La_Dolce_Vita Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 I personally think that any custodial sentence is wrong. Maybe the family do wish for retribution although I think it is senseless to be acknowledged by punishing the driver and locking him up isn't going to be a good deterrent. But I find it interesting how people tend to think that little punishment should be given to this person. What if the death was not of his friend and was of another driver or a paedestrian. What sort of perspective would we have on punishment then? And, what if the driver was 30 years old? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
r1man Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 I was 17 when I passed my test and wrote off my parent's car within 3 hours. Luckily it was only me and a hedge involed. I look back now and think how easy it was to pass my test because I learnt by Highway Code verbatum and knew when to move the steering wheel properly. It was only after I was allowed to drive a car again (my parents were trusting!) that I really did learn to drive properly. My driving instructor put me in for my test, the examiner passed me and my parents let me take their car out within an hour of passing my test. I do take responsibility for what happened but lookign back not 100%. Thank God it was only me and the hedge involved as I had been on the way to collect my friends. I can't begin to understand how the family of the young lad who died will be feeling but as previoulsy said, the young man responsible will aso live with this forever. Something has to be learned from this and not just longer jail terms. The whole driving test and lessons need a complete overhall. Not just for the young but the middle-aged and the old. For goodness sake, take responsibility for your own actions. It's called living in the real world, not blaming someone else for giving you the gun. The over sixteens are adults (they can vote), and therefore must take charge of their actions and face up the the consequences of their actions. This is a terrible tragedy, but one that could have been avoided. The exuberence of youth has a lot to answer for but it doesnt absolve wrong-doers of liability. I do have sympathy for both the family of the deceased and to some degree, the instigator (is that the right word?) but ultimately, it was the young man in question who chose to drive in the manner in which he did. Unintended consequences most certainly, but as an adult, he is responsible for his actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 This is a terrible tragedy, but one that could have been avoided. The exuberence of youth has a lot to answer for but it doesnt absolve wrong-doers of liability.I do have sympathy for both the family of the deceased and to some degree, the instigator (is that the right word?) but ultimately, it was the young man in question who chose to drive in the manner in which he did. Unintended consequences most certainly, but as an adult, he is responsible for his actions. He no doubt recognises his responsibility. But recognising that one should be punished simply for doing something wrong and being punished in a particular fashion (i.e. legal system passing judgement and gaoling them) is not a sign of maturity but just recognision of conventions. His culpability is obvious, by not punishing him it does not necessarily absolve him of his wrongdoings. And the same can be said of many other crimes and acts that are (unfortunately and misguidedly) perceived to be crimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebees Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 WTF? I have said it before and will reiterate for the 'hang em high' brigade. This young man has to live the rest of his life with the memory of the death of a friend on his conscience, is that not punishment enough? @ Vulgarian, He killed someone? Do you suppose he KNEW he would crash and kill someone? Who was the examiner who let him pass? Surely this accident is a pointer at the test examiners failure to notice a 'reckless, irresponsible and stupid driver'. If it were me I would appeal. So if it was your kid that was killed in the crash, due to someones reckless driving would you still blame the examiner? I thought not..........the 60's went ages ago hippy move with the times. You are so wrong. IF it were my child, my reactionary action would be 'hang em high' but my rational reaction would be of sympathy for the driver. I would not have usually questioned the examiner but for the short period of time between the test and the accident. Foxy Knoxy, my dear, you need to get the idea of me being some hippy out of your mind, that tag belongs to my husband & was more to do with the length of his hair than the stereotyped 'righton' lefty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knoxville Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 WTF? I have said it before and will reiterate for the 'hang em high' brigade. This young man has to live the rest of his life with the memory of the death of a friend on his conscience, is that not punishment enough? @ Vulgarian, He killed someone? Do you suppose he KNEW he would crash and kill someone? Who was the examiner who let him pass? Surely this accident is a pointer at the test examiners failure to notice a 'reckless, irresponsible and stupid driver'. If it were me I would appeal. So if it was your kid that was killed in the crash, due to someones reckless driving would you still blame the examiner? I thought not..........the 60's went ages ago hippy move with the times. You are so wrong. IF it were my child, my reactionary action would be 'hang em high' but my rational reaction would be of sympathy for the driver. I would not have usually questioned the examiner but for the short period of time between the test and the accident. Foxy Knoxy, my dear, you need to get the idea of me being some hippy out of your mind, that tag belongs to my husband & was more to do with the length of his hair than the stereotyped 'righton' lefty. bees = hippy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebees Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 But I find it interesting how people tend to think that little punishment should be given to this person. What if the death was not of his friend and was of another driver or a paedestrian. What sort of perspective would we have on punishment then? And, what if the driver was 30 years old? Regardless of age or circumstances living with the fact that your actions have killed someone is quite enough punishment, don't you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebees Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 Your maths is bad, its TheBees + Hippy = minihippy x 2 + 1 minibee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knoxville Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 Your maths is bad, its TheBees + Hippy = minihippy x 2 + 1 minibee Do you all wear ty-dye clothes? ( spelling ) and use hemp related products? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bray Hill Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 WTF? I have said it before and will reiterate for the 'hang em high' brigade. This young man has to live the rest of his life with the memory of the death of a friend on his conscience, is that not punishment enough? @ Vulgarian, He killed someone? Do you suppose he KNEW he would crash and kill someone? Who was the examiner who let him pass? Surely this accident is a pointer at the test examiners failure to notice a 'reckless, irresponsible and stupid driver'. If it were me I would appeal. Personnally I think the last couple of lines of this post are daft. I would bet that on his lessons/test he was in control all the time otherwise I am sure (a) he would not have been put in for his test and (b) if he showed any kind of poor driving skills he would not of passed. Two days after he passed his test - 100mph on a road that he probably would not have been taken on wth his instructor/examiner. Was he told/shown how a car handles at 100mph - a little different than the required30/40mph. Teenagers these days are far more advanced in many ways than when I was growing up (and I am not that old). So a 17 year old has probably had his/her taste buds well and truly lubricated by playing with fast car computer games etc. A crash on the moniter is oh so very different from reality. I hope the victims family can try and move on from this. As for the driver I think he has got off pretty lightly. I had to identify my nieces body after a car crash in which the driver was speeding and in a rush to get to point "b". He was joining the RAF a few days after his court case and his solisitor pointed out that if he received any kind of jail sentance any hope of a career in the RAF would be finished. He was fined £1000.00 and banned from driving for one year - but it gets better. This was before there was any reciprical driving bans between here and the U.K. So the day his feet touched down in the U.K. ( three days after the court case) he was driving. We did actually point out that our niece had lost ANY chance of a career and all she was doing was riding her motorbike correctly and on the correct side of the road at the correct speed limit but believe this or not Deemster Williamson pointed out he could only go by the last similar type of case when passing judgement !! That could be why this person has got off what appears to me so lightly, and yes I know he will have to live the rest of his life with this blah blah blah - but guess what. Tough. Thankfully our niece was killed instantly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
r1man Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 This is a terrible tragedy, but one that could have been avoided. The exuberence of youth has a lot to answer for but it doesnt absolve wrong-doers of liability.I do have sympathy for both the family of the deceased and to some degree, the instigator (is that the right word?) but ultimately, it was the young man in question who chose to drive in the manner in which he did. Unintended consequences most certainly, but as an adult, he is responsible for his actions. He no doubt recognises his responsibility. But recognising that one should be punished simply for doing something wrong and being punished in a particular fashion (i.e. legal system passing judgement and gaoling them) is not a sign of maturity but just recognision of conventions. His culpability is obvious, by not punishing him it does not necessarily absolve him of his wrongdoings. And the same can be said of many other crimes and acts that are (unfortunately and misguidedly) perceived to be crimes. As far as I can recall, the recognition of conventions is called culture and convention and culture in western Europe involves being held accountable for ones actions and in the absence of corporal or capital punishment (try the middle east and see how it is administered there) our society chooses, amongst other things, to incarcerate offenders. Now that doesn’t necessarily make it the right thing to do in every case, but incarceration is intended act on a number of levels. For a start, it should act as a deterrent to others, to punish the offender and lastly, to educate said offender in order that when they are released back into our society, that they understand their wrong-doings and maybe will think twice about re-offending. I doubt it works that way in every case although in this particular instance it might just work on all three levels. I am not convinced that the argument that because culpability is obvious, by not punishing someone does not necessarily absolve them of their wrongdoings is an adequate solution in terms of deterrent, punishment or rehabilitation. What then of the rapist, mugger or arsonist that our society needs to be protected from during their rehabilitation? Perhaps we should give them the freedom of the city to do as they please. I also speak from personal experience as someone who has lost a member of my family at the 'hands' of another, others eventually return to some sort of 'normal' life - have their own families, move on, indeed some do not even pause to consider the consequenses of their actions, but for the family concerned, the loss is eternal. Perhaps the 'bleeding hearts' of our society should consider that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 Assuming this was the lad's first offence, jailing him for so long seems kind of pointless to me. It's unlikely to have a deterrent effect for other youngsters. We create and promote a culture of speed and rebellion and then we're surprised that these things occur. I feel sorry for this kid. It may have been his first offence but he did kill someone... You wouldn't think of letting a murderer off because it was his first offence. The driver was reckless, irresponsible, and stupid (as teenagers are expected to be) but unfortunately he was also in charge of a vehicle and ended up killing his mate. hang on now, obviously he wasn't wealthy or from a wealthy familly to be able to get the lawyers to obtain the desired verdict. unlike a similar speed related accident that took out the mother of 4 kids in the same place a few years earlier?? what erks is the dead people aren't usually the irresponsible twats that cause the deaths. edit; i may be referring to what brayhill posted a few posts earlier, but i posted after reading as far as my quote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Git Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 "He had managed to reach 100mph in a 40mph zone" says it all for me Young lad, just passed his test, thinks he knows it all and is an ace driver. It's a hard lesson to learn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 Can I just remind people that we prefer to avoid mentioning a certain similar incident that a couple of people have made reference to (now removed) because we would prefer to avoid being threatened by lawyers. Sorry, that's just how it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 "He had managed to reach 100mph in a 40mph zone" says it all for me Young lad, just passed his test, thinks he knows it all and is an ace driver. It's a hard lesson to learn. not quite as simple as your quote, he came from an unrestricted section ( where the 100 speed will have been gained from brandish?? ) into a 40 limit. he didn't start in 40 and then reach 100. that said, i would imagine as he'd only had a licence for 2 days!! he was ( or should have been? ) on 'R' plates which restricts your speed to a max of 50mph speed limit or not!! so speed limit or not, he was still double the speed his licence allows!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 Can I just remind people that we prefer to avoid mentioning a certain similar incident that a couple of people have made reference to (now removed) because we would prefer to avoid being threatened by lawyers. Sorry, that's just how it is. point taken so i edit my post again ( just a bit ), but there are bound to be comparrisons made between the 2 incidents, and ofcourse the 2 completely different verdicts and penalties!! it's almost as stupid as planning permission decissions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.