Drive Kill Walk Away

[Gladys]

May not be your idea of justice, but to say it stinks without any obvious foundation... well!

 

We can all get fussed about the length of sentences, but does there always have to be a conspiracy?

[Roger Smelly]

I was joking about that cartoon, i just think the law is an @rse when it comes to the victims.

 

Victims are that so why treat the guilty party as one ?

 

i will step down from my high horse now as i think i have said enough

[LoneWolf]

I am sorry for posting the pic i was only trying to wind up ANS

 

i hope there will be an appeal for this.

 

Well thats the safest way for folks to go. By the letter of the law.

[Manxman27]

How come any thread about Alex Duffy was deleted or pulled, when this thread has not? I mean any little hint of his name or the case and the thread was totaly censored on this forum!!

 

I have deleted the rest of what I was going to post, as I remember driving when I was young, and I also think that sometimes accidents happen.

 

It's not for me to judge without all the facts.

[Gladys]

There, but for the grace of God, go we, Rog!

 

The driver now has a criminal record, is that right? So he has not been treated as a victim, but perhaps there were sufficient mitigating circumstances to indicate that a penalty less than imprisonment was right in this case?

 

In a way, I was heartened by the sentence which demonstrated that the Manx courts do look at all the evidence and all mitigating factors rather than the lynch mob attitude of a custodial sentence being the only appropriate sentence where there has been a death. This is not an instance of strict liability (you did something so you are liable, regardless of the degree of negligence) so a degree of judgement in sentencing after the guilty verdict is right, in my book.

 

That is not in any way meant to devalue the accident, or the anguish caused by it. But justice, being what it is, shouldn't work just one way.

[LoneWolf]

That is not in any way meant to devalue the accident, or the anguish caused by it. But justice, being what it is, shouldn't work just one way.

 

And that simple statement Gladys is exactly why being a deemster is such a hard job. I dont think they do such a bad job on the whole and as I said earlier we dont always get to know the reasons for what might seem a light or sever sentence.

Deemsters have a big responsibility

[The Old Git]

It’s a terribly sad case

 

I wonder if the poor girl’s mother is haunted by the thought that if she’d complied with the law and worn a seatbelt then her daughter might have survived the accident. There have been enough adverts warning people in the back to belt up.

 

Having said that, the bloke obviously shouldn’t have tried to overtake when he did. I guess most of us have made the odd mistake while driving; some have little or no consequence, but others can devastate several people’s lives.

[nipper]

I read the Manx Independent front page and I am haunted by the words of Mr Beattie. Once again the victim is made to feel guilty.

 

[hmc]

There, but for the grace of God, go we, Rog!

 

The driver now has a criminal record, is that right? So he has not been treated as a victim, but perhaps there were sufficient mitigating circumstances to indicate that a penalty less than imprisonment was right in this case?

 

In a way, I was heartened by the sentence which demonstrated that the Manx courts do look at all the evidence and all mitigating factors rather than the lynch mob attitude of a custodial sentence being the only appropriate sentence where there has been a death. This is not an instance of strict liability (you did something so you are liable, regardless of the degree of negligence) so a degree of judgement in sentencing after the guilty verdict is right, in my book.

 

That is not in any way meant to devalue the accident, or the anguish caused by it. But justice, being what it is, shouldn't work just one way.

 

Gladys, thank goodness for some common sense. Of course everyones thoughts go out to the family of the young girl that was killed. However, what has happened was quite obviously a true accident. The young man involved will have to live with the consequences of his momentary lapse for the rest of his life. The fact that he was a decent lad of good character has to count for something. What would prison do for he likes of him? Prison is designed as punishment, and clearly the Deemester too the view that, taking eveything into account, an immediate prison sentence wouldn't have been appropriate. He quite obviously will be punished every day for the rest of his life..........

[Watch With Mother]

There, but for the grace of God, go we, Rog!

 

The driver now has a criminal record, is that right? So he has not been treated as a victim, but perhaps there were sufficient mitigating circumstances to indicate that a penalty less than imprisonment was right in this case?

 

In a way, I was heartened by the sentence which demonstrated that the Manx courts do look at all the evidence and all mitigating factors rather than the lynch mob attitude of a custodial sentence being the only appropriate sentence where there has been a death. This is not an instance of strict liability (you did something so you are liable, regardless of the degree of negligence) so a degree of judgement in sentencing after the guilty verdict is right, in my book.

 

That is not in any way meant to devalue the accident, or the anguish caused by it. But justice, being what it is, shouldn't work just one way.

 

Gladys, thank goodness for some common sense. Of course everyones thoughts go out to the family of the young girl that was killed. However, what has happened was quite obviously a true accident. The young man involved will have to live with the consequences of his momentary lapse for the rest of his life. The fact that he was a decent lad of good character has to count for something. What would prison do for he likes of him? Prison is designed as punishment, and clearly the Deemester too the view that, taking eveything into account, an immediate prison sentence wouldn't have been appropriate. He quite obviously will be punished every day for the rest of his life..........

 

You are off course right. Prison is designed for punishment. Just because the poor girl was killed by a "nice boy" doesn't make her any less dead. I'm afraid I don't believe that his punishment of having this with him for the rest of his life is enough. Do you really believe that when he is lying on the beach somewhere in the sum with his future wife and his lovely future kids at some point he will really give Laura Mae a second thought? No. He is jut thanking his lucky stars that he got away with it!

[Gladys]

WWM, was the sentence really based on the driver being a "nice boy" and not the circumstances of the case? And will a prison sentence make him think of the girl that was killed any more than he is thinking about her now?

 

It's the old debate; is prison punishment, retribution or rehabilitation? Its been all three and still doesn't work in the majority of cases. That's not to say I wouldn't agree with sending a lot of miscreants to prison, for no other reason then to put them out of the way of the rest of society.

 

But it is not really ALWAYS the right thing (i.e. the thing that will produce a positive change). Certain parts of society may feel that a wrong has been righted (retribution) but does it serve any useful purpose beyond that initial satisfaction?

 

Causing a death by any means is serious stuff, but the manner that justice is then meted out, taking into account all facts, is also serious stuff.

[Watch With Mother]

WWM, was the sentence really based on the driver being a "nice boy" and not the circumstances of the case? And will a prison sentence make him think of the girl that was killed any more than he is thinking about her now?

 

It's the old debate; is prison punishment, retribution or rehabilitation? Its been all three and still doesn't work in the majority of cases. That's not to say I wouldn't agree with sending a lot of miscreants to prison, for no other reason then to put them out of the way of the rest of society.

 

But it is not really ALWAYS the right thing (i.e. the thing that will produce a positive change). Certain parts of society may feel that a wrong has been righted (retribution) but does it serve any useful purpose beyond that initial satisfaction?

 

Causing a death by any means is serious stuff, but the manner that justice is then meted out, taking into account all facts, is also serious stuff.

 

I know what you are asying Gladys, but believe me when I say that retribution is not the order of the day here. With regard to him being a "nice boy", yes this was part of him having his sentence put aside. His early guilty plea and the fact that he was sorry got him where he is now. (Yes I know there were other factors, not speeding etc.) In my personal opinion his direct actions caused the death of someone else. Being sorry doesn't change that. Several people seem to be of the opinion that he made a silly mistake and that was all.

 

The ramifications of HIS actions will go far further than someone of his age and experience can possibly appreciate and he has taken so much. For these facts alone I cannot understand how he is not in prison.

 

I am concerned also that people are holding onto the fact that Mrs Beattie was not wearing her safety belt. If he had not hit the car head on, it wouldn't have mattered if Laura Mae had had a loaded machine gun behind her!

[Gladys]

Thanks for the reply WWM, but what end is to be achieved by sending him to prison?

 

Of course, the ramifications will go on (and we are all very sorry that that is the case), but that doesn't mean he has to have a custodial sentence.

 

Sadly, I think the seat belt factor is quite important. (And this is an area I really do not want to go too far into)

 

We have been told for a long time how devastating a hit from a passenger behind can be, (also why you should have dogs behind a dog guard, apart from the buggers getting out and causing mayhem, of course).

 

I'll say no more, but I think it is not a bad idea to wear your seat belt.

[The Old Git]

Does anyone know how fast Galka was actually travelling at the moment of the collision?

 

I think I read figures along the lines of he was travelling at 64mph just before the accident and at about 45mph when the collision actually occured - presumably due to braking prior to the impact.

 

I'm not 100% sure though if my memory is correct.

[Nitro]

I am concerned also that people are holding onto the fact that Mrs Beattie was not wearing her safety belt. If he had not hit the car head on, it wouldn't have mattered if Laura Mae had had a loaded machine gun behind her!

 

The seat belt is an important issue, As someone already said that if Mrs Beattie was wearing a seat belt it might not have been a fatal accident, So that means it would have still been a dangerous driving or overtaking without due care and attention accident and it would have been more likely a driving ban and a fine.