4 years for killing a child

[mercalia]

seems rather lenient as he wont serve 4 years?

if any one was 100% culpable then it was this 72 year old man - told he shouldnt be driving as his eye sight was too bad and wasnt wearing his glasses? should have been life, as he took away a young kiddies who had all hers to live. no justice it seems.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-39325833

[MikeF]

"He told police he was not wearing his glasses and that he had not seen the red light or the crossing itself."
Just what could he see?

[Bez]

Keep an eye on this one, too. I'll be surprised if this ends up as a 4 year jail sentence.
http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liv ... r-12771043
(Remember the national media furore over pavement cycling some time ago? Curiously absent when someone does something similar on four wheels.)

John Place reminds me somewhat of Ronald Finney, who got away rather more lightly, with a £95 fine and no ban for driving into someone and very nearly killing them when he drove with defective eyesight.
http://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/100 ... __95_fine/

[ed_phelan]

This is absolutely shocking and so sad.

[eileithyia]

Might seem lenient but at 72 could probably be a life sentance..... you would have to be a very hard person indeed for the death of a child not to weigh heavily on your conscience... surely????

[thirdcrank]

It would be a start if drivers had to provide evidence of decent eyesight rather than just a self-declaration. Obviously, deteriorating eyesight isn't only an age-related problem but age is a significant factor. From age 70 drivers have to renew their licence every three years and they should be obliged to submit a current eyesight check. No check = no licence. Bearing in mind that pensioners are already entitled to free NHS sight checks, it's not really any extra burden or expense. Placing the onus on the applicant would avoid any concerns about patient confidentiality.

That still wouldn't ensure that spectacles were worn when prescribed, nor would it prevent somebody who knew they would fail a test just bashing on without a licence. There's probably a risk of forgery so some use of computers, on similar lines to the current MOT system would be feasible.

[pwa]

The punishment will be terrible if that bloke has not been to prison before. Add to it the shame of what he has done, and the likelihood that he is finding it difficult to live with himself. It is not a punishment for an intentional murder, but for killing someone because of gross negligence. I feel that the sentence is about right, all things considered. In reality he will not return to normal life even after his release.

[reohn2]

Might seem lenient but at 72 could probably be a life sentance..... you would have to be a very hard person indeed for the death of a child not to weigh heavily on your conscience... surely????

Whilst I agree about the sentence due to his age(though let's not forget he'll most likely be released after about 18months),though he should certainly never be allowed to drive ever again.
But TBH had he been middle aged I doubt the sentence would've been much harsher and could even have been less if he'd had dependents and good sob story.

This is surely a case of unlawful killing by motor vehicle and brings into question such offences and how they're viewed by the law as it stands.I'm of the opinion killing others by whatever means should be graded from murder one in the extreme,with perhaps 5 to 7 steps inbetween to unlawful killing by accident with appropriate sentencing guidelines.
This incident would be somewhere in the middle of that spectrum as it wasn't an accident.It had a cause which was the driver not being capable of driving by his own knowledge and impediment,he knew what equipment he needed to drive safely but chose not to use that equipment.

IMHO the law simply hasn't enough deterrent because the penalties across the board for motor crime simply are nowhere near harsh enough whether people are injured or not,and with far too much waggle room for lawyers to get people off with sob stories and claims of livelihood being threatened,etc,etc.

In the circumstances of this case you'd have to be incredibly stupid and moronic in the extreme to drive without being able to see and as a result he deserves everything he gets because of that,and I have no sympathy for him.
This moron didn't intend to kill anyone the day he drove blind,but by the same token he didn't intend seeing where he was going either.

[reohn2]

The punishment will be terrible if that bloke has not been to prison before. Add to it the shame of what he has done, and the likelihood that he is finding it difficult to live with himself. It is not a punishment for an intentional murder, but for killing someone because of gross negligence. I feel that the sentence is about right, all things considered. In reality he will not return to normal life even after his release.

Nor will the family of the child he killed until,I can vouch for that by experience.

[pwa]

R2 is right about the bloke being an idiot. And his idiocy and lack of care have brought devastation to a family.

Sentencing-wise it is a difficult one. It is not murder, because he did not actually want to kill someone. It is a form of gross negligence. The risk he was taking with the lives of other people was so great that we judge it to be a crime.

I think four years is sufficient as a deterrent in that anyone not deterred by a four year sentence is unlikely to be deterred by a ten year sentence. If it were me in the dock, the knowledge that my carelessness had killed a child and brought grief to a family would be the main punishment. The sense of shame would be another. Being found guilty of any crime would be a severe blow to me, and any prison sentence would be a big thing. My suffering would not end with my sentence.

[pwa]

The punishment will be terrible if that bloke has not been to prison before. Add to it the shame of what he has done, and the likelihood that he is finding it difficult to live with himself. It is not a punishment for an intentional murder, but for killing someone because of gross negligence. I feel that the sentence is about right, all things considered. In reality he will not return to normal life even after his release.

Nor will the family of the child he killed until,I can vouch for that by experience.

No, of course not. My point is just that this man, idiot though he is, will be serving a sort of sentence for the rest of his life, so we don't have to worry too much about him having "got off lightly". Unless he is a psychopath with no conscience.

[reohn2]

No, of course not. My point is just that this man, idiot though he is, will be serving a sort of sentence for the rest of his life, so we don't have to worry too much about him having "got off lightly".

My point is that whatever his suffering for his negligence might be,it will be nowhere near the suffering of the innocent family on who he's brought this upon.
His suffering,lifelong or otherwise,is entirely his fault and his alone,not so the loss for the victims of his negligence or the young life taken.
TBH I tire of reading about how harsh life is for the perpetrator and not for the victim,he was wrong to do what he did,and damn well knew he was wrong whilst doing it.
This case is gross negligence as you posted previously,gross negligence that's cost a young life and all the consequences attached to it,that family will never see their child grow up,go to school,get a job,fall in love,enjoy life like other children will,it was all cut off at the moment this happened,the shock alone can almost kill you!
It is simply too painful to explain the consequences of such a loss.

Unless he is a psychopath with no conscience.

There's no checks to prove he isn't though is there?

My previous post mentions leniency of sentencing attached to motor crime it's that leniency and a total lack effective policing that allows such situations and cases like this to continue IMHO.

[pwa]

No, of course not. My point is just that this man, idiot though he is, will be serving a sort of sentence for the rest of his life, so we don't have to worry too much about him having "got off lightly".

My point is that whatever his suffering for his negligence might be,it will be nowhere near the suffering of the innocent family on who he's brought this upon.
His suffering,lifelong or otherwise,is entirely his fault and his alone,not so the loss for the victims of his negligence or the young life taken.
TBH I tire of reading about how harsh life is for the perpetrator and not for the victim,he was wrong to do what he did,and damn well knew he was wrong whilst doing it.
This case is gross negligence as you posted previously,gross negligence that's cost a young life and all the consequences attached to it,that family will never see their child grow up,go to school,get a job,fall in love,enjoy life like other children will,it was all cut off at the moment this happened,the shock alone can almost kill you!
It is simply too painful to explain the consequences of such a loss.

Unless he is a psychopath with no conscience.

There's no checks to prove he isn't though is there?

My previous post mentions leniency of sentencing attached to motor crime it's that leniency and a total lack effective policing that allows such situations and cases like this to continue IMHO.

I agree with all of that. The only thing that I would add is that if I were responsible for killing a child in that way I would not care too much one way or the other about the sentence. My real sentence would have begun already. I have seen some of what that guilt and remorse does to people when they are responsible for a death. It is a kind of natural punishment, and just like the torment of the victim's family it is lifelong.

[Si]

I've no doubt that it will play on his mind for the rest of his life, but the sentence has to be a mix of punishment and deterrent. Relying on someone to have a guilty conscience doesn't really act as a deterrent. And even if the sentence handed out was larger we still need to do more to catch those who think nothing of flaunting any law that may stand in the way of their god given right to drive, as even a death sentence won't put people off if they know there is no chance of getting caught. But in a right thinking society we shouldn't have to catch such people as social responsibility ought to stop them doing it in the first place.

Although I might be biased in this case as it was just up the road from me (TBFTGOGGI), and I work with someone whose child was at nursery with Poppy, and was meant to be at the party with her so I'm seeing how the suffering ripples outwards.

[pwa]

I've no doubt that it will play on his mind for the rest of his life, but the sentence has to be a mix of punishment and deterrent. Relying on someone to have a guilty conscience doesn't really act as a deterrent. And even if the sentence handed out was larger we still need to do more to catch those who think nothing of flaunting any law that may stand in the way of their god given right to drive, as even a death sentence won't put people off if they know there is no chance of getting caught. But in a right thinking society we shouldn't have to catch such people as social responsibility ought to stop them doing it in the first place.

Although I might be biased in this case as it was just up the road from me (TBFTGOGGI), and I work with someone whose child was at nursery with Poppy, and was meant to be at the party with her so I'm seeing how the suffering ripples outwards.

You are right to say that social responsibility ought to have prevented this. I wonder what made this man think it was okay to drive with inadequate eyesight.