We've been through this already and the only counter argument has been "its a punitive system and that's the way it always has been"
Only 10 years?
- Thread starter kmetek
- Start date
We've been through this already and the only counter argument has been "its a punitive system and that's the way it always has been"
I never understand why people feel the need to argue over sentencing, as if the job of a Judge is so simple that it can be fulfilled by anyone.
The sentence was what the Judge, upon hearing all of the details of the case, witness statements, statements from the defendant, and consulting our law, deemed appropriate. That surely has considerably more weight than some silly squabble on an internet forum using information picked up from newspaper articles and Google searches?
The sentence was what the Judge, upon hearing all of the details of the case, witness statements, statements from the defendant, and consulting our law, deemed appropriate. That surely has considerably more weight than some silly squabble on an internet forum using information picked up from newspaper articles and Google searches?
That's a crime of intent though???
Your the one evading! Causing death by dangerous driving is a serious crime, it wouldn't be feasible to treat using a mobile phone with the same level of seriousness.
Maybe I just value a human life more than you.
how have i evaded anything, my posts are littered with points and responded to everything you have said or asked, on the other hand you have responded to virtually none of them and every single person has ignored the several scenarios and what they think or would want.
its a funny way of showing that you value human life using emotional arguments and nothing else. Or did you miss the multitude of times i've said i want to reduce crime and suffering. Is that valuing human life less or more?
but don't think its gone unoticed that yet again you've resorted to an emotional argument with the life value sentence. Whilst ignoring everything.
you wont even admit you were wrong stating the law is based on outcome. Even when it quite clearly isnt.
Last edited:
I wasn't offering it as a counter-argument, but just a statement of fact. What's the argument for the outcome to not be considered in sentencing? If you're going to ignore the outcome the charge becomes less relevant which then creates some rather significant issues.
Incidentally, there was talk earlier of him being a "scapegoat", but really there's not much doubt in my mind that this sentence was, in part, intended to send a message to other "professional" road users who drive distracted, tired etc and could quite easily wipe out a few people as a result of their poor judgement. But again, that's really nothing new either.
You know the mobile phone ban wasn't introduced to share the burden of legal responsibility of road deaths to those who didn't kill anyone so those that did serve less time right?
Nobody is ignoring what your saying, your just not listening.
its hard listening, when you don't actually say anything or respond to points.
yet again not responding to the points in the post you quoted.
and what has that got to do with anything i have said. But yes im aware death by dangerous driving has been around a lot longer than speciic mobile phone laws, But this doesn't change anything at all. its just an odd random question with no meaning.
I'll stop you right there because it was not an accident. He knowingly chose to render himself not just incapable of controlling the vehicle he was "driving" but also incapable of even knowing what was going on. Deliberately choosing to put other people at risk to such a large and extremely obvious extent is not an accident.
I'd call it manslaughter. Gross negligence manslaughter to be precise.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/homicide_murder_and_manslaughter/#manslaughter
It has everything to do with what you've said as you've repeatedly stated that someone who kills should not suffer any more serious repurcussions than someone who uses a phone without consequence so it all comes down to how much you value someone's life what the punishment is, and for me you have to value life pretty lowly if it's going to be feasible to treat everyone the same.
To put it another way, would this driver had received this sentence for causing death by dangerous before mobile phones were banned?
They're not the same, people were being sentenced to lengthy custodials for killing people for dangerous driving long before mobiles were banned.
It's been deemed that using a mobile was of a sufficient risk, and being carried out on such a regular basis that it should be banned to try and prevent fatalities as a means of deterrence.
But it doesn't mean that we should dilute the punishment for causing death by dangerous down to the same level.
actually they are the same when youa ctually think about it rather than just hiding behind the current law, and i know I even said that a few posts ago.
agreed, never said different. But glad you have now changed your stance to suffiecent risk rather than it being based on outcome.
its not diluting it, its changing the law to be based on risk, rather than the outcome, and actually implementing suitable laws, legal systems and education to actually effectively reduce crime and ultimately reduce suffering for all.
or we can carry on while other countries outperform us and people can keep posting emotional based arguments and ignoring things that would actually improve society for all
Last edited:
You keep ignoring that it's two different laws 
What if this guy had been distracted because he was changing a tape? He gets off or a lesser sentence because hardly anyone has a tape deck anymore so the risk is minute compared to using a mobile or drink driving, heck it isn't even illegal to do, so hey victims family, bad luck!
When your convicted for killing someone in a car crash it's absolutely based on the outcome. And that shouldn't be changed.
What if this guy had been distracted because he was changing a tape? He gets off or a lesser sentence because hardly anyone has a tape deck anymore so the risk is minute compared to using a mobile or drink driving, heck it isn't even illegal to do, so hey victims family, bad luck!
When your convicted for killing someone in a car crash it's absolutely based on the outcome. And that shouldn't be changed.
i haven't once ignored its a different law.
i've even posted that it was a different law several posts ago and said that in the post you just replied to, but apparently you aren't ignoring anything, lol
im saying the current law isn't the best way to deal with it and no, it's not a good argument saying. its the current law so there.
it should change, how can you have such a wide sentence for the same actions. how can you go from points and fine upto decades sentence.
ad yes sentencing again should be based on.
a) you should be sentenced for the crime not the outcome
b) based on the risk
c) based on what we know actually works.
or was that soemthing else you totaly ignored from earlier on.`
`
i've even posted that it was a different law several posts ago and said that in the post you just replied to, but apparently you aren't ignoring anything, lol
im saying the current law isn't the best way to deal with it and no, it's not a good argument saying. its the current law so there.
it should change, how can you have such a wide sentence for the same actions. how can you go from points and fine upto decades sentence.
ad yes sentencing again should be based on.
a) you should be sentenced for the crime not the outcome
b) based on the risk
c) based on what we know actually works.
or was that soemthing else you totaly ignored from earlier on.`
`
and oh look another emotional argument, with no substance or reason on why it should be like that.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 8,382
So what sentence would norway have given him?
A) death by dangerous driving (the crime only exists because you killed someone!)
B) it's already happened
C) we've gone past education, deterrence, last stop is punishment!
Or maybe we should just give out a road death awareness course to people in place of some points and a fine.
Apart from the bit right before it about how risk makes no sense when the crime is really the killing of other drivers - the means of your dangerous driving shouldn't really alter the punishment.
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 11,619
- Location
- Crowmarsh
People on their mobile phones whilst driving is one of my pet hates. It boils my blood whenever i see it 
And it is becoming more and more common.
A proper awareness campaign needs to be launched by the government and harsher punishment introduced. It needs to carry the same stigma as drink driving.
And it is becoming more and more common.A proper awareness campaign needs to be launched by the government and harsher punishment introduced. It needs to carry the same stigma as drink driving.
I have tomato and brown. Why?
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,974
- Location
- Blurton
You were bad enough in the capital punishment thread, this is going a step too far.
So your family gets wiped out and you'd be happy with 6 points and a £200 fine?
Oh, Sexy you're being emotional, you're sentencing with emotions - BS.
Not at all.
But once you have admitted to oneself that the primary function of a prison term in this case is to inflict torture as a punishment.
Then there are far less expensive and equally effective methods for administrating it.
Prison is far too expensive (at many different levels) to be used for anything other than public protection (IE The incarceration of people who are likely to re-offend, something that is extremely unlikely in this particular case.)
(I see no moral or ethical distinction between the use of psychological torture and physical torture for purposes of delivering punishment)