Desperately sad case.....

[reohn2]

In brief:

A system of detention for public protection was introduced whereby in addition to any punitive element of the sentence, a defendant could be detained virtually indefinitely. (for details of the sentencing régime itself see my link.)

Warboys was dealt with and convicted on several charges, sufficient at that time in the well-known phrase or saying for the key to be thrown away.

He was suspected of a lot of other similar offences for which at that time there was no public interest in bringing more charges. eg It's worth remembering in this context that a lot of victims of rape don't relish giving evidence and that's all additional to the cost of having a series of jury trials.

It was decided that this type of sentence should be abolished, so the outstanding question was what to do with those inside and subject to it. One example that comes to mind is IIRC, somebody sentenced for something relatively minor who was still in prison after ten years and counting.

I get the impression that it was decided that the general thrust would be to let them all go ASAP. To coin a phrase, the lost key had been found. Remember also that no matter how evil we "know" anybody to be, they have individual rights, one of which is to have their case looked at individually.

Firstly I'm not in favour of a lock 'em up and lose the key system of justice.That said there are some people who aren't fit to live at large in society.
My understanding of the Warboys case is that there has been a failure of both police investigation ie; believing they had enough to keep him locked up,which was based on monatory pressures on the police force ,and a failure of the prison/parole system in that they were hoodwinked into thinking this man was a reformed character because of the failure of the police to peruse all claims ĺeveled against him.
As a result he very nearly was freed on licence,and indeed may still be.
Getting back to the OP,leaving aside his accomplice and passenger,who IMO FWIW as I stated up thread,is as bad as the driver.
The driver already had a long as your arm,30 offences conviction rate and so had proved his inability to be at large safely in the community,he then kills two small children and as a result,their father unable to cope with the loss kills himself.
For that crime the driver is handed down a 9year sentence,which with good behaviour he could be out on licence in 4 years time.
This is a multiply convicted criminal,drug addict by all accounts,who cares nought for the society he lives in,IMO that society should,for it's own sake reject his liberty for a much longer period than 9 years.
It should also be putting money and resources into rehabilitation of offenders rather than locking them up in rat infested prisons more a kin to medieval dungeons,where drugs are freely available and offenders come out worse than when they went in.
I suspect we sing from the same hymn sheet on this.

[thirdcrank]

My first point would be what I posted and has now been quoted in full was intended only to explain my comment about moving the goalposts.

There is some history to this type of approach. Perhaps the most obvious is the life sentence, which in England and Wales generally involves release on licence at some point. It's worth remembering that there was a prolonged power struggle between politicians and the eventual victors, the judges, over who should make the decision. There have been other examples of preventive detention in the past.

The main point from what I've already posted about detention for the public protection which seems to have been missed is this:-

We've been there quite recently and it's been decided it didn't work.
(My emphasis.)

[pwa]

My first point would be what I posted and has now been quoted in full was intended only to explain my comment about moving the goalposts.

There is some history to this type of approach. Perhaps the most obvious is the life sentence, which in England and Wales generally involves release on licence at some point. It's worth remembering that there was a prolonged power struggle between politicians and the eventual victors, the judges, over who should make the decision. There have been other examples of preventive detention in the past.

The main point from what I've already posted about detention for the public protection which seems to have been missed is this:-

We've been there quite recently and it's been decided it didn't work.
(My emphasis.)

It has to be made to work, though. The alternative would be Capital Punishment, which I personally would find completely unacceptable due to the inevitability of miscarriages of justice. A posthumous pardon never seems a satisfactory way of saying sorry.

[dobbo800]

I'm not in favour of the 'throw away the key' approach to sentencing. I believe everyone has a right to review.

However...it seems to me there are too many cases where the victim (usually dead) and their family do not receive fair justice. I don't know what the answer is, I really don't.

This particular case caught my eye because it shows, in stark reality, the wide-ranging consequences of dangerous driving. Far too many people treat poor driving and driving offences as trivial and 'just one of those things'. A good example of this is the recent case where a young child was run down, twice, on the pavement by a driver of a van and killed. The jury, incredibly, found him not guilty of dangerous driving and he walked away. This verdict shocked me to the core. How can anyone who drives on the payment and kills a child (or anyone) not be found guilty of dangerous driving? The verdict, and the jury's attitude, beggars belief. I'll shut up now.

[thirdcrank]

I'm not making myself clear (about preventive detention.) The mandatory life sentence replaced capital punishment for murder and is still in force after changes which mainly removed decisionmaking from the Home Secretary.

Perhaps the most basic point is that it's almost impossible to say with any certainty that someone will never again present some sort of danger to society.

Beyond that a lot of sentencing policy is illusory and that's nothing new.

Another point is that public opinion is fickle and it cannot be right that individual cases are decided by media pressure. That cuts both ways.

I've never taken much interest in sentencing so I'm not the best person to explain it, and I'd not attempt to defend it.

"Human rights" tend to be second only to Elfin Safety. Here's something on the subject of preventive detention published by the ECHR. Although the title refers to Ireland, they don't have preventive detention there so it's a discussion of other jurisdictions.
http://humanrights.ie/civil-liberties/p ... -the-echr/

[atlas_shrugged]

It is time to make the key required to drive a vehicle belong to the person and not the car. Think of it like a driving licence built into a key fob.

Any previous offences result in automatic removal of driving entitlement either by physically removing the fob or by putting it on a blacklist. Each car then grants usage permission to specific individual or fobs to use the car. Fobs may be required to authenticate via finger prints.

Job done.

[thirdcrank]

... This particular case caught my eye because it shows, in stark reality, the wide-ranging consequences of dangerous driving. Far too many people treat poor driving and driving offences as trivial and 'just one of those things'. A good example of this is the recent case where a young child was run down, twice, on the pavement by a driver of a van and killed. The jury, incredibly, found him not guilty of dangerous driving and he walked away. This verdict shocked me to the core. How can anyone who drives on the payment and kills a child (or anyone) not be found guilty of dangerous driving? The verdict, and the jury's attitude, beggars belief. I'll shut up now.

Perhaps the fundamental problem is not preventing bad driving. (Easier said than done of course.)

In the case of Robert Brown in your link, we've not seen the judge's sentencing comments but as the max is 14 years and he's entitled to a discount for pleading guilty, that must go some way to explaining the sentence. This is from your link:

A request has been made to the Attorney General's office asking for Brown's sentence to be considered under the unduly lenient sentence scheme.

Perhaps we'll hear more. Or not.

Unless we scrap trial by jury altogether, we are stuck with their verdicts. One of the big things claimed about jury verdicts by their supporters is that they reflect current social values.

[Cunobelin]

There are systems already in place that could easily be adapted.

In certain cases you can be released "on licence" which imposes strict conditions. Break those and you are back inside.

Many driving offences such as no licence, no insurance, driving whilst banned can be incorporated under present legislation

IN an extreme case there is "parole" A Life Sentence is just that. They may be out, but until they die they are under strict conditions. Any breach and back inside.

Guys like the driver in the original post could easily have a situation imposed where any motoring offence results in a return to jail

I cannot state for certain, but I do wonder if 30 spells behind bars would have solved the problem of repeat offences

[Cunobelin]

In brief:

A system of detention for public protection was introduced whereby in addition to any punitive element of the sentence, a defendant could be detained virtually indefinitely. (for details of the sentencing régime itself see my link.)

Warboys was dealt with and convicted on several charges, sufficient at that time in the well-known phrase or saying for the key to be thrown away.

He was suspected of a lot of other similar offences for which at that time there was no public interest in bringing more charges. eg It's worth remembering in this context that a lot of victims of rape don't relish giving evidence and that's all additional to the cost of having a series of jury trials.

It was decided that this type of sentence should be abolished, so the outstanding question was what to do with those inside and subject to it. One example that comes to mind is IIRC, somebody sentenced for something relatively minor who was still in prison after ten years and counting.

I get the impression that it was decided that the general thrust would be to let them all go ASAP. To coin a phrase, the lost key had been found. Remember also that no matter how evil we "know" anybody to be, they have individual rights, one of which is to have their case looked at individually.

The relevant philosophical question here is how we balance the rights of the detained person against the right of the public to be safe. I'm only talking about very serious offences such as rape, extreme violence, etc. I believe we have to put the safety of the public first. I expect most people would agree with that. If experts cannot say that Warboys is as safe as most people to be out, he should not be out. He has forfeited that right. We know he was a danger before his arrest and conviction, so we need good reason to think he has changed for the better. Or he stays in.

The problem is that there is a difference in public perception.

Some crimes are generally accepted as wrong and unsafe. However unlike motoring offences, no-one sees performing those crimes as a right.

Take the many examples where Juries have accepted motoring offences because in some ways they see themselves potentially being in the offender and there is a "There, but for the Grace of God" mentality

There are groups that believe women are inferior, and do not see some sexual crimes as serious, but if they promoted their agenda was openly as the speeding lobbies and the Association of Bad Drivers do illegal and dangerous driving there would be an outcry and they would be shut down and prosecuted.

That is where the uphill battle will be, convincing a significant minority of Motorists that their actions are unacceptable and changing public opinion in a way that will allow censure of these groups

[Cyril Haearn]

My first point would be what I posted and has now been quoted in full was intended only to explain my comment about moving the goalposts.

There is some history to this type of approach. Perhaps the most obvious is the life sentence, which in England and Wales generally involves release on licence at some point. It's worth remembering that there was a prolonged power struggle between politicians and the eventual victors, the judges, over who should make the decision. There have been other examples of preventive detention in the past.

The main point from what I've already posted about detention for the public protection which seems to have been missed is this:-

We've been there quite recently and it's been decided it didn't work.
(My emphasis.)

It has to be made to work, though. The alternative would be Capital Punishment, which I personally would find completely unacceptable due to the inevitability of miscarriages of justice. A posthumous pardon never seems a satisfactory way of saying sorry.

Plus One!
Crapital punishment is crap
But what about corporal punishment?

[eileithyia]

It's dreadfully tragic, but also demonstrates how crime impacts on and affects other members of the family, cost both in trauma and long term on going medical care / counselling etc. ..........

Tell me about it,I'm very familiar with such.

I know, but guess so many just continue with their lives following on from reading of a tragedy, with no consideration of how it affects the wider family members... they are not being heartless, just not aware because it does not touch their lives.

[horizon]

Something I would like to see explored is a new crime of supplying a vehicle (selling or lending) to a disqualified driver or providing fuel. A driver should be prevented from owning a vehicle during longer periods of disqualification.

As I have said in previous posts, I think disqualification is an economic and effective punishment, acting as both deterrent and protection of the public. I'm not convinced that it cannot be enforced in 90% of cases. In the case under discussion, prison should have been used earlier for the breaking of the ban while disqualification should have been long term. I don't consider this case really a motoring offence anyway, more one of straightforward manslaughter.

I would also consider it appropriate that driving licences be carried when driving. I just don't think that disqualification is taken seriously as a penalty by anyone, not just the driver.

[pwa]

I cannot understand why getting caught driving whilst banned does not incur an automatic custodial sentence which automatically increases in length for subsequent offences. That at least removes a danger for a while.

[reohn2]

It's dreadfully tragic, but also demonstrates how crime impacts on and affects other members of the family, cost both in trauma and long term on going medical care / counselling etc. ..........

Tell me about it,I'm very familiar with such.

I know, but guess so many just continue with their lives following on from reading of a tragedy, with no consideration of how it affects the wider family members... they are not being heartless, just not aware because it does not touch their lives.

Spot on.

[reohn2]

I cannot understand why getting caught driving whilst banned does not incur an automatic custodial sentence which automatically increases in length for subsequent offences. That at least removes a danger for a while.

We the public have decided through the ballot box that we can't afford prisons or even an effective police force,and as Cunobelin points out the "there but for the grace of god" etc is prevelant in juries across the land.
The law and it's application stinks and will continue to stink until the nettle is firmly grasped