[Closed] Incredible how lenient the law is when you kill people/ children with a car.

Holy shit, causing the death of your own child is suffering you have to live with the rest of your life. I don’t think I could live with it.

If I killed my own son, and maimed my wife and other child through being a dickhead, I think I’d be punishing myself for the rest of my life far more severely than prison could.

Not sure what difference you think a longer jail term would make when the guy killed his own son? (Assuming a fairly normal relationship otherwise)

Jesus Christ, I mean why would you be driving like a dick, especially with your family in the car? Was sentencing too lenient, dunno I mean the guy has got to live with himself for killing one of his kids and causing significant injuries to his wife and other child.

I've got to say the number of times I see people driving around with young kids in the car without them being properly secured boils my piss. Especially when you see a kid sat in the front passenger seat on the lap of an adult with the adult's arms around them. That's going to to sweet FA in an accident.

As a parent the absolute minimum you have to do is protect your kids from harm and this particular waste of a body has failed even that!

I'd have given lower jail sentences (suspended even) but accompanied by a life time driving ban with instant jail if ever caught driving again.

Max 14 years for death by dangerous driving, I imagine sentence was reduced as a result of point 4 below. Surprised the other driver got the same sentence TBH.

The judge or magistrates will consider:
 how responsible the offender was for what happened;
 other offences committed at the same time such as driving a stolen vehicle or failing to stop;
 the serious harm caused by the offence, including whether more than one person was killed or injured;
 whether the offender was seriously injured or was a close friend or relative of the victim; and
 the circumstances and history of the offender, such as previous convictions or previous good character, giving assistance at the scene and remorse.

Tough one. Idiots like this should be made an example of, but given what he's done to his own family, I'm not sure how long a sentence would be appropriate.

Strange thought crossed my mind was that I hope they were enjoying the race before the crash, and weren't screaming in terror begging him to slow down. If it was the latter, then his sentence should be much more severe.

Strange thought crossed my mind was that I hope they were enjoying the race before the crash, and weren’t screaming in terror begging him to slow down.

Yeah I was wondering what the atmosphere in the car would have been like. I can't imagine that with two young kids in the back the wife was egging him on. And now she's got to nurse her suriving daughter back to health as a single parent, grieve for the loss of her baby, and deal with the fact that the household income has probably just dropped by a significant amount.

What a **** that driver is.

How long were the driving bans? Both should be life...

My friend was killed in a head on with a lorry on the wrong side of the road, on a blind bend.

Lorry driver lied from the get go, saying he was stationary and my friend hit him. Lied about his speed, lied about his position on the road. Hard evidence at the scene proved him wrong.

He got 18 months but was sent home to Romania after about 6 weeks. 6 weeks for a man’s life.

The police were awesome, the system is a joke.

He got 18 months but was sent home to Romania after about 6 weeks. 6 weeks for a man’s life.

At the risk of sounding like a rabid Brexiteer, I'm not sure I want to pay £35k a year to keep him in prison over here, though I'd have been much happier if he'd served his sentence over there.

Seems an extraordinary reduction from the max sentence. Don’t see why he didn’t get the full sentence on the basis he was racing, going over 100 mph, had a defective car with a knackered tyre and was driving without insurance and fled the scene. Just about everything he could have done wrong he did and still didn’t get the full sentence! What more did he have to do to close the 14.5 year gap?

The fact he held such contempt for his life, the life of his family and everyone else out on the road that day in my mind doesn’t justify such a reduction to the max sentence. I don’t think he’ll be torturing himself over his kids death like we would and as much as we all think.

Not sure what difference you think a longer jail term would make

Make a point to others. For example those who will still do this and justify their driving because their children are not in the car/ have new tyres on/ car is designed to drive at that speed/ insert self entitled excuse here ad nauseum.

...life time driving ban

That won't stop people who behave like this. See also 'no insurance'

edit - I have never understood the death by dangerous drive thing. If I go out in public driving and break rule number 1 why is it not manslaughter given it is well known that a car is dangerous and I would be aware of the possible consequences of my actions.

It is a tool for getting from on place to another. If i took another tool say a hammer which I should be using to bang in some nails on my fence and wave it around dangerously whilst doing so wouls I get a similar charge or would it be more severe?

He should be sentenced based on what he has done. The fact that people in the car were his family is irrelevant, they could have been mates or they could have been strangers - end result is the same.

Worse for him that it is his family but not worse for the people involved.

I think it is entirely relevant that people were in the car. It's one thing to endanger your own life...we all hurl ourselves down mountainsides on our bikes understanding that we could have an accident that could cause harm to us but were not harming anyone else. But if you deliberately endanger other peoples lives then that ramps up the seriousness of the whole thing and demonstrates contempt for other peoples lives. Appreciate it shouldn't matter if they were mates or family, but the fact there were minors in the car also is particularly contemptible...adults at least could try to intervene wit the driver and talk some sense into them, but kids can't.

I get the it's not manslaughter...he didn't go out to cause harm to anyone that day...with manslaughter although death may not be the initial goal causing harm to someone usually is with death being accidental or a result of situations escalating in the heat of the moment.

I just suspect there is something more political going on in the background regarding judges and sentencing...some other agenda.

Idiots like this should be made an example of

. . . you say?

However, Albert Pierrepoint who executed circa 400 people might disagree. Here are his thoughts on execution as a deterrent:

‘... is said to be a deterrent. I cannot agree. There have been murders since the beginning of time, and we shall go on looking for deterrents until the end of time. If death were a deterrent, I might be expected to know.’

So what punishment did you have in mind?

I have never understood the death by dangerous drive thing. If I go out in public driving and break rule number 1 why is it not manslaughter

@bsims I’m led to believer it’s because juries wouldn’t convict on manslaughter charges resulting from driving offences, so they introduced ‘death by dangerous driving’ instead.

I don’t understand why a) driving bans are so lenient, and b) why they run concurrently with custodial sentences. The ‘why people drive without license/insurance’ is easy - on a background of policing cuts and roads policing not being a priority despite five deaths a day on UK roads, they stand a good chance of not getting caught. There are meant to be something like 1.2m people driving without a license, insurance or both.

Thanks ratherbeintobago

The death sentence is not about punishment or deterrent..its simply about removing people permanently from society and not having to incarcerate them for the rest of their lives. We know there is no 100% effective deterrent for any crime...not prison, not the death sentence as we've never eradicated any crime for ever and never will.

I think the general population rightfully expect a punishment that goes some way to representing the seriousness of the crime. Some level of balance. In 18 months or so this chap will be back out on the streets and our roads again. Do you feel any safer on the roads with that prospect?

Not sure what a fitting punishment is, but I know that 18 months isn't. Like I suggested...what more would you have to do over and above risking the life of your own family as well as others on the road, driving without insurance in a defective car, to receive the maximum sentence?

However, Albert Pierrepoint who executed circa 400 people might disagree...

So what punishment did you have in mind?

The problem with that argument is that people who end up with the death penalty probably would've committed their crime regardless of the punishment. Its not generally a rational weighing up of the pros and cons. People speed and drive dangerously so often because they know they'll likely get away with it, or maybe face a fine. Taking it to the extremes that you have, do you really think we would the level of dangerous driving and number of people speeding if we did have the death penalty for it? Obviously no one is suggesting that, but right now we do seem to have a blind spot for people who kill while driving

The ‘why people drive without license/insurance’ is easy – on a background of policing cuts and roads policing not being a priority despite five deaths a day on UK roads, they stand a good chance of not getting caught. There are meant to be something like 1.2m people driving without a license, insurance or both.

This can easily be fixed. Just re-purpose speeding cameras to spot cars via their licence plates that are not insured or have a valid MOT. Far more useful endeavour than catching dear old granny doming 34 mph in a 30 zone.

Just re-purpose speeding cameras to spot cars via their licence plates that are not insured or have a valid MOT. Far more useful endeavour than catching dear old granny doming 34 mph in a 30 zone.

They can easily do both. Although i'd say it is pretty useful to prosecute those do 34 in 30. There aren't many laws that if you only break them a little bit then it is fine. Speeding seems to be the most popular one by far.

People speed and drive dangerously so often because they know they’ll likely get away with it,

Yep. There was a recent thing about legislation to mandate life sentences for death by dangerous driving, but I doubt it even enters into most drivers’ heads that they could kill someone, never mind what the consequences would be. As such, I doubt this has much deterrent value.

I am now of the opinion that driving offences should be countered with punative fines. any offence not just for the same thing goes up a scale of

first offence - 1 weeks wages fine
second - 1 months wages fine
third - 6 months wages fine
fourth - 1 years wages fine
fifth - 2 years wages fine

If you get caught you get fined, no mitigating circumstances, no benefits when you lose everything. Special team of debt collecters to collect non payment of fines. Appeals will come to me for consideration!
There might be some unlucky people but after offence 2 I am sure they will be more careful and the repeated offenders will be fined off the road.

Works for me but I'd also add car crushing at stage four and above.

I am now of the opinion that driving offences should be countered with punative fines.

I was thinking similar, but with bans. All offences get you a ban. First, maybe 1 week, then 1 month, 1 year, lifetime. You can have a time limit reset like points

I get the it’s not manslaughter…he didn’t go out to cause harm to anyone that day…with manslaughter although death may not be the initial goal causing harm to someone usually is with death being accidental or a result of situations escalating in the heat of the moment.

I think you have pretty much defined manslaughter there, and it certainly seems to fit the circumstances of this offence.

Let's call out road crimes for what they really are, and sentence accordingly.

The biggest issue is that there is no fear of being caught and having to face the consequences for "lower" level driving offences. Let's have the 12 point ban enforced with no exceptions. Let's crush cars more regularly. Let's make people understand their responsibilities behind the wheel.

The problem with a ban is that you can just ignore it and go on the long list of un-insured/licenced drivers instead

The problem with a ban is that you can just ignore it

Yes, for some, but it will deter most people. Also driving while banned can be a custodial offence, and it's harder to flout that

Let’s have the 12 point ban enforced with no exceptions.

I believe the sentencing commission have (again) recently reminded everyone that the exceptional hardship get-out shouldn't be used, because the entire point is that a driving ban is supposed to cause hardship as part of the punishment.

The one I can't get past is the one who got 66 points and somehow escaped a ban.

It needs to be used more often to cause hardship which will deter people from driving dangerously