Sentencing of Car Driver Who Caused Motorcycle Death

[timmymeuk1]

My wifes Dad sadly was killed a few months back in what might turn out to be the same result. I dont believe people should get off that easily even if you didnt mean to do it.

 

[Tefal]

I know that junction and how she'd have to have made the turn.
If she can't see a bike at over 100m, she needs a white stick and a Labrador!!
She did *not* look three times.


So you won't mind if I stab your kid through the face and walk away with a slapped wrist and £50 fine for the action of "carrying an offensive weapon in a public place" then, yeh?

surely the offence there is grievous bodily harm?

 

[Tefal]

I stand by training, Sod the community service give her 50 hours driving instruction to complete with a registered/qualified instructor followed by a resit of the test.

paid at her cost to be completed at the end of her ban before she is allowed to drive on her own again (so no driving with a friend in the passenger seat like a normal learner)

 

[Glaucus]

Good god ttaskmaster what an absolutely ridiculous post.
Stabbing someone, well that's kind of attempted murder or GBH. And the post gets worse than that. Why on earth would the action be just carrying an offensive weapon, your action was far more than that, you know actually stabbing someone.

 

[ttaskmaster]

Good god ttaskmaster what an absolutely ridiculous post. Stabbing someone, well that's kind of attempted murder or GBH. And the post gets worse than that. Why on earth would the action be just carrying an offensive weapon, your action was far more than that, you know actually stabbing someone.

No more ridiculous than commuting the punishment for murder down to whatever minor infraction resulted in the death... which was what I was trying to illustrate and the danger in trying to punish only according to action, rather than outcome.

This is why we have trials for attempted crimes, successful crimes and even the same crimes with intent. It's not as simple as that.

For example - Would you punish me for carrying an offensive weapon if I told you I'm carrying one right now?
It's merely a multitool/Swiss Army type knife, but because the one-inch folding blade has a safety lock, it is considered as dangerous and offensive and punishable as if I were to amble through the High Street swinging a 2-foot machete on a string...


It's this same mentality that leads to accidentally bumping into someone, placing a cautious hand out to avoid the incident, suddenly being classed as assault and criminals convicted of burglary, assault and rape can still counter-sue the victim for damages to their reputations caused by being convicted (yes, genuine case, by the way).

If that's really the world you want, go right ahead... Just be warned - I'll take full advantage, though.

Or we can slap the criminals with a punishment that makes other people think twice...

 

[Glaucus]

But it is silly, as murder is the action.
So you have utterly the wrong end of the stick and as such aren't making any sense.


And no your examples make no sense, in the world of prosecuting for action rather than outcome.

The action fir shopping yourself is shopping yourself falling, not sexual abuse. So yes that example is just absurd as all the others.

It has absolutely zero to do with knocking it down to the lowest common denominator, like you assume. It's everything to do with prosecuting for you intent, not the outcome. So attempted murder and murder would be seen as the same thing, as that's your intent. Why do attempted murderes generally get lesser sentences? Makes no sense. Just because an ambulance crew go to the scene fast and saved them.

Why should someone who made a genuine mistake have an equal chance of getting nothing, 3points, or several years in prison, just due to the outcome, when the crime was identical in all three cases. Again it makes no logical sense what so ever.

 

[ttaskmaster]

But it is silly, as murder is the action.
So you have utterly the wrong end of the stick and as such aren't making any sense.

So when I run down your entire family while doing 90mph in a 30, you'll be *perfectly* happy when I only get 3 points and a £60 fine for speeding, yeh?
That is the 'action', after all... Nothing to do with causing death by dangerous driving, or anything.

And no your examples make no sense, in the world of prosecuting for action rather than outcome.

Because we generally prosecute by outcome, or potential outcome, not by the action alone.

The action fir shopping yourself is shopping yourself falling, not sexual abuse. So yes that example is just absurd as all the others.

And yet if you happen to accidentally touch a girl's breast while falling, she can (and many have) take action against you for such assault.
Merely placing one hand on someone, or lightly pushing them away from you can count as an assault charge.

It has absolutely zero to do with knocking it down to the lowest common denominator, like you assume.

You can trump up or play down crimes quite easily. Some people are even paid to do exactly that...

 

[Glaucus]

Of course I wouldn't be happy, but emotionally compromised people shouldn't have any say on law. Why would they only get 3 points AMD 60? 90 in a 30 is a pretty large risk. Sentencing guidelines would change under such a system.
Just more of your massive misunderstanding what I'm talking about.

I know we generally prosecute by outcome, and it's massively wrong.


They can take action, the police are unlikely to prosecute for it and a court is even less like to find guilty, another of your absurd scenarios which has no merit,

Pies they're called lawyers, but again what foes that have anything to do with implementing such a system.


Just wow your misunderstanding is massive.

 

[LEONIS]

Hi,

All involved in this tragedy have my greatest sympathy. I am a driver of many years' experience and always look once, then look a second time for bikes and sometimes even a third time.

Bikers have such a slim profile it is often very easy to miss them on the first look. Human eyes have evolved to only see packets of information as they scan and make up the rest. They miss bits out.

It is what it is - a terrible accident. There was no suspicion of alcohol or drug abuse which would make it a more serious offence both legally and morally.

Leonis

 

[ttaskmaster]

Of course I wouldn't be happy, but emotionally compromised people shouldn't have any say on law.

Why are you unhappy?
Because what I did to you is morally wrong.
That sense of right and wrong is the WHOLE reason why we started making things like murder illegal.

Why would they only get 3 points AMD 60? 90 in a 30 is a pretty large risk.

Risk of what, exactly?
We're prosecuting on action in your world, remember. Actions have no risk, because whatever the consequences might be, it's the action we're prosecuting. Consequences, however high or low the risk of occurrence is, are not the issue here... remember?

Sentencing guidelines would change under such a system.

Sentencing for what?
My action is speeding. Whether or not someone dies as a result is not the issue, you said...

Just more of your massive misunderstanding what I'm talking about.

Then maybe you can explain it better...

I know we generally prosecute by outcome, and it's massively wrong.

Why?

They can take action, the police are unlikely to prosecute for it and a court is even less like to find guilty, another of your absurd scenarios which has no merit,

No merit?
Tell that to the many people who *have* been sucessfully convicted under those meritless charges, then... I'm sure you'll brighten their day!

Pies they're called lawyers, but again what foes that have anything to do with implementing such a system.

If you decide punishment is levied on all actions, equal across any consequences then either every crime will be reduced to the lowest possible interpretation, or the highest. People who make the most minor transgressions will be banged up for mass murder if it can be so traced.

Just wow your misunderstanding is massive.

Why thank-you... assuming you mean 'my misunderstanding' in the same sense as Indiana Jones in the Temple of Doom...

 

[Glaucus]

How would crime be lowered to the least possible demonization.
You are making zero sense. If you have the intent to murder why would you be prosecuted for carrying an offensive weapon? This makes no sense and you know it.


The intent is to murder, so that's what you get prosecuted with.

If you are just carrying an offensive weapon and that's all you are doing, then that's your intent.

As I already said it has absolutely zero with lowering it to the smallest common denominator.
It's simply charging on actions. Not outcome.


Again why should someone get less years for attempted murder, just because an ambulance crew was near by. It is clear that both attempted murder and murder should be treated as identically.

It should also be obvious to everyone. That if you make a mistake and nothing happens, and someone else makes identical mistake in the same place, in the same way, but happens to knock someone over and even kill them, then they shouldn't be punished more.


Everyone else seems to understand, wither they agree or not.

You just keep throwing one stupid scenario out after another, which don't even make any sense.

Please provide all these hundreds of cases for these made up in your head sexual assaults, fir people who have merely had an automatic reason if throwing their arm out, whilst falling. utterly stupid post.

 

[ttaskmaster]

How would crime be lowered to the least possible demonization.

Because that's what lawyers are there for - Anything to get the crime reduced and sentence lessened.
And YES it does happen. Quite frequently.

If you have the intent to murder why would you be prosecuted for carrying an offensive weapon?

Because what you 'intended' is different to what you actually *did*. If it were not, every muderer would go scott-free just from saying, "I never meant to kill him".

The intent is to murder, so that's what you get prosecuted with.

That's the charge, yes... but it will be trialled, argued, commuted, etc, etc...

If you are just carrying an offensive weapon and that's all you are doing, then that's your intent.

Then I'm only intending to speed and your family getting killed when I run them over is nothing to do with it, yeh?
That is YOUR logic, right there.

That if you make a mistake and nothing happens, and someone else makes identical mistake in the same place, in the same way, but happens to knock someone over and even kill them, then they shouldn't be punished more.

If it was a mistake they should have been able to avoid, then yes they should be punished more. The whole point is that they were aware that avoidable mistake had the potential to kill someone.
For this same reason you have Minor, Serious and Dangerous faults on your driving test... or do you think they should all be marked as Serious and punished with a fail?

Everyone else seems to understand, wither they agree or not.

I also FULLY understand what you're saying... I'm just pointing out the flaws in your reasoning and why, when far better minds are already on the job with such things, the world and most justice systems do NOT work how you seemingly want them to, which is also what "everyone else" has already argued.

You just keep throwing one stupid scenario out after another, which don't even make any sense.

The world must be a very confusing place for you then, given that these are all real, genuine, fairly common 'scenarios' that happen quite a lot already...

Please provide all these hundreds of cases for these made up in your head sexual assaults, fir people who have merely had an automatic reason if throwing their arm out, whilst falling. utterly stupid post.

Can you not read the newspapers, then?

 

[TallPaul_S]

The sentencing is all over the place, 5 years in jail for this guy:

A PENSIONER from Leeds who killed a motorcycle rider and father of two in a collision to the east of the city at the end of August 2014 has been sent to prison for five years.

Seventy-four-year-old Americo Barbacane, originally from Italy, crossed a double white line while trying to overtake two vehicles on a blind bend on the B1222 near Sherburn in Elmet on August 21, 2014. Mr Barbacane hit 41-year-old Paul Sprakes travelling in the opposite direction. Mr Sparkes was killed in the collision.

In court, Mr Barbacane claimed the accident was caused by him sneezing at the wrong moment because prior to setting out on the journey, he had been covered in pepper that had fallen out of a cupboard.

Following an 18-month investigation, Barbacane was found guilty of causing death by dangerous driving by a jury at York Crown Court earlier this month. He was jailed the following day and given a five-year driving ban.

Zoe Billings of North Yorkshire Police’s Major Collision Investigation Team, said: ‘A young family who adored their father has been left devastated by a deliberate and very dangerous manoeuvre.

‘Mr Sprakes had no time to take evading action and paid for Barbacane’s decision to overtake with his life. Today’s outcome sends a clear message of the deadly consequences of taking chances on the roads.’

Ignoring the fact that he 'claimed' that he sneezed due to being covered in pepper... (sneezing doesn't make you veer into the opposite side of the road) - the difference between this case and the original one was this guy deliberately made a dangerous maneuver and the other person accidentally made a dangerous maneuver. Dangerous driving vs careless driving. Difference = 5 years in jail.

 

[Tefal]

The sentencing is all over the place, 5 years in jail for this guy:



Ignoring the fact that he 'claimed' that he sneezed due to being covered in pepper... (sneezing doesn't make you veer into the opposite side of the road) - the difference between this case and the original one was this guy deliberately made a dangerous maneuver and the other person accidentally made a dangerous maneuver. Dangerous driving vs careless driving. Difference = 5 years in jail.

I hope he got extra foe the whoops excuse attempt

 

[Yaayuh!]

I hope he got extra foe the *swear* excuse attempt

Might want to edit that before you get a slap on the wrist from mods.

 

[Tefal]

I guess autocensor foesnt get that one lol