Suspended sentence for careless driver who killed two cyclists

Er... thanks?

I was replying to your post which you've now deleted.

Oh, OK - to be honest, I can't remember exactly what I wrote. It was a lame attempt at a joke that made sense to me as I was writing it, but not so much a few minutes later when I read it back - hence why I zapped it. I wasn't actually asking for a definition. 

I don't disagree with any of what you have written but I was responding to somebody implying losing your licence is no real disruption to someone's life. It most certainly is a punishment. It may not have been an appropriate punishment, in this case the sentencing seems mild. However the fact remains for many losing their licence ruins their lives.

Since we no longer do an eye for an eye justice there will never be a sense of justice having fully prevailed for many people. Justice has always been subjective at times it has been so severe it was probably more punishment than the crime warranted. Currently many people would say that the punishments are largely less punitive than the crimes warrant. Again the impact of a crime on a family varies some cope better than others. The impact of the punishment likewise has different effects on families and individuals. If I killed somebody however I did it I am sure my remorse would weigh heavier than any punishment. 

I didn't imply it was no real disruption. I implied that it wasn't the most disruptive thing that could happen to somebody - that it's so disruptive as to make life untenable, or be some sort of cruel and unusual punishment, which is the impression that's so often given by 'hardship' pleas, and seems to be accepted by a large proportion of the public.

Of course a ban restricts your license to carry out certain activities using a motor vehicle. But it's a restriction that people can adapt to, and shouldn't be seen as a punishment - rather it's a consequence of your not being responsible enough to be in charge of a vehicle, just the same as if you'd never managed to pass your test in the first place.

JLasTSR wrote:

I don't disagree with any of what you have written but I was responding to somebody implying losing your licence is no real disruption to someone's life. It most certainly is a punishment. It may not have been an appropriate punishment, in this case the sentencing seems mild. However the fact remains for many losing their licence ruins their lives.

Since we no longer do an eye for an eye justice there will never be a sense of justice having fully prevailed for many people. Justice has always been subjective at times it has been so severe it was probably more punishment than the crime warranted. Currently many people would say that the punishments are largely less punitive than the crimes warrant. Again the impact of a crime on a family varies some cope better than others. The impact of the punishment likewise has different effects on families and individuals. If I killed somebody however I did it I am sure my remorse would weigh heavier than any punishment.

"Punishment" / "ruins lives" - you express a very common viewpoint. And it's one that needs to change if we're to mitigate the many negatives of our current driving culture. Consider - Bob wants to get a speedboat and use it on a particular stretch of water.  He doesn't have to get a boat - indeed it involves an investment of his time and money. He does this because he derives some benefits from this activity.

On this particular stretch of water he needs a licence to operate his boat. (There is no general requirement in all UK waters but there are in specific places). The requirements are that you have taken a course showing you can properly and safely operate the boat. Reasonable, right?

Bob's then seen speeding through the marina splashing people and collides with a kayaker. Bob's licence is withdrawn, because he has shown he cannot competently and safely operate his craft. Seems pretty simple and logical - he was granted the ability to do something under certain conditions, and he didn't keep to them.

Is this a cruel punishment? Maybe he used the boat to get across the river to visit his mum? Now he'll need to drive, or get a taxi - maybe it will take him over an hour? Maybe it will put a dent in his social life now he can't take people out at the weekend? Maybe he's starting to look less attractive to his girlfriend? Maybe he had started operating a boat-trip business? Won't you think of his children?

Frankly I have no interest in "but it will cause me hardship". There are alternatives. Maybe not so attractive - so what? If you managed to get a car you have some resources - you'll just have to spend them differently. It's not a war on the motorist - there is ample evidence that we are under-enforcing and penalising dangerous and indeed illegal driving. It's really quite hard to lose your licence. I fail to see why anyone's selfishness / human fallibility in a motor vehicle trumps everyone else's rights to safe passage in a public space. Or why we need to subsidise drivers damaging the infrastructure and clogging up the NHS.

JLasTSR wrote:

If I killed somebody however I did it I am sure my remorse would weigh heavier than any punishment. 

For who? So that's the way you're made, that's judged a good thing in most places. However though our system takes remorse into account in sentencing it doesn't generally have the approach of "you said you're sorry, so let that be the end of the matter". With reason. As evidenced from your "punishment / ruin life" comments, we're not rational beings, we're human beings and we tend to see this as "no punishment" and get angry...

There are several aspects to sentancing

1) rehabilitation - now it may be that someone with sufficient remorse will amend their future behaviour and achieve this desired outcome.

2) punishment - again it's possible that someones own consience will punish them more than 12 months in prison.

3) deterance - there is an element in sentancing that is there to act as a deterant against unacceptable behaviours. I would like to see the data but I suspect suspended sentances are far more common for motoring offences than for any other crimes, despite the fact the the consequences of dangerous driving on those affected can be so much greater than most other crimes that are likely to affect them. As such there is very little deterant, people don't consider road crime as real crime and the justice system reinforces this all the time. Is it any surprise then that people are relaxed about breaking these laws?

4) protection - in the wort cases criminal that will not stop are at least prevented from reoffending while they are inside.

Should sentancing be about vengeance? making the victim or relatives of the victim feel someone has been adequately punished?

wycombewheeler wrote:

There are several aspects to sentancing

1) rehabilitation - now it may be that someone with sufficient remorse will amend their future behaviour and achieve this desired outcome.

2) punishment - again it's possible that someones own consience will punish them more than 12 months in prison.

3) deterance - there is an element in sentancing that is there to act as a deterant against unacceptable behaviours. I would like to see the data but I suspect suspended sentances are far more common for motoring offences than for any other crimes, despite the fact the the consequences of dangerous driving on those affected can be so much greater than most other crimes that are likely to affect them. As such there is very little deterant, people don't consider road crime as real crime and the justice system reinforces this all the time. Is it any surprise then that people are relaxed about breaking these laws?

4) protection - in the wort cases criminal that will not stop are at least prevented from reoffending while they are inside.

Should sentancing be about vengeance? making the victim or relatives of the victim feel someone has been adequately punished?

My point was that - remorse or not - if someone has shown themselves not capable of safely performing a voluntary activity in a public space * which they require a licence for then there should be no qualms about de-licencing them. "Hardship" being irrelevant, it's just like e.g. restricting people discharging firearms - the potential seriousness of the consequences to everyone else outweigh the benefit to that one person / their friends / family. The potential danger being why we licence in the first place - and incidentally one reason why we don't require bicycle or jogging licences.

The amount of time they're barred and what if anything they need to do to get re-licenced is then something that things like remorse could possibly have a bearing on.  It should never be zero however. I think this would work better as a "top-up" e.g. if the person continues to say "I'll kill them once I get back in my car" that should suggest we lengthen the ban, rather than "I got my lawyer to (likely write and) read out some statement saying sorry therefore I get the ban reduced by half".

On to your points. Certainly 4 can be required but we almost never impose "for ever" punishments in the UK. So I'm therefore all for 1 on pragmatic grounds, given this person will be at large / able to do what they did before. Our problem is that our systems don't seem to have that as the primary goal or at least aren't doing this effectively. 3 is part of what "keeps honest people honest" but for certain types of offense or certain individuals it may have much less effect. It also depends on there being a reasonable chance of being convicted - and the punishment actually being a sufficient deterrent!

2 now - this is really where we get into cultural terrain and human psychology. "Desert" and justice / fairness - that's really one for the tea room.

* I don't think losing your licence even stops you driving - can you not do this on private land anyway (e.g. same as you don't require a licence to do so in the first place)?

chrisonatrike wrote:

My point was that - remorse or not - if someone has shown themselves not capable of safely performing a voluntary activity in a public space * which they require a licence for then there should be no qualms about de-licencing them. "Hardship" being irrelevant, it's just like e.g. restricting people discharging firearms - the potential seriousness of the consequences to everyone else outweigh the benefit to that one person / their friends / family. The potential danger being why we licence in the first place - and incidentally one reason why we don't require bicycle or jogging licences.

The amount of time they're barred and what if anything they need to do to get re-licenced is then something that things like remorse could possibly have a bearing on.  It should never be zero however. I think this would work better as a "top-up" e.g. if the person continues to say "I'll kill them once I get back in my car" that should suggest we lengthen the ban, rather than "I got my lawyer to (likely write and) read out some statement saying sorry therefore I get the ban reduced by half".

On to your points. Certainly 4 can be required but we almost never impose "for ever" punishments in the UK. So I'm therefore all for 1 on pragmatic grounds, given this person will be at large / able to do what they did before. Our problem is that our systems don't seem to have that as the primary goal or at least aren't doing this effectively. 3 is part of what "keeps honest people honest" but for certain types of offense or certain individuals it may have much less effect. It also depends on there being a reasonable chance of being convicted - and the punishment actually being a sufficient deterrent!

2 now - this is really where we get into cultural terrain and human psychology. "Desert" and justice / fairness - that's really one for the tea room.

* I don't think losing your licence even stops you driving - can you not do this on private land anyway (e.g. same as you don't require a licence to do so in the first place)?

Indeed, might as well let people appeal against failing their drving test, arguing hardship.

True of any conviction and sentence.

The bloke should be under some sort of house arrest or tagging - say 6-6.

“You do not have to say anything. But, it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.”

Any self respecting lawyer would advise you to keep schtum. There's nothing you can say to the police immediately that you can't say a few hours later with a solicitor there to advise you.

So did "not mentioning when questioned" harm his defence, or was there nothing in the police line of questioning that he later relied upon?

Sriracha wrote:

So did "not mentioning when questioned" harm his defence, or was there nothing in the police line of questioning that he later relied upon?

considering he pleaded guilty, not really an issue, it is for the lawyer to introduce mitigation to convince the magistrates that killing someone by driving recklessly does not warrant a prison sentance.

That clause in the caution is essentially to prevent introducing an alibi at trial, after making no mneiton of it during questioning. So as to prevent the charged finding someone prepared to say they were elsewhere.

FrankH wrote:

“You do not have to say anything. But, it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.”

Any self respecting lawyer would advise you to keep schtum. There's nothing you can say to the police immediately that you can't say a few hours later with a solicitor there to advise you.

It wasn't upon arrest, it was throughout.  He's refused to answer any questions whatsoever, and only issued a professionally-prepared statement.  Coward.

Absolutely, driving (like other things) has become a series of assumptions and predictions.  I've been in a couple accidents in my car and both times it was "I thought you were turning" and "I thought that lane went straight on" - irrespective of indicators and road markings being clear indicators to the contrary; people now just drive and don't focus on what is actually around them.
I live near a road where its a 50, reducing to a 30, and its astounding how many people drive the whole stretch at 40.  There's 8 signs in the space of 1.4km that tell you the speed, and they miss all of them - because they're not looking, they're not taking in information, they're predetermined how they're going to drive that road (and since there's a Tesco at one end of it, likely thinking more about their shopping list)...