SIGN UP

Justice . Don't Make Me Laugh

Avatar Image
itchycopark | 10:06 Sat 09th Apr 2022 | News
23 Answers

Answers

1 to 20 of 23rss feed

1 2 Next Last

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by itchycopark. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
What sentence do you have in mind as suitable?
Question Author
a longer one 10 years at least , not a death sentence even if it existed what's your take in this then ?
I think that is the maximum for the offence.
6 years, 10 years what's the difference? - it's a tragedy, nothing can put it right. He sounds like a bad lot, but he did give himself in to his credit; that would have been taken into account I would think.
Could have been a much heavier but the report doesn’t state what he was charged with. The maximum prison sentence the court can impose for causing death by dangerous driving is 14 years. For causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving it is five years, driving uninsured is two years.
Khandro, he did give himself up but that counts for nothing if the vehicle was registered to him. Clear CCTV of him running away made him easily identifiable. He still pleaded not guilty meaning there had to be a trial. Credit is given for pleading guilty, not handing yourself in.
From the BBC website,

"He was found guilty of causing death by dangerous driving and jailed for six-and-a-half years.

He was also convicted of driving while uninsured."

I think it is nowhere near enough. Clearly, Davis is a dangerous and terrible driver, which he knows. He has made a series of deliberately irresponsible decisions which is his fault. Getting behind the wheel of a car with his track record, no insurance, 67 in a 30 zone. At some point being deliberately careless with other people's lives, can't all be an unfortunate accident.

I never usually agree with punishing the "outcome" rather than intention, but we do, and this has both. The victim was an 18 day old baby, the driver has taken potentially 70-90 years of life from someone else, and that's without taking into account the family that habe to live with it forever.
damn savage - should never see the light of day again...
judge: "What sentence do you have in mind as suitable?" - well I can't speak for the OP but I'd say the damn savage should never see the light of day again.
Oh, and being on a phone.
In legal terms - justice' is exactly what the offender has received - a sentence within the sentencing guidelines.

But I absolutely appreciate your view that the sentence should reflect the wider circumstances, including not only the tragic loss of this tiny baby, and the life sentence for his parents as a result, but also the history of the offender's criminal past.

I always maintain that the law has to be framed and enacted dispassionately in order to function correctly, but cases like this make that argument very very hard to sustain.
I agree, but the law is based on emotion. The more distressing a crime is, the higher the sentences. They even take victim statements to try to add to it now.
pixie - // I agree, but the law is based on emotion. The more distressing a crime is, the higher the sentences. They even take victim statements to try to add to it now. //

I disagree that the law is 'based on emotion'.

I concede that emotion plays its part, it has to because it is formed and discharged by humans who cannot ever entirely divorce their feelings from their actions.

But I still believe that it is created and enacted as dispassionately as it reasonably can be, in order to avoid emotion becoming the overriding factor in criminal cases like this.
I still am not convinced, tbh. If we remove all emotion and go with sheer logic.... murder wouldn't be a massive issue- we technically have enough humans. But, it's the effect it has on other people that we understand and empathise with.
pixie - // I still am not convinced, tbh. If we remove all emotion and go with sheer logic.... murder wouldn't be a massive issue- we technically have enough humans. But, it's the effect it has on other people that we understand and empathise with. //

That's not actually what I said.

I entirely agree that emotion plays a part in framing and discharging the law, it cannot be any other way, and I would never suggest that basing laws entirely on 'logic' is a desirable way forward.

What I did say, is that while emotion is a necessary and indeed vital part of the process of creating and enacting law, it cannot, and should not be the primary driving force - because that would diminish the ability to create and discharge laws effectively, for the good of society as a whole.
Ok, sorry. That has never been the case yet though. There has to be a balance.
pixie - // Ok, sorry. That has never been the case yet though. There has to be a balance. //

No need to apologise pix - ever - and I entirely agree, balance is the key.
I’m interested in what sentence is handed down to Boris Becker on 29 April for his bankruptcy shenanigans; the media has said he could be jailed for up to 7 years – especially as he has form in this area with conviction for tax evasion (albeit not in the UK).
Hymie - // I’m interested in what sentence is handed down to Boris Becker on 29 April for his bankruptcy shenanigans; the media has said he could be jailed for up to 7 years – especially as he has form in this area with conviction for tax evasion (albeit not in the UK). //

It may well reflect an often-illustrated fact, that as a culture, we punish crimes against finance more harshly that we do crimes against people.

1 to 20 of 23rss feed

1 2 Next Last

Do you know the answer?

Justice . Don't Make Me Laugh

Answer Question >>

Related Questions