3 months for hit and run killer ... WTF?

happytechie · 22 Feb 2006 at 18:55

I didn't say mob rule, I said look at the sentencing, by that I meant a group of judges and our elected representatives looking at it...

But mob rule would be much more fun

HT

robmiller · 22 Feb 2006 at 18:58

"let's try to punish the offences that society find repulsive more strogly than the irrelavent ones."?

Sentencing based on public opinion is mob rule in every sense of the word.

FeFiDoh · 22 Feb 2006 at 19:03

sad thing is when he does get out he will probs be beaten and the people/person who did it will get a longer sentence

oweneades · 22 Feb 2006 at 19:04

This is extremely disgusting. Absolutely no justice at all.

As I understood it he should have been at least charged with causing death by dangerous driving (seeing as he killed the young girl) which carries a maximum sentance of 5 years which would then be added to due to all of his other offences.

I think the Judge should be held accountable as well. (not for her death but for not dealing with the case properly)

PhilthyPhil · 22 Feb 2006 at 19:04

Emlyn_Dewar said:
I hope he does get released after 12 weeks and beaten by a good old fashioned lynch mob... No really, I do.

Would you say the same if he was sentenced to 20 years? The sentence is not his fault.

robmiller · 22 Feb 2006 at 19:08

oweneades said:
This is extremely disgusting. Absolutely no justice at all.

As I understood it he should have been at least charged with causing death by dangerous driving (seeing as he killed the young girl) which carries a maximum sentance of 5 years which would then be added to due to all of his other offences.

I think the Judge should be held accountable as well. (not for her death but for not dealing with the case properly)

careless driving != dangerous driving

benjo plz. · 22 Feb 2006 at 19:12

Maybe, but you still can't excuse the fact that he killed a person when he shouldn't have been driving at all.

bam0 · 22 Feb 2006 at 19:17

Someone died, and that is a sad thing.
However the full information behind the case is not being presented here. It says the girl was hit as she crossed the road with her mother, something it does not say, for example, is whether they crossing at a crossing area.
Careless driving implies his driving was below the expected standard, but not that he was driving in such a way that was implicitly dangerous.

The reason people are, IMO, so wound up about this case is that in fact the guy should not have been driving at all. But it's hard to recognise the fact that these factors did not necessarily impact the accident. He may have been off the road, it could as easily have been someone else.

FincH · 22 Feb 2006 at 19:17

I don't know why you're all suprised. With a name like Mohammed Hussain he's bound to get off lightly.

Crap country :mad:

VIRII · 22 Feb 2006 at 19:35

robmiller said:
"let's try to punish the offences that society find repulsive more strogly than the irrelavent ones."?

Sentencing based on public opinion is mob rule in every sense of the word.

Why is it? Our laws consider some crimes to be more serious than others. Why are some crimes more serious than others? Why is paedophilia more serious than shop lifting? Is it a co-incidence that the crimes that upset people the most are the ones that are considered the more serious crimes ..... and hence carry bigger sentences?

Newsroom South East indicated that he was driving a stolen car on false plates with no insurance and that witnesses claimed that he was driving erratically and swerving across the road.
The BBC website doesn't mention much of that.

rG-tom · 22 Feb 2006 at 19:40

i know i'm going to be flamed to hell for this, and i know he shouldnt have been on the road at all, nor should he have driven off afterwards.....but we don't know the full facts, it's entirely possible that they stepped out from behind a van or some such, directly into the path of the oncoming car and there was nothing that he could've possibly done to avoid hitting her? It's something that's entirely possible, and could happen to anyone.....how would you like being thrown in prison because somebody steps out infront of your car? You would be punished for something that is not your fault, as well as having the guilt of killing someone on your mind your whole life.

This is all just hypothetical, but it's something that scares me immensely about driving.

If this was not the case and it was just bad driving, then i agree he should've got a considerably longer sentence.

Tom.

benjo plz. · 22 Feb 2006 at 19:44

Yeh, I suppose its possible, as we don't know the full facts, but that still doesn't excuse him from driving a car illegaly in the first place. I still don't three months is a just punishment.

rG-tom · 22 Feb 2006 at 19:45

*QUOTE IS NOT EDIT*

cymatty · 22 Feb 2006 at 19:49

Rg tom i would agree if it was a legal driver, but he wasnt, so should not have been on the roads.

[TW]Fox · 22 Feb 2006 at 19:53

I think everyone here is ignoring a key fact, probably becuase it doesnt suit your ridiculous OMG LOL THE COUNTRY IS GOING TO THE DOGS views.

He was not charged with 'Causing Death by Dangerous Driving'.

This, to me, suggests the accident and his status as an unlicensed driver driving in a careless fashion were not linked - ie, if he had been Mrs Miggens in her taxed and insured Nissan Micra travelling in accordance with the highway code, the accident would STILL have occurred.

It strikes me that he was involved in a tragic accident perhaps caused by the pedestrian, but happened to be uninsured and without a license at the time.

This will be why he has been jailed for 3 months - he would have been in Jail for a LOT longer had his driving been purely to blame for the accident.

But hey, feel free to ignore any likely to facts if they dont suit your OMG LOLZ ASSYLUM FOR THE LOSE agendas.

cymatty · 22 Feb 2006 at 19:55

Ah but fox where is the punishment for driving without insurance and a licence and in a stolen car?

rG-tom · 22 Feb 2006 at 19:57

cymatty said:
Ah but fox where is the punishment for driving without insurance and a licence and in a stolen car?

driving without insurance or license aren't custodial sentences

Tom.

[TW]Fox · 22 Feb 2006 at 19:57

cymatty said:
Ah but fox where is the punishment for driving without insurance and a licence and in a stolen car?

He has a 5 year driving ban and, presumably, the custodial sentance is for the theft/failiure to stop. It does state careless driving doesn't carry a custodial offence and neither does the first offence of driving without a license.

cymatty · 22 Feb 2006 at 19:59

[TW]Fox said:
He has a 5 year driving ban and, presumably, the custodial sentance is for the theft/failiure to stop. It does state careless driving doesn't carry a custodial offence and neither does the first offence of driving without a license.

Can you not see the sentance for the other offences forget, the girl for a moment is still a joke?

benjo plz. · 22 Feb 2006 at 20:00

[TW]Fox said:
He has a 5 year driving ban and, presumably, the custodial sentance is for the theft/failiure to stop. It does state careless driving doesn't carry a custodial offence and neither does the first offence of driving without a license.

Ah yeh cause a person who isn't allowed to drive, yet drives a stolen car is going to give two ***** about a driving ban

.