[BBC News] Teenager jailed for death crash

[La_Dolce_Vita]

so if humanity is so morally enhanced, why have prisons at all, why even have punishments?? as no one is going to do any 'wrong'. i go with LDV's view. the fear of prison 'deter's people from doing things that perhaps nature and emotions tell you you should be doing. the deterent is getting caught and having the consequences heaped upon you. with no consequences there would be no fear of doing anything 'wrong'. fear of consequences= deterent. prison is a big consequence, so a big deterent. i'm sure at one point in everybody's lives they have wanted to erradicate someone else in an argument/fight. this doesn't generally actually happen due to the 'consequences'. there would be a lot fewer 'males' around if our humanity/nature was running things. which is why most arguments remain heated debates with the odd insult thrown in with no physical injury's. i can think of a few scrotes i would happily dispose of if i wasn't going to be punished for it, quite a few folks would actually thank you for 'loosing' them.

 

I don't think that prison has absolutely no deterrent value. But it comes across, to me, as simply idiotic for people to look at prison as maintaining some deterrent effect against people doing 'wrong'. It clearly isn't the case with the incidence of crime in society.

 

The vast majority of us have morals that accord with everyone elses. People know they are doing wrong when they commit most crimes. And in such a way there is nothing wrong with finding a deterrent. But it is illogical to recognise that prisons are not fun to be in so therefore they serve as a deterrent. How does that work?

Prison is a big consequence, as you say, but I believe that an absolute or good deterrent effect can only be achieved when you have 'getting caught' and sever consequence of getting caught being a certain response to crime. This is not the case.

And it would be very difficult and absolute unjustified for it to adopted.

 

No, but my morality isn't always in line with the law, so for the overlaps, the fear of prison is a deterrent. Example, 'a friend' used to like the odd spliff and his morals at the time were happy to justify that, but it's against the law. It was enough to stop him indulging too often because of the risks, and as he got older it was enough to stop him completely. If cannabis were legal, I'm pretty sure He'd be smoking it.

 

Such moral deterrents are few and far between. The law does tend to follow what is considered right and wrong behaviour. The area of drugs is an interesting exception.

[LadyManx]

why talk about prison being a deterrent in this case, when clearly, the deterrent of killing someone doesn't work? Most people do not drive to kill, do not drive to cause accidents, and yes, some people are reckless, and yes, some people do cause innocent people to lose lives.

As I said, don't pretend to have the correct answer, but if someone isn't deterred enough by the thought of losing their friend (and, btw, I'm not for one moment suggesting that the thought of that went through this particular chap's head) irrespective of the publicity he will have heard surrounding similar cases before, then, he's unlikely to consider the consequences of doing so - ie prison.

Surely, education is key, prevention better than cure. Get him into school, talking to his peers, talking to those most 'at risk' of a similar event occuring.

[Slim]

Albert, no idea what you're babbling on about. In this case I said locking up someone else was a deterrent for me, nothing more nothing less.

 

LDV: Drugs is one example, but there's loads of others where there's a legal and personal moral overlap. Copyright infringement, Drinking Age, petty theft, fraud, bottom sex, etc. Lots of things you might personally consider just fine but the law doesn't. Take the recent obscene publication laws, loads of people consider those types of images perfectly fine, but they're now against the law. If people are getting locked up for watching spanking videos, it's prison that's the deterrent, not your personal morals.

 

LadyManx: I don't think most people connect driving fast with killing people, which makes it an ineffective deterrent compared to the law. You see it on this forum over and over, the petrol heads say they can control a car at speed, it's everyone else driving too fast that's the problem.

[WTF]

why talk about prison being a deterrent in this case, when clearly, the deterrent of killing someone doesn't work? Most people do not drive to kill, do not drive to cause accidents, and yes, some people are reckless, and yes, some people do cause innocent people to lose lives.

As I said, don't pretend to have the correct answer, but if someone isn't deterred enough by the thought of losing their friend (and, btw, I'm not for one moment suggesting that the thought of that went through this particular chap's head) irrespective of the publicity he will have heard surrounding similar cases before, then, he's unlikely to consider the consequences of doing so - ie prison.

Surely, education is key, prevention better than cure. Get him into school, talking to his peers, talking to those most 'at risk' of a similar event occuring.

so at what point do you think he thought he was doing nothing 'wrong'?? i'm fairly certain he knew he was in the wrong at the time. i can't really believe he hadn't heard of the 'death by dangerous driving' offence either, or of the penalty's that can incur either. he thought he could get round the corner at a stupid speed even though 2 or 3 others had tried and failed with fatal consequences. now he's the latest stupid cunt! unfortunately he won't be the last, and probably not even the last at that location. even armed with the knowledge of the risks and consequences, he still tried to do it!! now he's learning/being educated regarding what the consequences actually are going to mean to him. that's the system. not perfect perhaps. but what we have and what he knew existed.

[%age]

so at what point do you think he thought he was doing nothing 'wrong'?? i'm fairly certain he knew he was in the wrong at the time. i can't really believe he hadn't heard of the 'death by dangerous driving' offence either, or of the penalty's that can incur either.

I can.

 

The Isle of man is a small country run by fuck-wits (I somehow can never resist getting that remark in)

 

But our Government is responsible for the overall education of our young people. At what stage in the curriculum are our young people taught about the nasty side of driving cars?

 

Not necessarily in this current case, but certainly in previous similar cases, some of the fuckers that have caused deaths on the road by their own fault (irrespective of what a 'friendly' judge might have bizarrely concluded) could have given something back to the society they have chosen to live in, by teaching kids the realities of what can happen when you fuck up with your driving.

[Albert Tatlock]

Albert, no idea what you're babbling on about.

I'm not surprised. I made the mistake of babbling about your babbling - even I found it hard to understand and now have a headache.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

LDV: Drugs is one example, but there's loads of others where there's a legal and personal moral overlap. Copyright infringement, Drinking Age, petty theft, fraud, bottom sex, etc. Lots of things you might personally consider just fine but the law doesn't. Take the recent obscene publication laws, loads of people consider those types of images perfectly fine, but they're now against the law. If people are getting locked up for watching spanking videos, it's prison that's the deterrent, not your personal morals.

 

I think you have a good point in mentioning that some behaviours, which are morally ambiguous from the perspective of the public are punished by the authorities, it is one of the main deterrents (with another being the embarrassment and stigma of having committed a crime and this being made public). But what can be said again is that the threat of imprisonment is not that effective, fraud, drinking, piracy/infringement, pretty theft and bottom sex are rife.

 

But with these the government chooses to rely on punishment given the fact that it cannot adequately offer good moral arguments as to why such behaviours are wrong. It simply punishes.

 

Though I was asking you about those crimes where there was no moral ambiguity, that is the most important and socially problematic crimes.

[WTF]

so at what point do you think he thought he was doing nothing 'wrong'?? i'm fairly certain he knew he was in the wrong at the time. i can't really believe he hadn't heard of the 'death by dangerous driving' offence either, or of the penalty's that can incur either.

I can.

 

The Isle of man is a small country run by fuck-wits (I somehow can never resist getting that remark in)

 

But our Government is responsible for the overall education of our young people. At what stage in the curriculum are our young people taught about the nasty side of driving cars?

 

Not necessarily in this current case, but certainly in previous similar cases, some of the fuckers that have caused deaths on the road by their own fault (irrespective of what a 'friendly' judge might have bizarrely concluded) could have given something back to the society they have chosen to live in, by teaching kids the realities of what can happen when you fuck up with your driving.

 

ok then, when was he 'taught' to drive like that?? never, so why try. i also don't believe with all the hype/coverage of the previous incidents, plus all the TV and newspaper articles of similar events on other islands , that he never heard of 'death by dangerous driving' pleading ignorance is a non starter.

 

as to giving back to society?? nothing is stopping him, AFTER he has served his sentence/punishment. then he can get wheeled around the schools to tell everyone he was a stupid tosser and how life was in prison, and how stupid driving like a loon is etc etc. so it doesn't have to be an either or, it can be BOTH. the bereaved family can 'see' justice done in the incarceration ( not that what we see as a long sentence will be anything like long enough in their eyes? ) it acts a deterent to all the youngsters with the usual access to the media though you believe that not every one will have heard about it?? perhaps on the safe driving type posters with the mangled metal and a copper in high vis etc, the image should be of a lad behind bars bent over with rubber gloved finger up his arse?? this would certainly slow the macho tossers trying to impress the birds. on the down side though, it may incite fudge packers to drive dangerously so maybe a non starter?

[La_Dolce_Vita]

as to giving back to society?? nothing is stopping him, AFTER he has served his sentence/punishment. then he can get wheeled around the schools to tell everyone he was a stupid tosser and how life was in prison, and how stupid driving like a loon is etc etc. so it doesn't have to be an either or, it can be BOTH. the bereaved family can 'see' justice done in the incarceration ( not that what we see as a long sentence will be anything like long enough in their eyes? ) it acts a deterent to all the youngsters with the usual access to the media though you believe that not every one will have heard about it?? perhaps on the safe driving type posters with the mangled metal and a copper in high vis etc, the image should be of a lad behind bars bent over with rubber gloved finger up his arse?? this would certainly slow the macho tossers trying to impress the birds. on the down side though, it may incite fudge packers to drive dangerously so maybe a non starter?

 

Sorry, it is never a BOTH, unless you force that person to do both. But nobody is going to want to educate others if there is a need for this education when the legal system has already chosen to punish those who have done wrong anyway.

 

Oh god, again...where are you getting this idea that the threat of prison prevents speeding? How many people speed already? How many people speed UNTIL they notice speed camera or see a police car?

 

Maybe the family would not wish for this kid to go to prison, you don't know. And would they not feel more is being achieved by giving this kid the chance to tell people in person that he did wrong, why it was wrong, how it happened, and who died as a result? I think it speaks far more than having people in society reading an article in the papers hearing how somebody got a few years for speeding.

 

Fudge packers? Make your point but be a twat whilst trying to do so.

[Nitro]

This was more or less murder really, thats how it should be treated, a car is a lethal weapon and when carrying someone elses precious cargo (someone elses child etc) to drive in such a dangerous manner it can only be with intent, he decided to drive at 100mph+ afterall, was almost always going to end in tears, if not that day it'd have been another, you can't change that sort of mentality, its like saying well I meant to stab someone but I didn't mean to kill them.

 

There would have been uproar if he just walked free, clearly needs a few years to grow up and realise responsibilties (passengers in your car are your responsibility thats key really).

 

I still can't fathom how anyone can be so stupid to A) ignore the 40mph limit by such a massive margin, b) to look at that corner and say "hmm that'll handle a ton easy", What if the lad wasn't killed though, perhaps a child stepped out or he hit another car causing people in the other car to die from serious injury?, would it be treated any differently?, if he can drive like that in a 40mph zone, how'd he treat 30mph zones and 20mph zones?, clearly someone who should've never had a licence, perhaps an attitude test should be part of a theory test, rang through lie detectors afterwards.

 

A 10 year stretch (whats that in real terms with good behaviour and numerous appeals?, 4-5 years?), nothing really...

[WTF]

as to giving back to society?? nothing is stopping him, AFTER he has served his sentence/punishment. then he can get wheeled around the schools to tell everyone he was a stupid tosser and how life was in prison, and how stupid driving like a loon is etc etc. so it doesn't have to be an either or, it can be BOTH. the bereaved family can 'see' justice done in the incarceration ( not that what we see as a long sentence will be anything like long enough in their eyes? ) it acts a deterent to all the youngsters with the usual access to the media though you believe that not every one will have heard about it?? perhaps on the safe driving type posters with the mangled metal and a copper in high vis etc, the image should be of a lad behind bars bent over with rubber gloved finger up his arse?? this would certainly slow the macho tossers trying to impress the birds. on the down side though, it may incite fudge packers to drive dangerously so maybe a non starter?

 

Sorry, it is never a BOTH, unless you force that person to do both. But nobody is going to want to educate others if there is a need for this education when the legal system has already chosen to punish those who have done wrong anyway.

 

Oh god, again...where are you getting this idea that the threat of prison prevents speeding? How many people speed already? How many people speed UNTIL they notice speed camera or see a police car?

 

Maybe the family would not wish for this kid to go to prison, you don't know. And would they not feel more is being achieved by giving this kid the chance to tell people in person that he did wrong, why it was wrong, how it happened, and who died as a result? I think it speaks far more than having people in society reading an article in the papers hearing how somebody got a few years for speeding.

 

Fudge packers? Make your point but be a twat whilst trying to do so.

 

 

why not both, why must it be a 'forced' event. there are plenty of 'reformed' characters who have come out of prison and taken it upon themselves to educate or join an organisation or group that already is trying to educate others about whatever they have first hand experience of. the prison is the punishment/debt to society, the voluntary trying to educate others upon release is the 'giving' back after 'seeing the the light'

 

 

as to prison detering speeders. i'm not getting the idea that it does at all, speeding isn't really the issue as an offence, it is the 'dangerous' aspect of the driving that warrants the prison. doing 35 in a 30 is hardly crime of the century, doing 3 figures in a 40 ( at a known blackspot )and killing someone is a bit different. he wasn't jailed for speeding!! speed just contributed to the 'danger'. you can drive in a dangerous manner not speeding. ignoring stop signs and traffic lights, overtaking where you shouldn't round town, ignoring people on pedestrian crossings and driving through the gaps etc. but this would usually get pleaded down to a due care and attention if you claimed you were daydreaming/ lost concentration and talked your way out of doing it deliberately ( except the overtaking ). i don't believe i have ever said that 'speeders' should be jailed?? perhaps you thought it was infered due to speed being the major part of the danger in the current crash? would you consider an emergency vehicle blue lighting it doing 40-45 in a 30 dangerous? i doubt very much they have consent to drive dangerously!! but they will have permission to exceed speed limits where they deem it possible to do it in a 'safe' manner.

 

maybe the family of the victim doesn't think he should have been jailed, but i would have expected them to voice that to the courts/authorities before the lad was sentenced.. it is more likely the desire for justice/punishment was a bit stronger than the desire for leniency. which is why courts deal with the justice aspect of society, no lynch mobs ( in theory )

 

fudge packers was a failed attempt at humour, that's why i'm not funny... but twat? quite possibly.

[Slim]

I think you have a good point in mentioning that some behaviours, which are morally ambiguous from the perspective of the public are punished by the authorities, it is one of the main deterrents (with another being the embarrassment and stigma of having committed a crime and this being made public). But what can be said again is that the threat of imprisonment is not that effective, fraud, drinking, piracy/infringement, pretty theft and bottom sex are rife.

 

LVD, the threat of imprisonment is obviously not a 100% deterrent for all, but it's an effective deterrent for most people.

[WTF]

I think you have a good point in mentioning that some behaviours, which are morally ambiguous from the perspective of the public are punished by the authorities, it is one of the main deterrents (with another being the embarrassment and stigma of having committed a crime and this being made public). But what can be said again is that the threat of imprisonment is not that effective, fraud, drinking, piracy/infringement, pretty theft and bottom sex are rife.

 

LVD, the threat of imprisonment is obviously not a 100% deterrent for all, but it's an effective deterrent for most people.

 

 

LVD??

[%age]

LVD

I have that poster on 'ignore'.

It makes life so much easier.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

LVD, the threat of imprisonment is obviously not a 100% deterrent for all, but it's an effective deterrent for most people.

 

In what way? I think you made a good point about the 'offences' you mentioned earlier. But for murder, theft, violence, speeding, rape, etc., it can't be the case. Those who want to break the law, in the main would appear to do so anyway.