Is 3 Years Long Enough ?

[Canary42]

Drugged up to the eyeballs, a driver hit and killed a guy, didn't stop, drove off and tried to avoid getting caught.

He got just 3 years jail. And a driving ban of only 4½ years.

Should be 10 years and lifetime ban.

Yet another example of our hopelessly inadequate judicial system.

[Canary42]

Sorry, forgot the link

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-57227742

[ToraToraTora]

damn savage should never see the light of day again.

[Mamyalynne]

No, it isn't enough.

[Barsel]

In these sort of cases, I don't see how a long jail sentence would help, I would much prefer that if anyone caused a death by dangerous driving, that they should be banned for life so it won't happen again. If they were to break the ban, then they should go to prison.

[mushroom25]

// anyone caused a death by dangerous driving..... //

the indictment was for causing death by careless driving.

[Barsel]

mushroom Careless or dangerous driving, if someone is killed, I believe the driver should be banned from driving for life if they were drunk or drugged.

[emmie]

i totally agree the sentence should be a mandatory ten years and banned for life.

[Barsel]

I appreciate there are genuine accidents where someone may just run into the road leaving it too late for the driver to do anything about it, but if they were unfit to drive when they killed someone, then a lifetime ban should be given.

[Lie-in King]

He should have received a lifetime ban, as should anyone convicted for causing death by careless/dangerous driving for any reason - under the influence of drink/drugs or plain inattention such as phone use.

[Sunk]

He was charged with causing death by driving without due care and attention.
The maximum penalty is 5 years. If he had been charged with death by dangerous driving he could have got 14 years.
So the question should be, why was he prosecuted for the lesser offence?

[Barsel]

Sunk, maybe because he admitted it?

[Sunk]

Barsel,
I dunno.
But it is pointless saying he should have got life when the maximum tariff available to the Judge is 5 years.

[jno]

the penalties for killing people with a car have always been less than for doing it with a gun or a knife. The sentiment behind this seems to be that everyone's a driver, therefore it could happen to any of us, and it would be most unfair to lock us up for ever just because some foolish pedestrian threw himself under our wheels. (I believe in olden days, when drivers were charged with manslaughter, juries would typically find them not guilty.)

Really, the whole country is geared to cars and drivers, so this is nothing new.

[barry1010]

jno, the reason is that the vast majority of drivers get in their car simply to get from A to B. No intention of causing harm to anyone.
It is totally different to somebody arming themselves and deliberately stabbing or shooting somebody.

[Barsel]

barry ///the vast majority of drivers///
yes, but those who drink, take drugs or use their phones are just as likely to kill someone as those who carry knives etc.

[barry1010]

It's the mens rea that counts - the intention. I agree the penalties should be harsher but you can't compare a deliberately violent act done to maim or kill with causing death by dangerous/careless driving

[jno]

of course, barry, I was merely advising the potential killers among us how to shorten any potential sentence by choosing the correct weapon...

But I was actually talking about manslaughter, which might be the charge following an accidental but avoidable death, and which carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. If the lethal instrument is a car, however, the charge is different and the penalties much lower.

[William51]

Completely agree. Caused by his stupidity it is really murder. 10 years is right.

[david small]

Max tariff. Lifetime ban. Common sense.

[youngmafbog]

For once I agree with you Canary, it is not long enough at all.

Yes, I know the legal standpoint on this one but maybe that is what is wrong and needs changing.