Brighton cyclist jailed

[bovlomov]

At zoos we lock up dangerous animals permanently, so why ever let dangerous people free?

Presumably because it's very difficult to know if someone is dangerous. Where should the line be drawn? If everyone with potential to be violent is locked up then there'll be very few people not in prison. If all people who have been violent are locked up then we'll have to build dozens of new prisons.

Oh, and something about redemption and forgiveness (because we are nominally a Christian country).

The problem here (about which we have only the sketchiest information) might be that he was mistakenly deemed to be safe, it could be that he has been let down by the system, it could be that he's pure evil. Or a combination of these things.

Incidentally, we lock up permanently a lot of animal that are not dangerous.

[meic]

If it is too much trouble to lock everybody up then we could just execute them instead.

Just one slight drawback in that execution is a pretty violent act and this could spiral out of control.

[pete75]

I suspect this chap would have been fine if he'd taken his prescibed medication.

[Nutsey]

Having been listening to Dark Side of the Moon, I reckon the line is drawn between the grass and the path, and this lunatic was trusted not to walk on the grass. If you trust them to keep on the path when they have lunatic tendencies, before you know it they're in your home ... or is it YOU thats the lunatic? The moon can eclipse the sun now and then, even the sanest of people.

Still reckon he should be locked up tho

[thirdcrank]

It's hard to see that the sentence of 18 months imprisonment achieves anything. With /remission / early release or whatever - I'm not up-to-date with the current arrangements - he'll be out (probably unders some form of tagging and or supervision) relatively quickly. So, any idea of imprisonment for public protection hardly applies and any judiscial recognition that a life has been taken seems to put a small value on the deceased. I don't know how much the threat of imprisonment deters people with a short fuse - not much, I suspect - but a perception of a short sentence will be less of a deterrent. OTOH, it's long enough to lose a job, disrupt home life, get to meet plenty of baddies and so on. All at significant cost.

[blackbike]

At zoos we lock up dangerous animals permanently, so why ever let dangerous people free?

Presumably because it's very difficult to know if someone is dangerous. Where should the line be drawn? If everyone with potential to be violent is locked up then there'll be very few people not in prison. If all people who have been violent are locked up then we'll have to build dozens of new prisons.

Oh, and something about redemption and forgiveness (because we are nominally a Christian country).

The problem here (about which we have only the sketchiest information) might be that he was mistakenly deemed to be safe, it could be that he has been let down by the system, it could be that he's pure evil. Or a combination of these things.

Incidentally, we lock up permanently a lot of animal that are not dangerous.

Well, we know this man is dangerous now so why not lock him up and throw away the key?

As for forgiveness, I don't think he needs forgiving if he's such a nutter he can't really help what he does, but that's all the more reason to lock him up for ever so he doesn't kill someone else.

If he can't be trusted to take his drugs why should we trust him with his freedom in 18 months?

[cycle tramp]

Deleted

[Edwards]

As somebody who is very open about his mental health problems. I can state I am not surprised by some of the nonsense I have read.

Did this man have any previous convictions for violence? Or is the idea that anybody who displays any form of violent tendencies should be locked up?

I just love the fact that some have swallowed the defence legal persons statements (who are paid to come up with any idea to get him off), how can you be so certain you have been told the truth?

[thirdcrank]

...with any idea to get him off ....

I don't like to sound as though I'm being facetious about something serious like this, but pleading Guilty is an unusual way of "getting off."

[kuriousoranj]

If he is some kind of psycho who can't be trusted to take his drugs and is liable to lash out at anyone who annoys him why hasn't he been locked up for good in some kind of mental institution where he can't harm anyone else?

Good lord.

Surely most people, at some point in their lives, have punched somebody else, no?

One in four will experience mental health problems themselves. Perhaps the positive aspect of that statistic is that, at some point in your life, you'll change your ill-informed and reactionist viewpoint.

[thelawnet]

If he is some kind of psycho who can't be trusted to take his drugs and is liable to lash out at anyone who annoys him why hasn't he been locked up for good in some kind of mental institution where he can't harm anyone else?

At zoos we lock up dangerous animals permanently, so why ever let dangerous people free?

Because this sort of behaviour is standard for looking at people the wrong way in the pub, let alone being put in danger on the roads. The number of people who punch someone in the head far exceeds the capacity of our prisons and likewise far exceeds the number who die from being punched.

Basically - you can drive dangerously all your life, but if and when you kill someone you will pay a nominal penalty, however the huge number of fellow dangerous drivers will drive on.

Likewise, you can be aggro and violent all your life and as long as you don't kill anyone, very little will happen.

That's just how it goes.

[Edwards]

I don't like to sound as though I'm being facetious about something serious like this, but pleading Guilty is an unusual way of "getting off."

TC he pleaded guilty to a lesser charge so got a reduced sentence. As you say not exactly "getting off", so were his legal team not that good. Or was he not rich enough to afford the ones that would have "got him off". There have been so many cases of footballers etc "getting off" because they have a good barrister and felt "threatened" by their victim that they needed to beat them to a pulp.

Do we know if Psychiatric reports were asked for? or was the mental health thing not believed.

[bovlomov]

Basically - you can drive dangerously all your life, but if and when you kill someone you will pay a nominal penalty, however the huge number of fellow dangerous drivers will drive on.

Likewise, you can be aggro and violent all your life and as long as you don't kill anyone, very little will happen.

The difference in this case was intent. It is little consolation to the cyclist that the driver didn't notice he was passing when he opened the door across his path. The driver's behaviour was much more likely than the cyclist's (over)reaction to cause death or serious injury. If the driver's timing had been slightly different then he might now be in dock accused of manslaughter. If the punch had been slightly different then 'man punches man' wouldn't have made the local press, let alone the BBC. In that respect the cyclist was very unlucky

[thirdcrank]

... TC he pleaded guilty to a lesser charge ...

My understanding is that the charge was always manslaughter. (I don't think there was ever any suggestion that he intended to kill anybody so it could not have been murder.)

He did plead guilty - rather than put everybody to the expense, uncertainty, inconvenience, worry etc involoved with a full trial, where he might possibly have 'got off." (If somebody decides to plead Not Guilty, even in the face of an apparently open and shut case, there is always the possibility that a vital witness will not turn up, or that the jury will see things differently to the legal eagles and acquit. ) It's always been the case that a Guilty plea is likely to attract a lighter sentence: apart from the benefits I've already mentioned, it implies that the defendant accepts their guilt and is sorry. Recently, there has been a more formal recognition that a Guilty plea should attract a discount, although this is on a sliding scale and a defendant who leaves it to the last minute, then admits the offence because there is no way out, gets much less benefit than somebody who puts there hand up at the earliest possible stage.

All defendants are entitled to have their defence and mitigation presented in the way that is most favourable to them. From the reports of the hearing when he pleaded Guilty, there seemed to be general relief and satisfaction that he did so.

[Edwards]

TC I know that you are totally correct in law. The defence in our adversarial system are duty bound to try and introduce any doubt they can for their client. That is without going into total fantasy. Footballers and the rich do seem to be an exception to this basic principle.
The point I am trying to make is the defence team are supposed to use any legal means necessary to "get him off". That is unfortunately the system in the law abiding country.

In his actions as reported he displayed the actions of what is classed as a sane person.

He hit the man once: There was no attempt to enjoy inflicting pain.

He ran away: Thus showing he understood he had done something wrong.

He gave himself up: Only when he had been identified and knew he would be caught.