[BBC News] Teenager jailed for death crash

[r1man]

.

A very subservient atttude to take. What makes you think that responsibility cannot be taken by other means? Having the attitude of "that is the price to be paid" is to assume that you recognise that some other authority has deemed it so and so as well as accepting it you believe it should be.

Nobody OUGHT to have their civil liberties removed for committing a crime unless they are a certain danger to society and even then I think it is wrong to use this as punishment.

People should not used as some form of example to others. That leaves the option of incarceration free to abuse. How much of example do you want to create? And once you start setting examples for others by punishing you move away from responding proportionately and fairly to the criminal in question.

 

Why is this a subservient attitude? I am not suggesting that incarceration is the only method (or the most appropriate method in very case) of dealing with miscreants but we do live in a society that is dependent upon us observing certain cultural norms (whether you like it or not, it’s the fabric of society) and as part of having rights, we also have responsibilities to behave in a way that causes least distress to others. If people behave outside of those culturally accepted ‘norms’ then it is inevitable that society will respond in a manner that it sees fit. Of course in a society that gives choice to all (including the judicial system) there is the opportunity for the abuse of such power, and I do not deny that it can and will occur. But by using words such as Ought and Should you are imposing the values that you believe are appropriate and they are not necessarily aligned with the views of society as a whole. (yes I know I have used them as well!)

 

 

I wonder whether you actually recognise the reality of crime in society. How can you rehabilitate wrongdoers into a society that they have been utterly disconnected to? How do you make them recognise an illegitimate authority that has stolen their liberties, that exists in the law and in prison to dictates to them?

 

Enlighten me, what is the reality of crime in society?

 

noun

1) an action or an instance of negligence that is deemed injurious to the public welfare or morals or to the interests of the state and that is legally prohibited.

 

I actually quite like the concept of the old fashioned 'outlaw'. If you choose to live outside the rules of the law then you are not protected by that law. It seems to me there is too much pussyfooting around but i think we may be getting off topic a little here.

 

I tend to get the impression from your comments that you aren't so interested in the importance of understanding why things are wrong, but simply instilling in people that certain things are wrong AND DON'T YOU FORGET IT.

 

I am very interested in understanding why things are wrong, but it would appear that we have differing views as to the solutions to the prevention and methods of dealing with why things are wrong. If I were not interested in why things were wrong I would not suggest preventative issues to avoid reoccurrence.

 

Punishment is far more easier to carry out and acceptable through convention. Punishing is revenge. Prevention is not.

Incarceration can be used as a deterrent. Bang people up for life and never let them out or make the conditions so utterly appalling that people will be filled with dread at the thought of entering gaol. That is more effective deterrence. But like I said, this isn't very enlightened.

 

Punishing is revenge?

 

–verb (used with object)

1) to subject to pain, loss, confinement, death, etc., as a penalty for some offence, transgression, or fault: to punish a criminal.

2) to inflict a penalty for (an offence, fault, etc.): to punish theft.

 

Surely punishment is to inflict a penalty, not revenge? Our society deems that the penalty will, on some occasions, be incarceration.

 

I have to say, I rather like the idea of making conditions inside so appalling that people will not want to go back inside.

[Bray Hill]

There is no public road on the whole of the Isle of Man that is dangerous. None whatsoever.

 

Incidents are caused by drivers driving too fast or carelessly/dangerously.

 

How simple is that?

 

Could`nt agree more.

If you think about it, the Gooseneck section down to Ramsey Hairpin is a much more tricky section (blind bends - tall hedges - a narrower road) the only thing that stops accidents happening here is the lack of speed. On the other side of the mountain road (Brandish - Hillberry) you have wider roads that unfortunately tempt the inexperienced. I have yet to hear of ANYONE loosing control/crashing their vehicle travelling at 40mph on this section of road - however I will stand to be corrected.

[Bray Hill]

Try going round that long, wide, sweeping corner at the prescribed speed of 40mph. It will seem very, very slow and gentle indeed.

It's relative actually. It will appear a lot slower after thrashing at speed from Brandish. Not so slow from Onchan. A 40mph limit from the Creg, enforced of course, would make Hillberry safer at a stroke.

 

The corner is perfectly safe.

No it isn't - hence the fatalities.

 

How safe is a gun? Put it into the wrong - inexperienced hands and your left with a mess.

[manshimajin]

How safe is a gun? Put it into the wrong - inexperienced hands and your left with a mess.

You are right. It's about competence. Someone who has passed the driving test 2 days before is not competent to drive at 100MPH.

[WTF]

How safe is a gun? Put it into the wrong - inexperienced hands and your left with a mess.

You are right. It's about competence. Someone who has passed the driving test 2 days before is not competent to drive at 100MPH.

 

 

lewis hamilton?? he was racing 4 wheels out of nappies.

[Sebrof]

The corner is perfectly safe.

No it isn't - hence the fatalities.

 

It's perfectly safe - at the right speed. Like most roads.

 

Speed limits are never going to inhibit people who are determined to drive dangerously. That's why the limits at Ballamodha are so pointless.

 

S

[Bray Hill]

How safe is a gun? Put it into the wrong - inexperienced hands and your left with a mess.

You are right. It's about competence. Someone who has passed the driving test 2 days before is not competent to drive at 100MPH.

 

 

lewis hamilton?? he was racing 4 wheels out of nappies.

 

In a controlled envoroment or on open roads with his mates in the car ?

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Subservient in that you accept the norms and conventions of how criminals are dealt with. Though those who establish what is criminal behaviour and what the punishments are to be constitute a small minority with (illegitimate) authority. It is dictated to the rest of society. It isn't the result of the whole of society's response to wrongdoing.

 

But yes, criminal behaviour has to be dealt with as it is a problem for society.

 

Enlighten me, what is the reality of crime in society?

 

The reality I was referring to was incidence of criminal behaviour and the incident of recidivism.

 

Punishing is revenge?

 

Surely punishment is to inflict a penalty, not revenge? Our society deems that the penalty will, on some occasions, be incarceration.

 

Yes that is right, but why would the victim's want the penalty? It is an attempt to do something bad to the perpetrator because they have done wrong.

And again, our society (by way of the public) doesn't deem inprisonment to be the penalty, the State does.

 

I have to say, I rather like the idea of making conditions inside so appalling that people will not want to go back inside.

 

Not surprising seeing as how you think incarceration has an appreciable deterrent effect. But it is the chance of getting caught that could be argued to be far more important a factor when it comes to someone judging whether to commit a crime. Not how severe the consequence will be of getting caught. But anyone who could see the value in that would be a fool. Because the result would be a society that lives in fear. Fear of making mistakes.

[Keith]

I've no objection to anyone doing 100mph in a 40mph zone to go to prison, whether they kill someone or not.

[oldmanxfella]

imprisonment does not deal with the reasons why crime occurs. It can only deal with the individual who commits them and by stripping them (unjustifiably) of their 'freedom' as a method of reinforcing their wrongdoing. There is no education there other than "You shouldn't have done that".

 

You really are a totally tedious tool.

[WTF]

How safe is a gun? Put it into the wrong - inexperienced hands and your left with a mess.

You are right. It's about competence. Someone who has passed the driving test 2 days before is not competent to drive at 100MPH.

 

 

lewis hamilton?? he was racing 4 wheels out of nappies.

 

In a controlled envoroment or on open roads with his mates in the car ?

 

it was a bit tongue in cheek, but i was refering to having good car control only a few days after passing a driving test. obviously road sense is a different matter, but i think hamilton would have realised that he wasn't going to get round hillberry at a ton in the car in question, speed limit or not. bottom line is show off travelling too fast trying to impress. it goes on all the time, but every now and then it ends in tragedy. i'm leaning towards governers on cars to restrict top speed for R platers. how many R platers have ended up killing someone obeying the speed limits??? none i would guess,?

[manshimajin]

How safe is a gun? Put it into the wrong - inexperienced hands and your left with a mess.

You are right. It's about competence. Someone who has passed the driving test 2 days before is not competent to drive at 100MPH.

lewis hamilton?? he was racing 4 wheels out of nappies.

Yes and I bet Dad was watching on very closely too.

 

You do us a service as a rare exception only serves to emphasise the normal reality - people who have 2 days post test driving experience are not competent drivers to do 100MPH on a difficult road. Indeed was Lewis competent in terms of road sense at 4? or could he just drive in circles on a closed track?

[WTF]

i know racing racing is a completely different story to road driving, but the car control was the tongue in cheek point i was making, not awareness levels on a public transport infrastructure and it's limits along with a 'new' drivers. i suppose rally drivers are the ones who have the better car control on public highways as they race on many different types of road surfaces over a much wider weather range than F1 drivers do. F1 is tarmac only in dry to wet, no ice or snow or night time driving ( until recently under flood lights which makes it almost daylight anyway )

[LadyManx]

i have read this forum in detail and think some vauable points have been made. would like to add the following:

 

- this young man, like other people in a similar situation, will, irrespective of the reasons why, have his life permanently altered due to this sentence. As, for those of you who are interested, his family, who will have to be pt through the hell of visiting him in jail. yes, they will get him back, unlike his very, very unfortunate friend's parents, however, my point is that this sentence will change the lives of more than just him

-prison, is not, and never will be, no matter the 'its cushy' view, be easy. Being locked behind a prison door completely alone and stripped of all dignity is a punishment, whether or not there is a tv screen sitting in front of him. his first strip search, his first cell search, missing his mother's birthday and christmas, will be a punishment, never ever forgotten or fully gotten over

- we as a society must take some responsibility. why not alter the driving test requirements and ensure that time is spent learning (safely) how to drive on derestricted roads, the importance of reducing speeds, and i would go as far as to say, simulation of losing control at speed. consequences of accidents like this are often based on luck - some people die, some people are hirrifically injured, some people walk away, but most drivers at some stage do lose control of their cars. teach our kids that this can happen, and if it does, the car becomes a weapon and maybe more consideration might be given. additionally, it is possible to educate drivers to drive at speed safely, even with post driving test lessons in this area - can this hurt?

- my opinion is that causing the death of another person in a car should mean an instant lifetime ban. this person's crime is driving badly again, not an pre meditated offence, not one caused by maliciousness or intent. take away the ability to get behind a wheel again and this driver could never be in this position again.

 

It is incredibly unfair, but accidents do happen, whether through momentary lapses or downright stupidity. my thoughts go out to both families affected, especially those who lost their son, which must be unbearable. however, surely more good can come of using this as an example to reform our driving test system, and even some aspects of sentencing. This young man will live with this forever and it is a very, very difficult situation for all. I only hope that prison doesn't damage him - for some people, living with 'career' criminals is not a good thing.

[Al Poker]

The whole driving test and lessons need a complete overhall.

 

I agree. In an episode of Top Gear not long ago, they talked about the driving test in Finland:

 

http://www.expat-finland.com/living_in_finland/driving.html

 

Instruction

 

If you are starting from scratch, the situation is somewhat different from that of many other countries. The driving student does not need to apply for a "learner's permit" or similar. They receive instruction from a qualified instructor, usually from a driver training school, and having completed their training they complete theory and driving tests, and apply for a driving licence.

 

Instruction can alternatively be given by the holder of a driving instruction permit, which grants the holder the right to operate a vehicle intended for driving instruction.

 

Licence

 

Driving licences for operation of a passenger vehicle in Finland are issued in two phases. The first driving licence, a driving licence permit, is valid for a period of two years. This is issued by the police when a person has received instruction and passed the theory and driving tests.

 

When applying for a driving licence permit from the local police, the following must be submitted:

 

* 2 photographs (required if the previous photographs were submitted more than 3 years earlier or the applicant's name has changed)

* young person's health certificate (obtained no more than five years earlier) or a driving licence medical certificate (obtained no more than six months earlier)

 

The second, or actual driving licence is issued no earlier than 6 months after issue of the driving licence permit. Before this licence can be obtained, holders of driving licence permits must complete further driver training provided by law (primarily this involves driving techniques for ice and snow). The certificate for this further training must be submitted to the police.

 

A driving licence permit may be granted to an applicant who:

 

* fulfils all the health requirements laid down by Government decree

* lives permanently in Finland or has been studying in Finland for at least six months

* is not considered a danger to traffic because of habitual abuse of alcohol or other intoxicant

* is not banned from driving in Finland or in any other EU or EEA country

* has not been guilty of operation of a vehicle without a licence during the last year.

 

In addition to a permit application form, applicants must fill in a form asking whether they already have a driving licence issued by another EU or EEA country, or whether they have been banned from driving in any EU or EEA country.

 

Here on the IOM, a major improvement would be the addition of high-speed driving to the instruction process. Perhaps, following the Finnish system, the licence could be divided into two 'phases' - with the first phase being the current full licence, and the second phase being further training such as high-speed driving. An incentive could be that drivers who passed the second phase lost their 'restricted' status sooner than those who didn't.

 

Not just for the young but the middle-aged and the old.

 

Also agreed. Young drivers are being trained to a higher standard than ever before, but tend to make major, newsworthy mistakes due to overconfidence and inexperience. On the other hand, most of the major driving errors I see from day to day are made by older drivers.

 

Would it therefore make sense that for those people under the age of 18 or even 19, that a speed restrictor be placed and used on any vehicle that they use, so that they can only travel a maximum speed of 40mph?

 

Age is just one factor that contributes to irresponsible driving.

 

There is a 40mph speed limit signed well before the corner.

 

I'm not sure exactly which corner it was, but there are many on the mountain which are advisory limits (ie. not a legal requirement). Of course slowing down to below 100mph would still be a smart move in most circumstances.