Only 10 years?

chaparral · 13 Nov 2016 at 14:08

Sliver said:
10 years for killing 4=30 months per life. Ridiculous.

It not that easy

Should every driver that was at fault for a car accident where someone has died get 10 years in prison for it....
thousands of Car accidents happen everyday and it just pure luck or not if anyone does get killed or serious hurt or not

I bet almost everyone on here has done something they shouldn't do while driving at some time..
(speeding/Eating/drinking/pulled out with seeing a car,bike,cyclist, gone through a light and failed to notice if it was on red or green,Staring at a girl in a bikini that walking down the pavement etc etc etc etc)

FishFluff · 13 Nov 2016 at 19:46

If he'd done this to a cyclist he'd probably have just got 3 points.

Sliver · 13 Nov 2016 at 19:57

chaparral said:
It not that easy

Should every driver that was at fault for a car accident where someone has died get 10 years in prison for it....
thousands of Car accidents happen everyday and it just pure luck or not if anyone does get killed or serious hurt or not

I bet almost everyone on here has done something they shouldn't do while driving at some time..
(speeding/Eating/drinking/pulled out with seeing a car,bike,cyclist, gone through a light and failed to notice if it was on red or green,Staring at a girl in a bikini that walking down the pavement etc etc etc etc)

Punishment should fit the crime. 10 years for carelessly killing four people is not a fit punishment and if you think it is then your judgement is severely clouded.

Glaucus · 13 Nov 2016 at 20:00

kmetek said:
he deservs similar time, because the result is the same = dead people.

ridiculous, lets jail all car drivers who use their phone for 20 years, after all thats the actual law he broke and the outcome could have happened to anyone doing that.
public opinion on law is uttery retard, goes against the science and is less than helpful. all it does is create a legal system that we have now, when not only are more people in prion than should be, but we have extremly high re offending rates.

and do you take into account ome cars are much safer for the occupents than others, take an identical acceiendent, one accident they died because they where driving a smart car or similar, the other got minor injuries only as it was like a Model S or similar safe car. how does that factor into your oh so simple balck and white nonses of the outcome outweighs the cause.

AdamScott85 · 13 Nov 2016 at 20:07

Hotwired said:
No murderous intent = no murder charge.

Death by dangerous driving has a maximum sentence of 14 yrs.

Ah yes the american system with comedy sentences of hundreds of years among many other failings

Massive jail terms do not discourage crime and leave the taxpayer with a gigantic bill to provide food and housing for people who are now a guaranteed burden to the state. Not to mention that anyone getting out after a long sentence with no proper rehabilitation is likely to be unemployable which leads back to jail again.

I'm quite sure "throw away the key" attitudes think no further than the idea that that person will be out of sight out of mind and no problem ever again.

I would rather have the american system than the UK's pathetic system, anyday of the week. The more scumbags locked up the better.

Doogles · 13 Nov 2016 at 20:11

It's difficult in these situations because he didn't mean to kill them and it was an accident but on the other hand after all look at what he has done. I won't comment anymore on this but I'd just like to say RIP to the poor family. One thing I will say is a ban for life from any motor vehicle.

AdamScott85 said:
I would rather have the american system than the UK's pathetic system, anyday of the week. The more scumbags locked up the better.

Hi my name is Black African "gets shot". I like our system but I feel like sentencing needs to be harsher in some areas, our policing is far better than America that is for sure, health care too even though the NHS is poor at least you won't be left in a corridor to bleed to death as you have no money.

nicktay2605 · 13 Nov 2016 at 20:17

I don't see how this is really any different to manslaughter. He's not gone out on the road intending to kill anyone. Yes, he's been incredibly reckless using his phone on several occasions whilst driving, but he's not deliberately driven his car at people intending to kill them. There has to be a distinction between intentionally killing a person (murder and voluntary manslaughter) and accidentally killing someone (involuntary manslaughter).

Using your mobile phone while driving is very stupid, but it still doesn't equate to, for example, stabbing someone to death.

One More Solo · 13 Nov 2016 at 20:27

nicktay2605 said:
I don't see how this is really any different to manslaughter. He's not gone out on the road intending to kill anyone. Yes, he's been incredibly reckless using his phone on several occasions whilst driving, but he's not deliberately driven his car at people intending to kill them. There has to be a distinction between intentionally killing a person (murder and voluntary manslaughter) and accidentally killing someone (involuntary manslaughter).

Using your mobile phone while driving is very stupid, but it still doesn't equate to, for example, stabbing someone to death.

Indeed but the difference is he was sentenced to death by dangerous driving rather than manslaughter which carries a lesser sentence. It should have been manslaughter. As always if you want to kill someone in this country do it in a car.

Not as bad as the van driver who kept his license after six different offences and had to kill a cyclist to end up in prison finally.

Hotwired · 13 Nov 2016 at 21:20

AdamScott85 said:
I would rather have the american system than the UK's pathetic system, anyday of the week. The more scumbags locked up the better.

Which is why you should click that link and see how that's working out for the americans.

Their overzealous jail terms do not stop crime because it doesn't fix the reasons behind it.

So what they get is massive prison populations, a huge bill and STILL have the endless offending happening.

Whos the big winner?

nitram100 · 13 Nov 2016 at 21:34

Every time I go to pick up my phone to read a text or even change track on Spotify while driving, a voice in my head says "Don't be a ****ing ****".

This guy deserves more than 10 years.

Orionaut · 13 Nov 2016 at 22:02

Hotwired said:
Which is why you should click that link and see how that's working out for the americans.

Their overzealous jail terms do not stop crime because it doesn't fix the reasons behind it.

So what they get is massive prison populations, a huge bill and STILL have the endless offending happening.

Whos the big winner?

Actually, if you look at violent crime stats in the USA over the last 30 years or so.

One possible interpretation is that mass incarceration has actually worked remarkably well at reducing violent crime. (Whether or not it is the best way is a different matter of course)

Who's the big winner?

Again, surprising as it might seem.

The African American community has been the biggest beneficiary by a country mile. (Despite all the protests over racism and discrimination)

But this is all somewhat off topic so should really be discussed elsewhere.

AdamScott85 · 13 Nov 2016 at 22:02

10 years each death. Any less is a joke. The American have it spot on, keep building prisons and keep putting the scum in them, they get out and commit crime big deal, put the scum back in for longer. The UK are pussies.

Meridian · 13 Nov 2016 at 22:07

Orionaut said:
Actually, if you look at violent crime stats in the USA over the last 30 years or so.

Violent crime is falling in all Western countries. It is unrelated to any single factor anyone has been able to work out, and is certainly not related to incarceration rates. It's probably a whole raft of factors.

weringo · 13 Nov 2016 at 22:18

Good to see at least a few people have spotted the ridiculous results orientated nature of our legal system. The crime here was using a phone while driving, something millions of people have been guilty of, yet the guy is being locked up for 10 years for being the unlucky one who hit someone.

Other than a sense of vengeance for the victims' families, please tell me what purpose this sentence serves.

Jokester · 13 Nov 2016 at 22:19

Warning to others not to rely on luck at killing people perhaps?

weringo · 13 Nov 2016 at 22:20

So he's a scapegoat to deter the millions who drive whilst using their phone every day?

Jokester · 13 Nov 2016 at 22:20

weringo said:
So he's a scapegoat to deter the millions who drive whilst using their phone every day?

He killed a family.

weringo · 13 Nov 2016 at 22:23

Jokester said:
He killed a family.

Yes, as could anyone else who was distracted whilst driving yet they don't get locked up and at worst receive 3 points and a fine.

As far as I am aware he showed no intent to produce the result which happened, so he's being locked up for 10 years for sheer bad luck.

Jokester · 13 Nov 2016 at 22:23

Oh and the crime he was found guilty of wasn't of using a mobile phone whilst driving.

It was causing death by dangerous driving.

Jokester · 13 Nov 2016 at 22:25

weringo said:
Yes, as could anyone else who was distracted whilst driving yet they don't get locked up and at worst receive 3 points and a fine.

As far as I am aware he showed no intent in produce the result which happened, so he's being locked up for 10 years for sheer bad luck.

If a court can prove you were distracted and it caused deaths, you don't just get 3 points and a fine.

There's accidents and there is behaviours that any reasonable person will consider dangerous, such that it is grounds for a death by dangerous driving conviction.