Only 10 years?

Jokester said:
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.
Click to expand...

Why is the crime and sentence based on the result it produces and not the intention of the defendant, for any reason other than for vengeance? How does that benefit society?

Anyone could be out tomorrow driving equally as carelessly and dangerously as the lorry driver in this case, yet unless they are unlucky enough to hit someone they would not end up locked up for 10 years, even in the unlikely (nonexistent?) event of being prosecuted for dangerous driving.
 
Because it is a deterrent as well to others.

And it isn't unlucky to kill someone when driving dangerously, it's lucky you don't kill someone!
 
Meridian said:
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.
Click to expand...

I am fully prepared to accept that the USA is different. For various reasons it does not compare well with other developed nations and should not be used for comparison in argument.

I would be surprised if the large rises and falls in violent crime in the USA since 1960 have parallels in other developed countries.
 
Jokester said:
Because it is a deterrent as well to others.
Click to expand...

what a weak argument, a detterent would be to discourage it in the first place, so more than 3 points and a £100 fine.

basing sentences on outcome is crazy as your last couple of posts show in themself.

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.
Click to expand...
so why arent you calling for a 10 year sentence for any one driving whilst using a phone? after all "that any reasonable person will consider dangerous" and it can obviously cause death.

again the scenario of two identical crashes, its just one family of 4 is in a safe car and walks away with minor injuries, whilst someone else hits a family of 4 in a really unsafe car and kills all off them. How is it fair or right the massive difference in sentencing.

It achieves nothing(such accidents normal have a massive impact on the person who causes it and isn't likely to re offend in the first palce, and it doesn't even do what you say. deterrent does not work, never has never will. people still regularly use phones whilst driving, still murder in places with death sentence etc.
 
Last edited:
So he's back to being a scapegoat for the numerous dangerous drivers then?

And there's not a cat in hell's chance anyone's attitude to driving will change as a result of this case. A far more effective deterrent would be if harsher punishments were handed out and more people prosecuted for dangerous driving without producing this result.
 
Jokester said:
Are you seriously going to lock up everyone caught using a phone for 10years?
Click to expand...

nope. but that what logicaly comes from your stance.

a more logical stance would be sentencing for the crime not the outcome, and realise that **** happens sometimes its worse then others. and rather than sentencing this person for 10 years, he would be sentenced like every other person who got caught using a mobile phone, after all that was his crime. Afterall this could have happened to anyone else ho used a mobile phone.

From that maybe we should have more police on the road and that catching more people more often for smaller infringements, would likely stop larger infringements and reduce acciedents.

most peopel do it as the chance of getting caught is slim in the first place.

With such a prison sentence what are you acheiving?
detterent? nope we know that doenst work
keeping the public safe? no, thousands are cuaght every year and get 3 points and a fine.
rehabilitating? again no, the vast majority are hard hit and wouldnt do it again, ontop of the other peopel getting points and a fine.

so far, you have provided zero reason for such sentences. other than the inbuilt vengeance. Which logic should get your over.

the world is getting worse, we should be moving to more fact based governance. But we are heading i the opposite direction. Back to third world and heavy religious countries, who ignore facts and create more suffering through stupid laws and beliefs.
 
Last edited:
weringo said:
Anyone could be out tomorrow driving equally as carelessly and dangerously as the lorry driver in this case, yet unless they are unlucky enough to hit someone they would not end up locked up for 10 years, even in the unlikely (nonexistent?) event of being prosecuted for dangerous driving.
Click to expand...

Indeed, Millions of people, many times each day, commit similarly careless or dangerous acts. (They shouldn't do so of course, but nevertheless they do, and so do YOU, yes YOU! Everybody who drives does so. Anybody who denies it is lying! (Yes I am calling you out if necessary!))

The crude statistical risk of any one of these individual acts resulting in any incident at all is likely to be a Billion to one against. An incident like this with really serious consequences, even more so.

Justice is not served by sending people to prison for long sentences basically for being really extraordinarily unlucky, it really isn't.

(What one should do in these cases, I am not sure, but Prison is not a particular good answer)

Sorry, To add after having reread on post. No intention for a personal attack here. :)

By "YOU" I do not mean "YOU" personally, just everybody who is a party to this thread. Hope this is understood (Though, obviously that apples to "You" too. ;) )
 
Last edited:
Glaucus said:
nope. but that what logicaly comes from your stance.

a more logical stance would be sentencing for the crime not the outcome, and realise that **** happens sometimes its worse then others. and rather than sentencing this person for 10 years, he would be sentenced like every other person who got caught using a mobile phone, after all that was his crime. Afterall this could have happened to anyone else ho used a mobile phone.

From that maybe we should have more police on the road and that catching more people more often for smaller infringements, would likely stop larger infringements and reduce acciedents.

most peopel do it as the chance of getting caught is slim in the first place.
Click to expand...
If society didn't consider the outcome of your action in using a mobile phone behind the wheel, it wouldn't be a crime...
 
Jokester said:
If society didn't consider the outcome of your action in using a mobile phone behind the wheel, it wouldn't be a crime...
Click to expand...

where did i say that?
one should consider the possible outcomes and the risk. Not the actual outcome.

did you even think before posting that?
taking your logic, using a mobile phone whilst driving shouldn't be against the law, unless you then mess up and cause something worse, like killing someone.

again its telling that its such a short reply, again with no sensible reasons to why it should have sentencing that way.
 
weringo said:
Why is the crime and sentence based on the result it produces and not the intention of the defendant, for any reason other than for vengeance? How does that benefit society?
Click to expand...

Custodial sentences are intended in part as a punitive measure, and nobody is claiming otherwise. His intent might not have been to kill anyone, but it was a consequence of his own decision to distract himself from the task at hand and put lives at risk in doing so. There's no "luck" at play here, it's not "unlucky" if you fail to drive according to the law and then destroy lives in the process.
 
Glaucus said:
a more logical stance would be sentencing for the crime not the outcome, and realise that **** happens sometimes its worse then others. and rather than sentencing this person for 10 years, he would be sentenced like every other person who got caught using a mobile phone, after all that was his crime. Afterall this could have happened to anyone else ho used a mobile phone. .
Click to expand...

Glaucus said:
where did i say that?
one should consider the possible outcomes and the risk. Not the actual outcome.

did you even think before posting that?
taking your logic, using a mobile phone whilst driving shouldn't be against the law, unless you then mess up and cause something worse, like killing someone.

again its telling that its such a short reply, again with no sensible reasons to why it should have sentencing that way.
Click to expand...
That's your logic...
 
Glaucus said:
its not, again where did i say lock them up for 10 years?
where did i say possible outcomes shouldn't be considered?
Click to expand...
You didn't about 10years, but you then stated that it was logical to punish people for the crime not the outcome. But if you don't consider the outcome then it wouldn't be a crime in the first place...

The whole point of punishing people for victimless crime like phones or speeding is to try and prevent the more serious crime of causing death by dangerous being a more common occurence.
 
Jokester said:
You didn't about 10years, but you then stated that it was logical to punish people for the crime not the outcome. But if you don't consider the outcome then it wouldn't be a crime in the first place...

The whole point of punishing people for victimless crime like phones or speeding is to try and prevent the more serious crime of causing death by dangerous being a more common occurence.
Click to expand...


yes sentence for the crime not the outcome.
and as i then clarified as you didn't get it. you weigh up the likely outcomes and the frequency. ie the risk. so no that doesnt end up in it not being a crime and it also deosnt end up in sentencing on the actual outcome.

so no, i didn't say that at all. you are just making it up, and ontop of that you arent even debating anything, or engaging in why you feel the current sentencing should carry on.

SexyGreyFox said:
So 6 points and a £200 fine - seems fair for a families life in your fluffy cloud and unicorn world.
Click to expand...
ah good old come back, fluffy clouds and unicorns, another one who isn't actually debating, as you cant find any points to actually debate on.
what is a life worth, 10 years? a million pounds?

why do you think sentence should equate to the value of a life, that makes zero sense. Should all loss of life where someonce can be blamed however small, get an automatic life sentence?

can i call for lawmakers and the public to be locked up for life? as their opinion has made laws, that increase the amount of death and suffering in society?

As i said, we have logic and unless you are emotional compromised you should be able to use that logic to find out the facts of rality and make a better world. but you as shown in many similar threads. Prefer a world where theres more death and suffering as you reject facts and reason and instead crawl to an emotional position.

So no, its far from this lovely fluffy happy world. thats not a place we can ever be, and as such we have to do our best to continually improve and lessen suffering. But yours and the public opinion in general stops this and instead actively campaigns for more crime.
 
Last edited:
Glaucus said:
thats demonstrably wrong, as many 10s of thousands do exactly that and manage not to kill anyone.
Click to expand...

That isn't attributable to luck, it's a result of each individual's own actions within each set of circumstances. It wasn't "unlucky" that he decided to stare at his phone rather than look at the road ahead.

Do feel free to try to demonstrate "luck" in action in this scenario though.
 
Glaucus said:
yes sentence for the crime not the outcome.
and as i then clarified as you didn't get it. you weigh up the likely outcomes and the frequency. ie the risk. so no that doesnt end up in it not being a crime and it also deosnt end up in sentencing on the actual outcome.

so no, i didn't say that at all. you are just making it up, and ontop of that you arent even debating anything, or engaging in why you feel the current sentencing should carry on.
Click to expand...

Glaucus said:
a more logical stance would be sentencing for the crime not the outcome
Click to expand...

I've told you exactly why I think there should be a difference between just using a mobile and killing people. You can't lock everyone up for 10years!

I'm going to repeat this again since you seemingly missed it originally - this driver hasn't been prosecuted for using a phone behind the wheel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom