Non aviation content. Play nice – No religion, no politics and no axe grinding please.
By JoeC
#1652615
flybymike wrote:And yet all of this lot were spared jail;



All the above were accidents. Not seeing pedestrians, driving the wrong way etc. None were deliberate and active like deciding to stop in the fast lane of a dual carriageway and then teaching someone to drive whilst suspended.

But I know that really it's because "this lot" are all women whilst the above is yer man.

How did you have that list of links to hand so readily - are you keeping a list? :lol:

Whether he should have gone to jail or not is another argument.
User avatar
By eltonioni
#1652617
akg1486 wrote:
eltonioni wrote:I understand the sentiment though I don't see how prison has any meaningful relationship with preventing the crime, ergo it's not a suitable response to events.it's just a retribution that helps nobody, costs a fortune, and takes up scarce resources that could be used for more practical outcomes.

Punishments handed out by courts are not solely about preventing crime, except for the fact that each person in prison can't do any crimes on the outside during the incarceration. Retribution is very much a part of any legal system. Rehabilitation is a beautiful thought, but still prisons world-wide are filled with repeat offenders.

The main reason that most people don't go around robbing and killing others is not to avoid prison time. Not even the "three strikes"-law used in parts of the US, where you can go to prison for life for a very minor crime, works as a deterrent.

(Previous post snipped for brevity, hopefully without distorting the poster's opinion.)



No, you haven't distorted it at all akg. We seem to agree that locking people up doesn't have much of an effect on crime - prisons are full of people who commit crime repeatedly, and most people don't commit crimes of the sort that puts them inside.

It doesn't feel especially enlightened or progressive in 2018 to wish for a criminal justice system that prioritises crime prevention and rehabilitation rather than retribution. It's probably not a vote winner but it might actually reduce crime. Putting this man (as an example) in jail seems as pointless as chemical castration for gay men.
By JoeC
#1652618
Flyin'Dutch' wrote:Why should he be judged any different? Because of his age? That would be ageist.


Check the links. It's not age. They are all women. This jailing is obviously a conspiracy against men :roll: Despite the circumstances and wilfull nature of his offences being completely different.
User avatar
By Flyin'Dutch'
#1652619
I am no fan of prisons - and think that in most cases there are better ways of dealing with transgressors of the law; and in this case that might have been appropriate too (bar for the sentencing Guidelines)

However this chap chose to drive whilst banned and the generally held view is that those who do this will not stop driving until they can physically not do so, hence a custodial sentence is metered out.
cockney steve liked this
User avatar
By eltonioni
#1652621
JoeC wrote:
Flyin'Dutch' wrote:Why should he be judged any different? Because of his age? That would be ageist.


Check the links. It's not age. They are all women. This jailing is obviously a conspiracy against men :roll: Despite the circumstances and wilfull nature of his offences being completely different.

This woman wasn't jailed. Woman, 79, spared jail for killing best friend in car crash
User avatar
By GrahamB
#1652623
We weren't in court. We didn't hear the evidence nor any response by the defence, so we have no real clue as to the whole story, nor the demeanour of the perpetrator.

Having said that, I assume it's the consequence of the stupidity of his actions in response to a 'loss of situational awareness' that attracted the severity of the sentence, not just the LOSA itself.
kanga liked this
User avatar
By seanxair
#1652627
No, you haven't distorted it at all akg. We seem to agree that locking people up doesn't have much of an effect on crime - prisons are full of people who commit crime repeatedly, and most people don't commit crimes of the sort that puts them inside.

It doesn't feel especially enlightened or progressive in 2018 to wish for a criminal justice system that prioritises crime prevention and rehabilitation rather than retribution. It's probably not a vote winner but it might actually reduce crime. Putting this man (as an example) in jail seems as pointless as chemical castration for gay men.


My bold above:

Perhaps longer custodial sentences first time round would discourage repeat offences? I would favour that.

Causing death by dangerous driving is a criminal offence; being gay isn't so not sure why you draw this comparison.
User avatar
By Miscellaneous
#1652635
Flyin'Dutch' wrote:However this chap chose to drive whilst banned...

Was he banned at time of the incident?
@eltonioni presumably you do believe he should be punished? What punishment do you consider appropriate?
User avatar
By Genghis the Engineer
#1652637
Is the custodial sentence warranted because he had already shown himself unwilling to accept legal restrictions placed upon him from a previous offence? (To whit, not driving.)

G
User avatar
By flybymike
#1652638
Causing death by dangerous driving is a criminal offence; being gay isn't so not sure why you draw this comparison.

I don’t suppose it was dangerous driving, more like dangerous parking.

(You might be too young to remember when homosexual activity was illegal.)
User avatar
By flybymike
#1652641
How did you have that list of links to hand so readily - are you keeping a list? :lol:

I just googled “old lady spared jail” after remembering a driving linked fatality. It brought up a whole list of women transgressors!
User avatar
By akg1486
#1652644
Genghis the Engineer wrote:Is the custodial sentence warranted because he had already shown himself unwilling to accept legal restrictions placed upon him from a previous offence? (To whit, not driving.)

G

The way I read it, the temporary ban from driving was handed out during the investigation of this incident. The article says the he was "the court for the first time in his life", so there's nothing that points to a previous offence.

From the bare facts as presented in the article, I think what he did was punishable. His biggest punishment is of course the loss of someone close.
flybymike liked this
User avatar
By seanxair
#1652645
flybymike wrote:
Causing death by dangerous driving is a criminal offence; being gay isn't so not sure why you draw this comparison.

I don’t suppose it was dangerous driving, more like dangerous parking.

(You might be too young to remember when homosexual activity was illegal.)


No I remember it being illegal, but it isn't now so fail to see why it is a useful comparison that's all.
User avatar
By flybymike
#1652647
If a parent accidentally reverses over their only child and kills him/her, should they be imprisoned?
Arguably they should have been more careful, but none of these fatalities were premeditated.