Harsher sentences for driving offences confirmed

[ChrisButch]

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/oct/14/drivers-who-kill-may-now-face-life-sentence
After the Alliston furore, this is a timely relief, and allays fears that the wider review would be displaced by a disproportionate focus on cycling offences. Note that this comes from the Justice Dept., not the Transport Dept. and their dubious 'review' of 'cyclists' safety'.

[Bonefishblues]

Just waiting for a feature on R4 which has been trailed.

[LollyKat]

Won't life sentences make juries even more unwilling to convict than they are already?

[The utility cyclist]

Meaningless drivel, this won't do diddly.
Why isnt it serious Injury by dangerous driving, I don't even get how you can 'carelessly' kill someone, by definition if your actions unintendedly killed someone it must have being a dangerous act. One you willingly chose to make, as in yyou had a choice not to and thus not kill or seriously injure. So manslaughter or GBH with increased sentencing and raising the minimum sentences would have being far more appropriate.

This is yet more placation that will have zero affect on cycling safety.

[JohnW]

I don't think that harsher sentences will be a realistic deterrent - the culprits never anticipate getting caught. However, a jail sentence for life would put them in a place where they couldn't kill anyone else.

[Bonefishblues]

Isn't it signifying that the tide is turning - that killing people with cars is being viewed as increasingly unacceptable* in the eyes of society?

*and no, I'm not saying it was ever viewed thus, but charging and sentencing speak volumes.

[thirdcrank]

As a general rule, I think that calls for tougher sentencing are a sign that the system isn't working in the sense that public opinion is not satisfied.

In the days when there was no organised police service, there was capital punishment for many offences; that changed when more people were caught and convicted.

I think that this is why the US still has some capital punishment and there seems to be at least some popular support for more. There are also apparently prison sentences of over 100 years. No matter how many people are caught there, the system is so highly geared up to avoiding convicting them that the perception is that it doesn't work, yet you need a cautious system for as long as that type of sentencing persists. A vicious circle. In contrast, many European countries seem to have a perception of an effective legal system. I've no data at all, but I believe that punishments are generally less severe, but avoiding conviction is not easy. ie The opposite of the US system and our own, which is not quite so bad.

We'd not be solving anything if we resumed dragging convicts to Tyburn Tree. Let's have a system which nips it in the bud before anybody is hurt.

[al_yrpal]

Longer sentences are about justice. In some cases they wont be deterrents, so what?

Al

[PH]

Everybody thinks those who kill should be severely punished, but nobody thinks the way they drive could lead to such a death. Doesn't matter to the deceased how long the sentence is.

[The utility cyclist]

It doesn't matter to them but it does families.
That government would rather push this bilge as opposed to something meaningful like retest/train every single driver and to a higher standard or indeed chip all cars so they cabnot be driven by banned drivers or put black boxes into all vehicles so they can't speed and numerous ither methods of deterring/curtailing and preventing.

We'll still end up with jurists not wanting to find guilty even with clear evidence, we'll still have mickey poor cps, we'll still have judges that franjly don't have a clue and still not adhere to sentencing guidelines by handing out beqildering sentences.
Just waiting for the 'cyclists' laws to come through now

[mercalia]

good news. waiting now for the first so and so to be get sent down

re jurys not convicting. Cant the judge tell them to do so in some sense? Jurys arent a law unto themselves?

[reohn2]

It seems to me to be more a case of present laws not being enforced.
Present maximum sentencing for offences under current legislation is rarely if ever handed down so what chance under harsher guidelimes?

I agree with TC the problem starts where minor driver crime goes either unpunished due to lack of effective policing or results in a slap on the wrist due poor legislation guidelines at that level or soft soaping juries and judges.
IMHO there needs to be better detection and harsher sentencing across the board,more short term driving bans,fines that hurt,more retesting for serious offences and repeat minor offending,and very harsh sentencing for more serious repeat offenders.

I find it the sign of a failed system that allows repeat offenders to claim hardship if they lose their driving licence when many are allowed to continue driving with points on their licences running into the high teens or even higher!
Whilst others excuse their poor and dangerous driving by claiming not to have seen the person they've killed or seriously injured.
There are simply too many people getting off with major driver crime by excuse and a good lawyer

[thirdcrank]

... re jurys not convicting. Cant the judge tell them to do so in some sense? ...

No. (the only thing that prevents a jury acquitting a defendant is a plea of "Guilty.")

... Jurys arent a law unto themselves?

What happens in the jury room is normally completely secret so there's nothing to stop them doing pretty much as they like. Just like contributors on an internet forum, they can ignore the evidence and the law and use their own prejudices, experience, whatever to reach a verdict or not. That includes deciding they don't like the idea of convicting somebody of an offence for which the max punishment is a long time in prison, even if that's unlikely to be imposed. Indeed, the only constraint is that 10 out of 12 have to agree, one way or the other: a lot must depend on who has the most forceful personality.

[Stevek76]

Not sure how this is going to help really.

I'd rather they addressed the issuing and enforcement of driving bans.

Issuing of bans needs to be moved to a separate body, preferably renamed to having your license revoked/suspended. For a start, having to have it done by a court and calling it a ban plays up to the whole driving being a 'right' rather than a 'privilege'.

But also it means dangerous folk can be removed from the road without (necessarily) dumping a criminal record on them. Suspensions should be mandatory in (say) collisions where the driver is at fault and any reasonably serious injury has resulted (ie not whipcash).

[Tangled Metal]

All roast users should be treated equally. Kill through your decisions then a lengthy prison sentence not 2 years.

BTW that's just to point out that the opinion of certain ppl is as above for car drivers but they'll argue the earth if the killer is a cyclist. Alliston anyone? I never heard someone like utility cyclist arguing Alliston should get life but he killed through actions he could have changed.

If utility cyclist and others arguing for life for cyclist killers (as rare as they might be) then I'll listen to their views on motorists.

As far as my opinions go on this toughening of sentencing goes... Well it's unlikely to lead to that many life sentences IMHO. It's a political gesture that probably won't get far in reality.

As someone said enforcement, at whatever that cost be, is the only way to prevent deaths due to driving (cycling is a special case). Deterrents don't really work I reckon. Just how many murders happen in America despite all their hanging judges? You really need to change minds and do it at early in ppl's offending as possible.