So, two questions to those who are defending the sentance.
1 - Do you honestly believe that a 6 month driving ban and a small fine is a sufficient punishment for what she has done and the concequences of her actions?
2 - Do you belive that the punishment is harsh enough to prevent her and others doing this again?
First of all I should point out that I'm not defending her sentence, I'm explaining it - as are most of the people standing in front of the usual OcUK lynch mob. The difference is important.
1) This is actually two questions, not one. Is the sentence correct for the crime committed? The crime was DWDCaA, so yes, it was actually pretty severe. As English law stands, with some exceptions (principally murder and manslaughter) the person is punished for the offence they commit, not what may follow from it. A favourite example of mine: you throw a sweet wrapper on the ground. An old lady slips on it, falls over and fractures her skull and dies. You are guilty of littering and that is all. Do you seriously think a person should be charged with (say) manslaughter under those circumstances? Because that's very close to what many people here are suggesting.
The answer to the second part of that question (does the punishment reflect the result of the crime) simply doesn't matter in this case. If the charge was Dangerous Driving then that would be different as there is a specific charge of Causing Death by Dangerous Driving. But all the woman was convicted of was Due Care and Attention. This is the law. And the day you take your eyes off the road for a second to change radio channels (and you will - for that or something similar - because no-one drives with 100% attention) and hit something you will thank the law for being far more sensible than the many of the people here. The law recognises the difference between lapse and intent, and rightly considers it important. This woman had a momentary lapse. But unlike all those times where the various posters here have done the same, in her case it killed someone.
2) No, and no punishment will, because people don't think before doing such things. This case will be completely forgotten by all except relatives in a month, and would be even if she got twenty years.
And now a history lesson. Once upon a time (the 1940s and 50s) the standard charge for killing someone while behind the wheel was manslaughter. But a special crime of Causing Death by Dangerous Driving (along with by Drink Driving, and later Drugged Driving) had to be brought in. Anyone care to guess why?
Because juries almost never convicted for manslaughter. We don't know why because it's illegal to talk to a jury about their verdict, but it seems to be because most such cases are due to (as above) momentary lapses, not serious persistent stupidity. All but the smuggest jurors probably felt "There but for the Grace of God..." and acquitted.
M
(I thought personal insults weren't allowed here)
