Drive Kill Walk Away

[ian rush]

why not have a minimum tariff for deaths caused in road traffic accidents??

 

because accidents do happen

[Gladys]

why not have a minimum tariff for deaths caused in road traffic accidents??

Why?

 

To punish? Then there should be demonstrable recklessness.

 

To reform? Not even the most blinkered criminologist would ever support the reform argument for prison.

 

To act as a deterrant? I doubt that many drivers would have a prison sentence in mind when making a manouvre, much less someone who makes a manouvre recklessly. Hanging didn't deter murderers.

 

The only legitimate reason for imprisonment is to remove someone from society who is detrimental to it. Not someone who is offensive to society but who is detrimental to its structure and fabric. In the main this would be violent offenders who are intent on threatening other members of society's right to live peaceably. There are those that argue that one of the biggest causes of recidivism is imprisonment itself.

 

I am not a bleeding heart liberal, but in many cases imprisonment achieves very little for society other than a 30 second feeling of satisfaction on hearing someone has gone down for some crime or other. It should really be kept for the nasty, nasty offenders and the rest dealt with in a more imaginative and productive way.

[Watch With Mother]

Well. We have another one this week. Leigh Robinson has been sentenced to 2 years for death by dangerous driving. Thoughts now are..........?

[Gladys]

.... unchanged!

[Watch With Mother]

.... unchanged!

 

Gladys. Surely you can't say after reading the reports on this one that a jail term wasn't necessary!

[Gladys]

WWM, at no point did I say that a custodial sentence was not appropriate in this case. What I have been arguing is that baying for a custodial sentence should not be the knee jerk reaction to causing deaths in a traffic accident. I have also argued that I do not think that prison is the right sentence for many imprisonable offences, for the reasons stated in my post of 25 June. (For example, sending an OAP to prison for non-payment of Council Tax is almost medieval, why not just slap on a hefty fine and exercise distraint to recover the fine?)

 

My mind remains unchanged on those two points.

 

Turning to the specifics, both could have been punished by a custodial sentence, but in the first case there were mitigating circumstances which were obviously not present in the latter. So a prison sentence was the only option open to the Deemster. That's the law and while I could argue that it is wrong from an idealogical perspective, in the specific circumstances, until the law is changed, it was right.

 

Now, take the case of the Ballamodha accident, where the driver had no licence, no insurance (possibly no tax) was driving a car recklessly even though he had his baby daughter in the car and that is a person who is a very real threat to society. So yes, very definitely, lock HIM up and keep him out of society's way for a good long stretch.

[nipper]

Although your post and indeed previous posts contain a lot of sense, it was the Duffy case that outraged the decent people of this Island and has left a very nasty smell in the air whenever a death by dangerous driving case crops up and in particular when it is dealt with by that very same deemster.

[Gladys]

I hear what you are saying Nipper, but aren't people able to differentiate between the degree of 'malice aforethought' in each case?

 

These three cases are almost text book examples of black, white and grey in terms of custodial sentencing.

[nipper]

I quite agree.

 

The letters in this week's Examiner supporting the character of Galka seem to be not out of place.

 

My point being is that in the case of Duffy there was a lot of outrage, and in my absolute opinion rightly so. I find myself in a position where I just know too much about that case and the people involved than I really wanted to.

 

It was *as if* the judge used his inflated ego and influence to help certain people out - a powerful chap indeed, he can do that sort of thing and seems to have done on other occasions that have not been reported.

 

A weak judiciary cannot be good for any society. Personally, no matter how 'nice' he appears, I cannot trust anything this judge says and does. I am not alone.

[Kat]

I think when the judge said he was a nice boy. He meant that putting him in jail whould be pointless. He is probbably know threat to society. He cannot drive for like the next 5 year or something like that. Also by the sounds of things he will never be able to drive again, becuse of his leg.

And.. whats locking him going to do it deffently won't bring Laura Mae back.

Is there any other reason for locking him up?

 

Also there is still the problem it chould of been her mother that killed her. Seat belts are there for a reason, they save lives.

[feelslikeitshould]

Also there is still the problem it chould of been her mother that killed her. Seat belts are there for a reason, they save lives.

 

Although I agree that seatbelts do save lives, I don't agree with your wording of the statement before that. Perhaps I am being over-sensitive but I do not think you should be making such seemingly throw away comments, especially as members of the family and their friends potentially read this forum. I think Mrs. Beattie will be feeling bad enough at having such things implied without people being so crass about it.

 

This is obviously a sensitive issue, due to the number of debated points within this tread and you should always bear in mind that friends/family could be reading what you write, as other posters have done when addressing the incident itself as opposed to the trial.

[Nitro]

Also there is still the problem it chould of been her mother that killed her. Seat belts are there for a reason, they save lives.

 

Although I agree that seatbelts do save lives, I don't agree with your wording of the statement before that. Perhaps I am being over-sensitive but I do not think you should be making such seemingly throw away comments, especially as members of the family and their friends potentially read this forum. I think Mrs. Beattie will be feeling bad enough at having such things implied without people being so crass about it.

 

This is obviously a sensitive issue, due to the number of debated points within this tread and you should always bear in mind that friends/family could be reading what you write, as other posters have done when addressing the incident itself as opposed to the trial.

 

Its also obvious that everyone else survived the crash apart from the person who was hit by a rear passenger.

 

I imagine Mrs Beattie is feeling bad and probably thinking "what if's" anyway, I doubt anyone can feel any worse than they already do.

[Kat]

Well thats the whole thing, Mrs. Beattie will be thinking what if?

But so will Galka!

Its a hard thing, I think it's been sorted by the courts. I wish John Houton MHK whould just shut up. Its going to be hard for evryone, especialy the Beatties.

[Gladys]

I quite agree.

 

The letters in this week's Examiner supporting the character of Galka seem to be not out of place.

 

My point being is that in the case of Duffy there was a lot of outrage, and in my absolute opinion rightly so. I find myself in a position where I just know too much about that case and the people involved than I really wanted to.

 

It was *as if* the judge used his inflated ego and influence to help certain people out - a powerful chap indeed, he can do that sort of thing and seems to have done on other occasions that have not been reported.

 

A weak judiciary cannot be good for any society. Personally, no matter how 'nice' he appears, I cannot trust anything this judge says and does. I am not alone.

I think we are coming from the same place. But unduly lenient sentencing in one case shouldn't result in an unduly harsh sentences in another. Each case should, and no doubt is, judged on its own merits. I don't know enough about the Duffy case to answer your comments regarding the motive for the sentencing, but the fact that case has caused outrage should not affect the sentencing in any other, where the circumstances are very different and should not result in a tariff being introduced for this offence.

 

Having said that, certainly in the latter two cases I feel very sorry for both sides; not only the families that have lost their youngsters but the families of the lads who caused the accidents, indeed the lads themselves. My children will be all too soon of an age to be out driving with friends or themselves, and I really don't relish the prospect of being on either side.

[WilDDog]

Having said that, certainly in the latter two cases I feel very sorry for both sides; not only the families that have lost their youngsters but the families of the lads who caused the accidents, indeed the lads themselves. My children will be all too soon of an age to be out driving with friends or themselves, and I really don't relish the prospect of being on either side.

 

An excellent post Gladys.