yet another disgrace - the law!

[MNuTz]

Just been reading in my local newspaper about a hit and run.

Back on may 22nd a 17 year old lad was walking back from the local pub with his friends when he was hit by a car and died from head injuries.

He was sentenced last week after admitting to:

Failing to stop at the scene of an accident.
Failing to report an accident.
Having no MOT.
Having defective brakes.

Sentence was:

140 days custodial sentence for failing to stop.
140 days to run concurrently for failing to report.

Thats it.

280 days for taking someones life!! Appauling.

 

[Badboy2k3]

Shocking to be honest

 

[Glaucus]

with out the full story its hard to tell if thats the tight or wrong sentence. But probably the right one. As he wasn't charged with dangarous driving.

There s such a thing as an accidents although are society doesn't respect this anymore.

He didn't get 280days for killing someone, he got 280days for the over offenses. How do you know the victim wasn't very drunk and fell in front of the car.

Shocking to be honest

No its really not shocking.

 

[MNuTz]

with out the full storey its hard to tell if thats the tight or wrong sentence. But probably the right one. As he wasn't charged with dangrouse driving.

There s such a thing as an accidents although are society doesn't respect this anymore.

He didn't get 280days for killing some he got 280days for the over offences. How do you know the victim was very drunk and fell inb front of the car.



No its really not shocking.

Sorry, i should have added that the victim was with a group of friends walking home and hadnt been drinking as he was underage.

Even if it was an accident, someone still lost their life. i think 280 is still too lean a sentence.

 

[fieldy]

words fail me

 

[Glaucus]

Sorry, i should have added that the victim was with a group of friends walking home and hadn't been drinking as he was underage.

Even if it was an accident, someone still lost their life. I think 280 is still too lean a sentence.

an accident is an accident and should not be punishable. Why does it make a difference if he lost his life or not. The driver did not do anything wrong and could not of avoided the accident over wise he would have been charged with dangerous driving.

But you wont him to be locked up for the rest of his life?

If someone ran in the road and you killed them, it wasn't your fault. Do you think you should be locked up for 20years?

 

[Adz]

Sorry, i should have added that the victim was with a group of friends walking home and hadnt been drinking as he was underage.

Even if it was an accident, someone still lost their life. i think 280 is still too lean a sentence.

Why? It clearly wasn't deliberate and I'm pretty sure the remorse he feels for taking someone's life (albeit accidentally) is a harsh enough punishment.

Put yourself in his shoes for a moment...

 

[Jumpingmedic]

Sorry, i should have added that the victim was with a group of friends walking home and hadnt been drinking as he was underage.

Even if it was an accident, someone still lost their life. i think 280 is still too lean a sentence.

The sentence sounds fairly reasonable for the crime he was charged with. If he wasn't charged with death by dangerous driving then maybe it was a genuine accident. For all you know the guy wandered into the road without looking. It is possible to hit and kill someone without it being your fault you know. Sometimes everything just turns out the wrong way and stuff like this happens.

 

[decmatt]

with out the full storey its hard to tell if thats the tight or wrong sentence. But probably the right one. As he wasn't charged with dangrouse driving.

There s such a thing as an accidents although are society doesn't respect this anymore.

He didn't get 280days for killing some he got 280days for the over offences. How do you know the victim was very drunk and fell inb front of the car.



No its really not shocking.

100% Agree

 

[MNuTz]

I wouldnt want to be locked up but i would accept it if i had taken someones life.

Im sure the remorse he is feeling will last his entire life, but how would you like to know that your sons life is only worth 280 days?

Witnesses also said he was speeding over the 30mph limit but obviously the police couldnt prove it.

 

[Glaucus]

I wouldnt want to be locked up but i would accept it if i had taken someones life.

Im sure the remorse he is feeling will last his entire life, but how would you like to know that your sons life is only worth 280 days?

Why would you accept it just cos you killed someone. If you had no control over it. Lets see you keep that stance if you where ever to go though it. I bet you would be appealing left right and center.

Thats the most stupid idea. Lock someone up because of an accident.

 

[Tony Williams]

I'm one for the death penalty. You take a life, you lose it, maybe not in the case of accident.

 

[D.P.]

I wouldnt want to be locked up but i would accept it if i had taken someones life.

Im sure the remorse he is feeling will last his entire life, but how would you like to know that your sons life is only worth 280 days?

Witnesses also said he was speeding over the 30mph limit but obviously the police couldnt prove it.

What is it with this blame culuture. Who is saying anything about the persons life "being worth 280 days". Is a life worth a certain number of "days" greater than 280? What is it? 285? 20 years? what?
Nothing like that is stated at all.

The court evidently found the driver not guilty of his death (rightly or wrongly).

 

[MNuTz]

Why would you accept it just cos you killed someone. If you had no control over it. Lets see you keep that stance if you where ever to go though it. I bet you would be appealing left right and center.

Thats the most stupid idea. Lock someone up because of an accident.

Yes accident happen, but if took someones life then i would be willing to do whatever time i was sentenced too.

Just because someone isnt prosecuted for something doesnt mean they are not guilty of it, it just means that the police didnt have enough evidence to prosecute!

 

[D.P.]

I'm one for the death penalty. You take a life, you lose it, maybe not in the case of accident.

And this seems to be an accident.

(not that I like he current relaxed legal system at all, but no where is it stated the driver was to blame)

 

[starscream]

It's not an unreasonable sentence as by law we punish intent, not consequence.

For example, imagine I was a builder and working up scaffolding and accidently drop a hammer which lands on someones foot, breaking a toe. I would probably be charged with health and safety violations and be sued for medical expenses.

Now imagine exactly the same situation, but the hammer lands on someones head and kills them. It would be unfair to expect a sentence similar for murder as there is no intent to kill. Therefore in situations like this, you rightly prosecute for the laws that have been broken, and sentence accordingly, but it isn't fair to put a "punative" sentence because the outcome was different when the actual crime comitted was the same.

 

[D.P.]

Yes accident happen, but if took someones life then i would be willing to do whatever time i was sentenced too.

Even if you weren't guilty of commiting any crime?

What if someone was commiting suicide by jumping infront of your moving car?

 

[Glaucus]

Yes accident happen, but if took someones life then i would be willing to do whatever time i was sentenced too.

you have to commit a crime to be sentenced, no crime was committed. Accident does not equal a crime. Thus he was not charged with death by dangerous driving.

You don't seem to get that an accident is not a crime and therefore is not punishable and quite rightly so.

 

[Ex-RoNiN]

Having no MOT.
Having defective brakes.

I would agree with AcidHell if it wasn't for the above 2 items.

No MOT means he shouldn't be driving, and defective brakes, well, with MOT he probably would not have had defective brakes.

Involuntary manslaughter through negligence IMO.

 

[Glaucus]

I would agree with AcidHell if it wasn't for the above 2 items.

No MOT means he shouldn't be driving, and defective brakes, well, with MOT he probably would not have had defective brakes.

Involuntary manslaughter through negligence IMO.

no, he wasn't charged with that. So even if he had an mot and brakes, he would still of died. They where in no way linked to the accident.