Killer Drivers Treated Leniently - Official

[Gattopardo]

Now, bear in mind that in 2004 Parliament had increased the maximum penalty for death by dangerous driving from ten to 14 years.
It would be hard to think of a more disturbing case than that of Keith Mees.
Yet he was sentenced to . . . six years.

Banned for how long?

[spindrift]

Ten year ban:

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/14943376.Facebook_reading_lorry_driver_who_killed_two_men_in_crash_jailed_for_six_years/

[caerau]

No one's ever received the present maximum sentence so I wonder if it will make any difference.

An excellent point.  Lets hope it's accompanied by other measures to make sure sentences are appropriate (whatever that means - longer certainly).

[Gattopardo]

But the prison are full of real criminals

[caerau]

First time I've heard Westminster Palace, Capitol Hill, Whitehall, and the  Stock Exchanges  described as prisons.

[fuzzy]

Not read the whole thread but I think I am getting the gist of it. My take is as follows-

Enforcement is the first action. Until there are more "droids/ black rats/ complete cunts in hi vis who should be out there catching REAL CRIMINALS^TM instead of picking on the poor innocent motorist" out there jumping on EVERYTHING then drivers will continue to take risks, be it speeding, mobile phoning, driving unroadworthy vehicles etc.

Effective sanction is the next. Increase the risk of an offender loosing their licence. Start banning people for 'lesser' offences. Start being more robust with drivers flouting a ban.

Ultimate sanction is an important tool. Kill someone due to a moments inattention? Jail and/ or 10 year ban. Kill someone due to driving dangerously? Lifetime ban and jail.

In addition, rationalise the legislation. Driving whilst under the influence of drink or drugs dangerous? I bloody think so. Get involved in a collision due to drink or drug use then the punishment should at the very least reflect that available if the offence was a dangerous driving offence.

All the above is just smoke and mirrors unless the first point is actioned however. Without the ladies and gentlemen of the roads policing departments of this United Kingdom being out there to keep motorised morons in check we may as well give away licences in lucky bags.

[Jakob W]

Given the numbers of phone-using drivers out there, never mind the uninsured/unlicensed etc, you'd have thought roada policing could be made revenue-neutral at least; and even the DM/Sun seem to agree that this isn't actually War on the Hard-Working Motorist™. Get the ball rolling with this, and move on up to speeders and general awful driving...

[Gattopardo]

I know this is my chant, but being on the road is a privilege. 

Also it is inappropriate speed, not speeding per se.

[mattc]

No one's ever received the present maximum sentence so I wonder if it will make any difference.

An excellent point.  Lets hope it's accompanied by other measures to make sure sentences are appropriate (whatever that means - longer certainly).

Yes.

There might be more to this sentencing business than known to this mere road-user. I wonder if historically judges tend to sentence harder when maximums are increased?  If not, then it's probably a waste of time.

(It may be that maximum sentences are almost never handed out for ANY criminal offence - perhaps judges can always find some mitigating factor, it's just human nature. )

[SteveC]

Ten year ban:

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/14943376.Facebook_reading_lorry_driver_who_killed_two_men_in_crash_jailed_for_six_years/

He pleaded guilty and there's a standard halving of the sentence for that.
So he'd have got at least twelve years if he'd contested the charges from a maximum of fourteen

[spindrift]

Ten year ban:

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/14943376.Facebook_reading_lorry_driver_who_killed_two_men_in_crash_jailed_for_six_years/

He pleaded guilty and there's a standard halving of the sentence for that.
So he'd have got at least twelve years if he'd contested the charges from a maximum of fourteen

Warby had opened a text message moments before his 13.6-tonne truck crashed into the off-duty police officer’s car — and at a speed substantially in excess of the limit on that stretch of the A141.
Warby had numerous previous convictions — including using a mobile phone while driving.
Unlike Mees, Warby did not plead guilty, so there was a full two-week trial. At its conclusion, the judge told Warby it was clear he had not ‘learned anything from his previous court appearances’ and sentenced him . . . to six years.
In other words, less than half the maximum.

[andyoxon]

What's the 'policy decision' behind halving a sentence simply because the defendant pleads guilty to something, that there may be plenty of evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt anyway?

[fuzzy]

It isn't a new thing. Pleading guilty saves the expense of a trial so the defendant is credited for it. If a not guilty plea is entered, the evidence, whether obvious or not, has to be tested as does the technical accuracy of the prosecution case.

[Ham]

Things change, attitudes change, only much slower than we think, even looking back.

Drink driving has taken a long while to get where it is, which isn't a perfect place but it is much better than 40 years ago. That's a long time, but there are still some unreconstructed drink drivers, I suspect there always will be.

Trouble is, there's a sense that things are changing for the worse. Going through lights that are not really all that red, speeding, using phones. A marker of that movement is the push back from the rise and rise of the speed camera which is "just to tax the poor law abiding motorist" because of course, breaking the speed limit isn't really breaking the law. The absence of significant road law traffic enforcement is significant, too.

Maybe we're beginning to go back the other way? The emphasis on mobile phone use? The recent West Midlands police action? It will take a while, it might even take wider use of making meatware unnecessary for driving (but REAL men will carry on driving for a while yet)