Are Lives So Cheap These Days?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3450945/Speeding-motorist-killed-pregnant-woman-unborn-child-serve-just-SIX-MONTHS-jail-admitting-careless-driving.html

/// 'I have read letters from yourself, your father and others.

'The combination of these documents paint a picture of a young man who is decent, law-abiding and sensitive.

'I accept your remorse is not based on the predicament you are in here today, but it's because of a genuine and deep-seated sadness for what happened.

'You appear to be genuinely very sorry for what happened.' ///

Ah yes, tell me another one.

[jim360]

I'd be intrigued to know what people think an appropriate sentence was instead of the six months or so. As much as people can, and perhaps should, be outraged about this case, it can hardly be classed in the same way as willful murder or manslaughter, and the length of sentence should reflect that to some extent whether or not you believe the man was remorseful (and why is it so hard to believe anyway? He was driving a car recklessly, but that hardly makes him an evil person to be despised as lower than the lowest of the low).

[viv41]

No sympathy at all for this 'speeder'. All my sympathy lies with the bereaved family. If he's so damn sorry why was he speeding in the first place ?? Six months is a joke. Like someone on here says, he had a good lawyer !

[jackthehat]

His speed wasn't excessive.
It's difficult to be sorry for something before it has happened...

[mikey4444]

Jim...the quick answer to your question is....I don't know what an appropriate sentence would have been, but I am unhappy with this verdict.

I am far from being a "string em up" type. I am, at heart, a liberal about most things. But his actions resulted in 2 deaths and its seems to me that 6 months in prison just doesn't give the right message out to motorists like this chap. He ignored the warning that the car gave him, and the result was that the car was unstable at high speeds. He killed the woman and her unborn child, not the BMW.

People generally seem to view driving fast as some kind of right these days.

Its the Jeremy Clarkson defence...." I am rich and can afford a very fast car and if I want to drive as fast as I like, its up to me ...as long as I don't get caught "

More and more young men like this chap are driving about the country at reckless speeds, hoping the sophisticated engine management systems and the powerful disc brakes will avert a tragedy. If he had been driving a Morris 1000, the car that I learned to drive in 40 odd years ago, the accident would almost certainly have never happened.

A signal needs to be sent to people like him, that their driving skills may not be up to the exacting standards that powerful cars like this need.

Yesterday we were discussing a idiot that managed to dive at 149mph through the M6 Tolls.........my old Morris would never have gone that fast, even if you had glued it to the front of Thunderbird 3 !

[Svejk]

The right people on here get to make outrageous accusations on this site but the wrong people aren't allowed to draw attention to it?

[viv41]

Stand by what I said, totally.

[mikey4444]

We would appear to be in agreement Viv !

[viv41]

The thing is mikey, some people's attitudes on here would be totally different if this innocent young woman and her unborn baby were relatives of theirs !

[jackthehat]

The thing is......they're not.
The law *has* to be dispassionate.
would you have expected him to have got off scott-free if he'd knocked down Jimmy Savile.....on the grounds that Savile was an odious creature who was essentially unmourned?

[viv41]

Stupid question, he DIDN'T knock down Saville, he knocked down an innocent young pregnant woman because he was breaking the law by SPEEDING !! Should have got at least six years .......

Like I said, he had a good lawyer !

[jackthehat]

It was an example used to illustrate that there can be no 'sliding scale' of how the victim's life/circumstances can be taken into account during sentencing.

I've already given my opinion that it is difficult to judge quite what length of sentence is appropriate.

[mikey4444]

AOG.......I would like it on record that I don't think that there is a racial aspect to this case whatsoever, and can't imagine why anybody would think that there was.

[andy-hughes]

viv41 - //Stupid question, he DIDN'T knock down Saville, he knocked down an innocent young pregnant woman because he was breaking the law by SPEEDING !! Should have got at least six years ....... //

We should beware of demonising someone further because of the use of evocative language by the media - we don't know that this young woman was 'innocent' at all. It's a reasonable assumption to make, but then again, so is believing the driver's contrition to be genuine.

[mikey4444]

Andy...slightly puzzling post ! There is no evidence that this poor woman caused the accident whatsoever.

[-Talbot-]

we don't know that this young woman was 'innocent'

Pardon?

[Svejk]

Very puzzling, imo.

[andy-hughes]

Mikey - //Andy...slightly puzzling post ! There is no evidence that this poor woman caused the accident whatsoever. //

I am playing devil's advocate here, concerning the emotive language used by the media to ramp up the effect of the issue.

Any and all victims of road accidents where they are run down on pavements are 'innocent' - how could they be anything else?

But the lady could be an axe-murderer for all the Mail knows about her.

Its reference to her 'innocence' infers that she is more of a tragic loss than someone else might be.

To be clear, I am not casting any aspersions on the character of this poor woman - my issue is with the use of emotive language - at which the Mail is an expert.