob]

That is how our courts work.

 

You get caught speeding and its a slap on the wrists, if you are unlucky and someone just happens to be crossing the road, they would throw the book at you if you kill someone.

 

I dont know how much vision this chap had, but he would have failed the eyesight test by a long way. It was a deliberate act, and an accident waiting to happen. Anyone could drink 3/4 pints and be safer than this man.

The court seem to have ignored the driving license fraud as irrelevant.

 

Have they? Where is that reported.

 

You are missing the point again. They have taken ALL of the issues in context. They have considered ALL of the factors from both sides. Its what judges do.

 

He has been convicted. He has been sentenced. He pleaded guilty and immediately surrended his licence. As the statement from brief said. He now has to live the rest of his life knowing that actions have killed someone.

 

When APPLYING the sentence lets think what the judge also may have considered. His age, his previous record, his previous driving record, his potential risk to the public and added on is the video evidence that at the time of the fatality he was NOT driving dangerously.

 

The Judge considered on balance that suspension of the sentence was appropriate. That does not mean that he got off. That does not mean that he doesn't have a criminal record. That does not mean that he has not been punished.

 

I ask again, What do you think physically locking up this man would achieve and add in terms of punishment and his rehabilitation.

[El Cid]

 

When APPLYING the sentence lets think what the judge also may have considered. His age, his previous record, his previous driving record, his potential risk to the public and added on is the video evidence that at the time of the fatality he was NOT driving dangerously.

 

 

What ever the judge thinks, I believe that it is dangerous to drive with impaired vision. Whether that is due to alcohol, drugs, medication or ill health.

[Santo]

What ever the judge thinks, I believe that it is dangerous to drive with impaired vision. Whether that is due to alcohol, drugs, medication or ill health.

 

The judge agrees. So Mr Sutcliffe got 8 months suspended. His carelessness took a life which he accepted by pleading guilty and he has been punished according to the law.

 

You don't like that and have written to the AG. Because Sutcliffe didn't murder anyone your appeal will be ignored.

 

Why this needed 3 pages is beyond me.....

[Cyclone]

I think it is.

 

He probably wasn't charged with that because in of itself that offense will only usually incur a ban and fine. Death by careless driving also results in a mandatory ban and he pleaded guilty to that. There is also a discretionary re-test. His eyesight is so bad he will probably never be fit to drive again so the charge and conviction of driving with an invalid license is effectively meaningless.

 

Because he killed someone he faced the charge of death by careless driving. He wasn't speeding, he wasn't drunk, he didn't run a red light when he knocked the lady over. It was careless because he can't see well enough. He pleaded guilty and got a suspended custodial sentence.

 

It depends. When I read 'I wonder' I interpreted it as containing a level of sarcasm on your part. As if you knew better. You didn't.

 

Your sarcasm meter is defective, I was actually wondering. But what you say makes sense with regards to it being a comparatively minor offence.

 

It's an odd description of careless though. The word means to do something through absent mindedness or forgetfulness. Whereas he killed someone after deliberately committing another crime in order to keep his driving license. There was nothing careless about it.

He didn't meet the description of driving dangerously though, so I guess they have to work with what they've got.

 

---------- Post added 18-08-2016 at 07:37 ----------

 

Not really. Prison must also be used as a deterrent. The MP and his wife that were jailed because she claimed to be driving when he got a speeding fine are an example. They were jailed as a deterrent to stop others doing the same. As it is such an easy offense to commit and the chances of being caught are small (she mentioned it in a column I believe, dozy cow) the punishment has to be severe.

 

It didn't help that they didn't plead guilty early when it came to sentencing however.

 

We know for a fact that there is no deterrent effect from prison sentences.

Crimes are committed in 1 of 2 ways, either with calculation meaning that the criminal doesn't believe they will be caught, or in the heat of the moment with little though meaning that the criminal gives no thought to the consequences.

Hence no deterrent effect.

[999tigger]

How can you know what the court considered without seeing a transcript of the judgment?

[Cyclone]

Who is that directed at?

[999tigger]

Who is that directed at?

 

Heh my fault, wasnt you. Think it was just a comment into the ether with all the people commenting on the sentence, when you really need to know how he reached the decision before saying he applied the rules incorrectly.

[unbeliever]

 

We know for a fact that there is no deterrent effect from prison sentences.

Crimes are committed in 1 of 2 ways, either with calculation meaning that the criminal doesn't believe they will be caught, or in the heat of the moment with little though meaning that the criminal gives no thought to the consequences.

Hence no deterrent effect.

 

When crimes are committed with calculation, most will have in their mind an estimate of the risk of being caught multiplied by the likely harm which will come to them if they are.

Your logic only applies if they estimate the probability of getting caught always as either zero or unity.

 

Deterrence has some value. There's plenty of scope for debate about how valuable it is, but suggesting that it's zero is rather preposterous.

Edited August 18, 2016 by unbeliever

[Mikes10]

BBC Radio-4

 

Wednesday 24th of August 20:00. 'What Point Prison'. may be worth a listen

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07pj2pk

[Santo]

Your sarcasm meter is defective, I was actually wondering. But what you say makes sense with regards to it being a comparatively minor offence.

 

It's an odd description of careless though. The word means to do something through absent mindedness or forgetfulness. Whereas he killed someone after deliberately committing another crime in order to keep his driving license. There was nothing careless about it.

He didn't meet the description of driving dangerously though, so I guess they have to work with what they've got.

 

---------- Post added 18-08-2016 at 07:37 ----------

 

 

We know for a fact that there is no deterrent effect from prison sentences.

Crimes are committed in 1 of 2 ways, either with calculation meaning that the criminal doesn't believe they will be caught, or in the heat of the moment with little though meaning that the criminal gives no thought to the consequences.

Hence no deterrent effect.

 

I think the death penalty is no deterrent and nor is prison for some offenders for the reasons you give but prison is definitely a deterrent for other offences, the MP example being one. If the punishment was 2 or 3 times the original fine many people would still do it. However, fewer people will risk prison for the same offense. I remember when it happened a lawyer on the radio explaining the apparent harsh nature of the punishment for what looks a minor crime. He said it's a deterrent. Can you offer a better reason for the MP going to prison?