Cycling UK Forum

irc wrote:

beardy wrote:Yes 82,000 men and only 4,000 women in UK prisons. They really should send her down long term just to improve the levels of female participation.
Being middle class and white should help improve the equality of opportunity stats a bit too.

Equality only applies in certain areas though. I see no campaign to increase the disgracefully low number of male primary school teachers. A place where kids from single parent households could see good role models.

Some incentives that have been put in place to encourage closing this discrepancy here: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/reco ... ill-needed

iviehoff wrote:Actually they already do a bit of that. I think incarceration rates of women are higher in relation to conviction rates than for men, and also more likely to be imprisoned for first offences. T

I'd be interested if you had a source for that.

The chart of page 13 at

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... s-2013.pdf

... shows that for offenders sentenced for indictable offences at all courts in 2013 28% of men got immediate custody while for woman it was 15%.

The next chart below shows that for various offences men got on average longer sentences.

irc wrote:I'd be interested if you had a source for that.
The chart of page 13 at
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... s-2013.pdf
... shows that for offenders sentenced for indictable offences at all courts in 2013 28% of men got immediate custody while for woman it was 15%.
The next chart below shows that for various offences men got on average longer sentences.

The source was my memory of something I saw once, and I admit my memory is increasingly faulty. The difficulty lies in comparing outcomes for equivalent seriousness of offences: the source I have a vague memory was when comparing like with like, because even within the class of people convicted of ABH, there are wide variations in seriousness of the offence, and offences committed by women are likely to be on average substantially less serious.

The following text preceding Fig 6.08 of your source suggests that there may be something behind what I remembered. This part of the report is considering adjustments to sentence for indicators of seriousness. There we see, within public order and assault offences, women are on average given rather smaller discounts to sentence for indicators of lower seriousness of offence (though for indicators of greater serious there is no clear difference). Clearly the last sentence of the extract is not inconsistent with this, because it cat be that on average the seriousness was much lower.

"For assault and public order offences, where factors associated with reduced seriousness, lesser harm and lower culpability had been ticked, the custody rate was lower than the overall custody rate. The custody rate was higher than the overall custody rate for those with factors associated with increased seriousness, greater harm and higher culpability ticked on their form.
For most factors relating to reduced seriousness, the difference between the custody rate for each factor and the overall custody rate was larger for males than females. For example, the custody rate for females who were the sole/primary carer to dependent relatives had a custody rate that was 12 percentage points lower than the overall custody rate, whereas the custody rate for males was 29 percentage points lower. However, the custody rate for males was still higher than the custody rate for females overall."

iviehoff wrote:This part of the report is considering adjustments to sentence for indicators of seriousness. There we see, within public order and assault offences, women are on average given rather smaller discounts to sentence for indicators of lower seriousness of offence (though for indicators of greater serious there is no clear difference). Clearly the last sentence of the extract is not inconsistent with this, because it cat be that on average the seriousness was much lower.

I don't actually have a firm opinion either way. Things may be different in England but in Scotland I have some anecdotal experience of dealing with convicted prisoners of both genders. In general I see no obvious difference in the likelihood of custody. To get the jail you need to either commit a serious crime or have a history of repeated offending where alternative disposals have not worked.

That was assault with a deadly weapon - over 2 tonnes of weapon. She should do serious time and a life time ban on handling "weapons". Since she took the "weapon" with her it could be argued that it was pre-meditated (she bought an Audi Q7 in the belief she would always come off better than if she was in a sports car of the same value) and that would enhance any sentence a lot.

Sadly this latter part is unlikely to happen but as a Q7 driver she cannot claim poverty. Realistically there should be prison time since it has already been shown this was no accident, a life time ban, compensation to the cyclist and the owner of the damaged property, aggravated damages, lifetime driving ban, a fine and all court costs against her. A warning and community service would not suffice.

Report on case on Daily Mail

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... years.html

3 years. Decent jail sentence. For once I think the court got it somewhere about right.

irc wrote:3 years. Decent jail sentence. For once I think the court got it somewhere about right.

I bet she wishes her victim wasn't autistic.

Valbrona wrote:

irc wrote:3 years. Decent jail sentence. For once I think the court got it somewhere about right.

I bet she wishes her victim wasn't autistic.

Quite, in fact the 3 years is at the lowest of the tariff range for GBH with intent, with a starting point of 4 years (otherwise if a cat2 starting point of 6 years and minimum sentence of 5 it must be a Cat 3 starting point) she got off bloody lightly IMHO
There were several aggravating factors, the fact she was caught lying about the incident & tried blaming a mechanical fault should have got a bit more IMO, also the 4 year ban is a joke too