A cyclist and real justice

[Oldjohnw]

It seems that some think that the word 'justice' actually means 'the most severe, excessive and cruel punishment you can devise'.

[mercalia]

tit for tat.

[pjclinch]

Would a gun owner who lost their temper and injured someone with their gun ever get a gun licence again?

Ben Goldacre tweeted to that general effect yesterday, and I agree with him. https://twitter.com/bengoldacre/status/1171812352762757121?s=20

Motor vehicles are useful tools that, in the wrong hands, cause death and mayhem. They should be kept out of the wrong hands, and the man concerned here is very much the wrong hands.

Pete.

[reohn2]

IMO anyone who has a 12month or more driving ban imposed on them should have to resit their driving test and should then have a probationary period of two years without conviction otherwise the ban is repeated.
Resiting the test would be a real handicap at this driver's age,along with a very heavy fine and confiscation of the 'weapon' would be enough rehab.

[Oldjohnw]

IMO anyone who has a 12month or more driving ban imposed on them should have to resit their driving test and should then have a probationary period of two years without conviction otherwise the ban is repeated.
Resiting the test would be a real handicap at this driver's age,along with a very heavy fine and confiscation of the 'weapon' would be enough rehab.

I agree. Punishment for the sake of it is pretty pointless but hitting where the lessons need to be learned will properly educate: if the lessons are not learned, no licence.

[The utility cyclist]

Hull prison, medium security usually for offenders more than 4 year sentences. It's irrelevant though, the sentence was incredibly lenient given the crime, the 15 month driving ban is also a joke

Not irrelevant in this sense: revenge is a poor substitute for justice. Putting a loon in a school for loons is not such a good way to achieve reform, either. Even in that fulminating gimmer, recidivism is possible. And, as another has mentioned, there's the cost.

Personally I feel those who are irresponsible need to be taught responsibility. This doesn't happen in the clink but rather in social scenarios where the irresponsible one is forced and encouraged to be responsible, so ....

Five years compulsory working in those institutions wherein those at the end of life, unable to cope mentally & physically (perhaps because run over by a car loon). Daily travel thereto via any mode of transport other than a car. If the offending loon was also well off financially, make him not-so and donate the money to those same institutions.

**********

Perhaps you might consider calming down now and then, which may enable a less emotive mode of consideration concerning means & ways to deal with road rage. Having lock-'em-up rage is not a good state of mind in which to consider these issues perhaps?

Cugel

How is getting the sentence the law says he should 'revenge'? For one he's already been charged with a lesser offence the law says he committed, he's been given an unduly lenient sentence according to what the law says the starting/max tariff should be for such a violent act on a minor, remember this is a child he has attacked, and they've been affected mentally too as the lad has said he doesn't want to cycle anymore through fear.

The correct prison sentence sends out a message that others will be dealt with to the extent of the law, it's putting someone out of the way of society so that they can do no harm, have their freedom removed and time to have a real hard think about not just what they've done that has resulted in having their freedom removed but also how they go about their life when they leave.

Maybe you think someone who uses their motor to chase down a girl and rapes them should also be given a lenient sentence and not have the correct charges applied, what aboout a murderer, armed robber, arsonists? Where does it stop being about applying correct and appropriate sentences and in your opinion about revenge?

Do you think a slap on the wrist is enough to make others think, do you think prosecuting to a lesser charge and lenient sentencing is helping or hinder the crime in our country? We've already seen a decrease in charges/prison sentences and dangerous driving especially 'death by' being reduced to careless and the negative outcome from that, well?

[The utility cyclist]

It seems that some think that the word 'justice' actually means 'the most severe, excessive and cruel punishment you can devise'.

And yet the criminal got a downgraded charge and the lowest sentence possible despite the aggravating factors against a minor, don't start imagining what others think because you're wrong. The most severe would have been life imprisonment for a S18 wounding with intent, even a S20 is 5 years maximum, the judge gave the criminal the least that he could and clearly ignored the aggravating factors/intent and what the tariff/law says he should have been handing out which was a lot more than 6 months.

So frankly your 'thinking' of what others think is massively off the mark!

[mattheus]

Personally I am not so interested in prison sentences , though he deserves it , they are expensive and do little good . Its the ban that gets me. It should be a life ban in these situations not 18 months , driving is not a human right . If you cannot control yourself it should be a life ban , after all there is still public transport , uber , bikes and electric bikes.

Don't forget that it's harder to drive when you're in prison, than when you're out but are banned!

(I also think that a period in prison will make more of a lasting impression, than a period without a car.)

[Cugel]

Hull prison, medium security usually for offenders more than 4 year sentences. It's irrelevant though, the sentence was incredibly lenient given the crime, the 15 month driving ban is also a joke

Not irrelevant in this sense: revenge is a poor substitute for justice. Putting a loon in a school for loons is not such a good way to achieve reform, either. Even in that fulminating gimmer, recidivism is possible. And, as another has mentioned, there's the cost.

Personally I feel those who are irresponsible need to be taught responsibility. This doesn't happen in the clink but rather in social scenarios where the irresponsible one is forced and encouraged to be responsible, so ....

Five years compulsory working in those institutions wherein those at the end of life, unable to cope mentally & physically (perhaps because run over by a car loon). Daily travel thereto via any mode of transport other than a car. If the offending loon was also well off financially, make him not-so and donate the money to those same institutions.

**********

Perhaps you might consider calming down now and then, which may enable a less emotive mode of consideration concerning means & ways to deal with road rage. Having lock-'em-up rage is not a good state of mind in which to consider these issues perhaps?

Cugel

How is getting the sentence the law says he should 'revenge'? For one he's already been charged with a lesser offence the law says he committed, he's been given an unduly lenient sentence according to what the law says the starting tariff should be for such a violent act on a minor, remember this is a child he has attacked, and they've been affected mentally too as the lad has said he doesn't want to cycle anymore through fear.

That all sounds like revenge to me. Justice as" eye for an eye". And our punishment system has evolved as a revengeful system, out of one that was rather worse in its infancy, when hanging, drawing and quartering were all the rage. Would you bring back those as a deterrent then? Perhaps just the hanging and a bit of birching?

The correct prison sentence sends out a message that you will be dealt with to the extent of the law, it's putting someone out of the way of society so that they can do no harm, have their freedom removed and time to have a real hard think about not just what they've done that has resulted in having their freedom removed but also how they go about their life when they leave.

That's a good argument - if that was what our prisons did. They don't do that. They subject the inmates to a revengeful degradation that, if it teaches them any lessons, will worsen their behaviour when they get out, not improve it. As to the idea that it will put off blokes like the fellow in question - not likely, as such crimes are spur-of-the-moment unthinking emotional paroxysms that do not include the measured consideration of the possible consequence of gaol et al.

Maybe you think someone who uses their motor to chase down a girl and rapes them should also be given a lenient sentence and not have the correct charges applied, what aboout a murderer, armed robber, arsonists? Where does it stop being about applying correct and appropriate sentences and in your opinion about revenge?

In my opinion, those who commit offenses of a dangerous or (potentially) lethal kind can't be all lumped into one single type.

If someone is truly dangerous and obviously unreformable, they should be locked away for as long as they're like that. No need to additionally punish them with incarceration in some hell-hole where they themselves are likely to be raped, maimed and murdered, though. (You might as well just bring back medieval torture). I know it would make you feel better but that's an emotional problem you have, not a solution to criminal behaviour.

My suggestion for this fellow is that he should be taught responsibility by being forced to work for those who he has actually or potentially harmed (see my original response). Five years forced labour in the service of society and victims of crimes like his, with no further access to a car, ever, seems a better way to achieve reform & retribution.

Do you think a slap on the wrist is enough to make others think, do you think prosecuting to a lesser charge and lenient sentencing is helping or hinder the crime in our country? We've already seen a decrease in charges/prison sentences and dangerous driving especially 'death by' being reduced to careless and the negative outcome from that, well?

"Pwison works" eh? For a few, it does - although the humanitarian Norwegian model seems very much more effective than the British model. For most, British prisons are a means to induce suicide, or to come to serious physical and mental harm ... and then emerge far more disaffected and likely to commit criminal behaviour than when they went in. It costs all of us those amplified emergent criminals, as well as a lot of dosh to run the revenge regime. There are far better methods to discourage and reduce crime.

One method would be for those in authrotity to stop acting like criminals themselves - and getting away with the spoils, unfettered, perhaps even admired by elements of the public (generally known as "the mob").

Cugel

[Oldjohnw]

It seems that some think that the word 'justice' actually means 'the most severe, excessive and cruel punishment you can devise'.

And yet the criminal got a downgraded charge and the lowest sentence possible despite the aggravating factors against a minor, don't start imagining what others think because you're wrong. The most severe would have been life imprisonment for a S18 wounding with intent, even a S20 is 5 years maximum, the judge gave the criminal the least that he could and clearly ignored the aggravating factors/intent and what the tariff/law says he should have been handing out which was a lot more than 6 months.

So frankly your 'thinking' of what others think is massively off the mark!

I:m not against prison sentences for crimes of violence and this was such. I was really responding to those who appeared to think that prison was a soft option. It isn't; it's hell. The punishment part of a sentence, yes, but pretty pointless in terms of changing behaviour.

[belgiangoth]

6 months for a brutal assault with a deadly weapon, hardly 'real' justice! :twisted:

Worth noting that if you have a drink and then attack someone on the way out of a pub that's about the sentence you'll get ... if you're unlucky.

[The utility cyclist]

6 months for a brutal assault with a deadly weapon, hardly 'real' justice! :twisted:

Worth noting that if you have a drink and then attack someone on the way out of a pub that's about the sentence you'll get ... if you're unlucky.

That's not the same and you know it, he used a deadly weapon to first intimidate/attack and then he chased down his victim, who let's not forget was not an adult at the time of the attack, and then assaulted him, lied in court and pleaded not guilty stating he'd done nothing wrong.

[belgiangoth]

Killer drunk drivers will often get off without prison time due to "remorse". If you "accidentally" beat to death the guy trying to steal your motorbike you will probably get suspended. That's the system we live in because to change it we would need to spend more money on Prisons (which means more tax for all, or less money for the NHS or schools) which is not a vote winner (let alone proper funding for changing the behaviour of criminals and rehabilitation to reduce reoffending).

Yes, I think he got off lightly. I think he should have had his license revoked and have to retake it after five years (good luck at 74), I think he should have had an 18 month sentence so that he would actually serve the 6 he got handed down, I think he should have paid a fine in the region of £10k + court costs (he did smash a £2.5 k bike). But I have to accept that he got commensurate punishment when compared with other violent criminals.