Your concluding sentence is rather conclusive, I should have thought.
Intuition tells me that a death should attract a greater punishment, but I'm forced to agree that intuition is wrong.
Glad I don't have to make those decisions.
I can't agree more, sentancing to the outcome is like rolling a dice to decide each case.
I thought the point of issuing points and a fine was to act as a deterrent to the driver to drive in a more responsible manner. Surely a deterrent punishment will not work (in this case where death has resulted) as its intention is to prevent bad driving leading to death?
Hmmm, so it is really down to whether they should be being prosecuted for careless driving or dangerous driving, and exactly what that distinction is (care to explain?). And I guess whether some of the cases are 'dangerous driving', but do not have sufficient evidence.
And from reading the news reports, where does driving while banned fit into all of this? They seemed to be linking it to the death by careless driving. Was that Tabloid treatment or just me getting mixed up.
I suppose the Daily Mail, is playing on the fact that our instinct is to connect the punishment to the outcome and not to the intent. And also to link in previous convicions, other offenses, etc. So a banned person with a history of traffic offences, etc, driving carelessly and causing a death WILL always cause an outrage and the public reaction will be that person should have a very severe punishment.
The idea that the consequences should dictate the punishment is just insane. Killing a motorcylist (for example) because you were changing the radio station is very different from ignoring a red light at a blind intersection.
I just hope the tabloids don't end up giving basically innocent people hefty jail time... especially since there's really no one who can claim to drive 100% attentively all the time.
There is a (perhaps natural?) desire by ordinary people to see offenders punished. But the two (so far) careless drivers I've had to deal with were much the same. No previous record, no endorsements, law-abiding background, careless driving admitted. But as a result of the accidents, both had lost their jobs, one had subsequently been made bankrupt, the other's marriage had broken up as a result of the stress. Both were now on Income Support. Even the fines we were able to impose would seem, to the man in the street, derisory. It's a horrible problem to deal with.
Sorry, Splat Guy but I don't think there is a difference there.
Bending over to change a radio station and taking your eyes and concentration off the road is every bit as bad as running through a red light.
Are they both dangerous driving though? That's a tough one. We all make mistakes, we're human. My friend and I were chatting as we pulled up to a red light. The conversation came to an end, and my friend drove the car on - the problem was that the light was still red. Luckily no-one was hurt, it was a late hour and there were no cars coming from the other direction. It was a sobering experience.
Likewise I know someone else who careened across three lanes because she leant over to change the radio station.
In both times I was a passenger in the car, and I have to say that I think both instances were incredibly reckless of the driver. I was absolutely furious, and no I never did get in a car with them again.
They put my life at risk, through sheer thoughtlessnes
and I don't see why I should have to die because someone is being thoughtless while in charge of a half a ton of metal and explosive fuel driven at speed.
I've never really understood why we need separate acts to cover these, when there is already an offence of Manslaughter. Let the jury decide whether the defendant's actions, (or lack of), were unlawful and then let the Judge decide whether it was a serious enough offence to merit life imprisonment or a momentary blip that should be punished by a fine and penalty points.
Or am I being too simplistic?
The reason the sound principle that you describe has fallen into such disrepute is that careless and dangerous driving are hardly ever prosecuted unless there is a fatality.
Thus, the outcome of the carelessness *is* a deciding factor in the sentence; drive carelessly but don't kill = no sentance (no prosecutrion) & kill = £300 fine.
The solution is ensure that the law is enforced even in cases where there is no death.
Hmm, so a harder stance on careless driving won't save a single life, but a hard stance on speeding drivers (i.e. 48mph on a 40mph dual carriageway) will?
Don't forget - when dealing with "exceeding the posted speed limit" the major stipulation is that you bring your wallet with you.
If you recklessly or thoughtlessly kill, you get masses of sypathy and only get fined £300.
If you drive considerately and appropriately given all the safety factors but a copper takes a picture of you a few mph over the limit, they want AT LEAST sixty quid!
If it waddles and goes quack, and looks like a duck then it probably is. The way the cameras are being ABused looks and feels like a scam where the State is engaged in legalised theft - and it probably is....
It's all about extracting cash. Justice, fairness and equity don't come into it at all.
Maybe it's just me (I've been wrong before btw) but isn't this a strawman? How else could something fundamentally abstract (carelessness) be quantified? How can a degree of carelessness be established by it's comparison with the carelessness of another person? I can't follow this logic.
So, in the hypothetical analogy, my driving has then caused a death "by horrible chance" and not by carelessness? I really am struggling with this, I think I would deserve a very severe punishment. Conversely though, imho, in view of the possibly identical consequences from his own carelessness, the magistrate driver then should also face severe punishment.
It seems very much (to me anyway) that the tail (the offence) is wagging the dog (the consequence) in this decision making process. Why then have an offence at all if the consequences are irrelevant?
"THE PRICE OF MY SON'S LIFE : £300!" - that's exactly what the woman's been told in real terms.
JB
I understand your point of view, but why, if your human error causes a catastrophe, but you were not reckless or wicked, why should you be punished? Who benefits?
Yeah, it is a tough situation.
My sympathies on these cases. as in the case of a man who attacked that woman witha glass bottle, you know where you stand, there is intent and a reason to screw him.
But in this instance..
I am, (write this in your diary folks) gonna say that it is not moral to impose tougher sentances for an action that causes death, than an action that doesnt, when the intent or carelessness is the same in each case.
You know.. people are all sad when someone dies or is hurt.. but will they slow down? not if they can help it! this new law will be good
Your example of 2 cars illustrates how flippently our society takes driving offences. If you are in charge of a machine capable of killing people, you should assume that your victim will be killed and proceed on that basis. To ram any car at 30mph should attract a heavy prison sentence, not a £300 fine. If your victim lives, you would count yourself lucky. It is lax laws like these that permit so many "accidental" deaths. To me, most of them are not accidents. Much greater care and leeway should be required of motorists, and these "accidents" would be seen for what they are: acts of deliberate gross negligence and a disregard for human life. Then your job would become a good deal simpler.
Sadly there are a great number of injustices in our legal system... it goes both ways...
Could you draw paralells to a reckless assault. The degree of injury to the victim (Common, ABH, GBH)can determine the subsequent penalty. As has been mentioned above, why isn't killing somone in your car Manslaughter?
Altercation - because juries refused to convict much of the time, hence the offence of causing death by dangerous driving.
There is indeed a parallel in reckless assault. I would note your example and argue that it cuts both ways as an argument- I agree, logically, if you drive in a careless way that could kill people, your conduct should be treated as having the same mens, even actus, rea, merely with a different consequence.
You might view this in reverse, the irrational component is not the high penalty when the potential consequences actualise, but rather the generosity shown when by the grace of god the consequences remain minor.
The law is not rational, and really can never be perfectly so, so this distinction is one that we live with. I would argue that the compromise genuflects in the direction of the many careless road users, not the families who rightly want a response that they know, beyond all the tortuous reasoning of lawyers, to be just.
IMRO
Commenting by HaloScan
