Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
Thracian

Story without additional words

By Thracian, in General Chat

Recommended Posts

Head Honcho

Head Honcho

Posted
Posted

The problem the jury have though is deciding if it was careless or dangerous. Means nowt to me or you because he killed six people but in the courts it's everything.

Lets be honest no amount of sentence would have been enough for the family and until the law is changed there's not much point us moaning about it.

Guest Bilo

Guest Bilo

Posted
Posted
Killed 6 people and he'll be out in 18 months. And driving again in 3 years. Something about that doesn't seem quite right to me. :unsure:

I do wonder what goes through the minds of those passing sentence at times. :(

Lillehamring

Lillehamring

Posted
Posted
Killed 6 people and he'll be out in 18 months. And driving again in 3 years. Something about that doesn't seem quite right to me. :unsure:

3 years for a non malicious crime/accident and a lifetime of guilt seems adequate, anything longer would make little difference.

i feel for the family, but how much of their reaction is conditioned by the media - there is no proof he was driving dangerously, yet it is almost as though there is an expectation for victims families to complain if anything less than the maximum sentence is given :dunno:

charliefox

charliefox

Posted
Posted
3 years for a non malicious crime/accident and a lifetime of guilt seems adequate, anything longer would make little difference.

i feel for the family, but how much of their reaction is conditioned by the media - there is no proof he was driving dangerously, yet it is almost as though there is an expectation for victims families to complain if anything less than the maximum sentence is given :dunno:

Link

Da Silva had failed to pay proper attention to the road for around a minute before hitting the Stathams' car, chief crown prosecutor Ian Rushton said.

Cheshire Police said he was using a laptop in the cab of his vehicle, possibly to plan his route.

I think that's pretty dangerous.

Shouldn't be allowed to drive again IMO.

Lillehamring

Lillehamring

Posted
Posted
Link

I think that's pretty dangerous.

Shouldn't be allowed to drive again IMO.

if this is true it addsa differenet dimension to it, but it wasn't proved, so shouldn't effect the sentencing.

and even if he was, they make it sound like he was sitting typing away, checking a route map is the same as checking a GPS device, really - you see people in cars sending texts all the time, they have their eyes of the road for ages.

my opinioin is that anyone convicted of these sort of incidents should be retested before going behind the wheel.

it's a tragedy for sure, but i can't help but feel greater cynicism about the media after this.

Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
I do wonder what goes through the minds of those passing sentence at times. :(

I personally blame the legislators for not thinking things through in the first place.

davieG

davieG

Posted
Posted

It seems to me this is receiving media attention because of the size of the family/number of people killed. If the same event had occurred with one fatality it wouldn't have made the news and we wouldn't have a thread on it.

Are people saying that the sentence should be greater based on the number of people killed rather than on the actual offence, 0 deaths 0 years, 1 death 3 years, 2 deaths 6 years and so on, if so that seems a very dangerous route to go down.

Flynny

Flynny

Posted
Posted
It seems to me this is receiving media attention because of the size of the family/number of people killed. If the same event had occurred with one fatality it wouldn't have made the news and we wouldn't have a thread on it.

Are people saying that the sentence should be greater based on the number of people killed rather than on the actual offence, 0 deaths 0 years, 1 death 3 years, 2 deaths 6 years and so on, if so that seems a very dangerous route to go down.

There's a point. If you kick a stone into the road and it causes a pile-up, are you to be held responsible for the deaths of scores of people? Different people'd see it differently.

I don't see how he should be allowed to drive again, though.

Finnegan

Finnegan

Posted
Posted

I personally don't think he should be legally allowed to drive a truck again but besides that I don't disagree with the sentence. Valerenga raises the point of guilt and I think that's about right, really.

There are some fooking idiots in this country. One minute we're moaning about prisons being too full and murderers being allowed out early and the next you want to fill up the prison system with people like this? Stupid, stupid, stupid.

What haulage company's really going to employ him again now anyway? :dunno:

Punishing him further for an accident - spawned from neglect or not - won't bring people back. I'd like to see how you'd feel if an honest bit of carelessness on your part caused deaths. Fucking destroyed, I imagine.

l444ry

l444ry

Posted
Posted

Any sentence should be set as a deterrent to others. It's a fine line between this and causing an accident (or worse) by using mobile phones while driving. Wouldn't mind betting that there's a few posters on this site who ignore that law.

Daggers

Daggers

Posted
Posted
So, what's your take on this issue, Einstein?

Quite clearly, Pinky, that sentences do not act as deterrents - it is the individual's conception of the likelihood of being caught which dictates behaviour coupled with societal norms.

Thracian

Thracian

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Because that really works, doesn't it.

It's worked for Peter Sutcliffe. And the only way his sentence might not work will be if some idiots see fit to declare him sane enough for ordinary prison and he eventually gets out again.

Sentences for crime should first and foremost be about punishment - about showing people that the more harm you do to others the more it will impact on your own life.

Otherwise why shouldn't anyone abandon the notion of reasonable behaviour and simply be as irresponsible as they like.

The lorry driver's sentence only demonstrated the ridiculousness of our laws. Had the bloke been drinking he would doubtless have been hammered but as he wasn't he's been shown the utmost leniency to the point where the victims' remaining family have been mocked.

And yet, in some ways, his crime was worse for the fact that he'd not been drinking because there was absolutely no excuse for his irresponsible driving. There was nothing to impede his judgement. He simply and wilfully acted like an arsehole.

Six people died. He should have been punished successively for each one of those deaths and until such time as the victims' families might reasonably have come to terms with the consequences, if ever. Indeed their feelings should have a lasting impact on the time he should serve, over and above the state-approved minimum.

And even if that should mean a long time in gaol, every waking hour should be spent serving the community and trying to make amends. No work, no food. End of. We the taxpayer shouldn't pay one single penny for his crime. Human right! There's six people with no rights at all because of him.

And no family visits either until a certain period of reparation has been made, say five years. He has wrecked an entire family. He should learn what it feels like as part of his own sentence.

Sentences should punish and deter first. Rehabilitation should be a totally separate consideration.

stez

stez

Posted
Posted
It's worked for Peter Sutcliffe. And the only way his sentence might not work will be if some idiots see fit to declare him sane enough for ordinary prison and he eventually gets out again.

did it? any sentence previous serial killers got didn't seem to deter him from having a pop at the murder game. and his sentence didn't seem to deter fred and rosemary west, harold shipman, colin ireland, beverly allitt, robert black, steven grieveson etc from killing people either

you could say his sentence has PREVENTED him doing it again (so far) but it didn't deter the people on the list, and no doubt, others.

Daggers

Daggers

Posted
Posted
[stuff]

I can't come back on any of that because we were debating prevention of future accidents through sentencing and your post has gone off at a tangent.

People use phones, speed, drink drive and double park because they

a) think they are entitled to do so

b) see other people doing it

c) don't think they'll get caught

d) don't get caught

L44444RY believes that tough sentencing will prevent future transgressions and I wait with baited breath for him or anyone else to explain how.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...