| Can someone explain the justice system to me 08:11 - Jun 12 with 1893 views | onceablue |
A London bus driver kills a 9 year old girl and seriously injures her brother in front of their family whilst driving a bus under the influence of cannabis.
Gets 4 years in Jail.
Maximum sentence is life imprisonment
|  | | |  |
| Can someone explain the justice system to me on 08:21 - Jun 12 with 1822 views | Zx1988 |
It'll all come down to the particulars of the case, and the sentencing guidelines for that particular offence.
Sentencing guidelines can be found here: https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/crown-court/item/causing-death-by-
Based on the details in the BBC article, I would suggest that the matter was deemed Category B in terms of culpability, which carries with it a starting point of six years' custody, with a range of 4-9 years.
He pled guilty which, if done so at the first available opportunity, will have resulted in an automatic one-third reduction to the sentence. This would bring it down to the four years' reported if there were no further aggravating factors.
The judge has merely followed the sentencing guidelines. [Post edited 12 Jun 8:26]
| |
| |
| Can someone explain the justice system to me on 08:28 - Jun 12 with 1788 views | DJR |
Personally, I've always thought there should be harsher sentences for killing someone when in charge of a motor vehicle.
But the law and sentencing guidelines are what they are. |  | | |
| Can someone explain the justice system to me on 08:33 - Jun 12 with 1766 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Can someone explain the justice system to me on 08:28 - Jun 12 by DJR |
Personally, I've always thought there should be harsher sentences for killing someone when in charge of a motor vehicle.
But the law and sentencing guidelines are what they are. |
The law also recognises the difference between an accident and something intentional. Effects are the same but culpability very different.
As a nation, though, we do need to do far more about people driving under the influence of drigs, and especially cannabis which has become so commonplace as to be virtually accepted. | | | |
| Can someone explain the justice system to me on 08:36 - Jun 12 with 1746 views | DJR |
| Can someone explain the justice system to me on 08:33 - Jun 12 by redrickstuhaart |
The law also recognises the difference between an accident and something intentional. Effects are the same but culpability very different.
As a nation, though, we do need to do far more about people driving under the influence of drigs, and especially cannabis which has become so commonplace as to be virtually accepted. |
To my mind though, its being accidental could be said to make it worse because it needn't have happened. That is certainly the angle I come from. | | | |
| Can someone explain the justice system to me on 09:01 - Jun 12 with 1615 views | BloomBlue |
The law on drink/drug driving has been an ass for years.
It should be manslaughter by default.
The arguement is its accidental, not deliberate. That's a load of b0llocks. The person consuming the drink/drugs has deliberately consumed them and then deliberately got into the vehicle and drove it.
I know one case where the drunk driver had been drinking all day and taking drugs, then got into a car drove it like a maniac, smashed into another car and killed the driver of the other car, a 23 year lad, and was only given 6 year jail sentence.
Made worse by the fact that drunk/drug driver had only recently got his license back after losing it for previous drunk driving. Losing his license should have been classed as a form of reform, re-educate himself on the dangers of drink/drug driving.
But nope, none of that, he does it again, and a young lad never gets the chance to live his life. That should be manslaughter minimum. |  | | |
| Can someone explain the justice system to me on 09:14 - Jun 12 with 1567 views | Zx1988 |
| Can someone explain the justice system to me on 09:01 - Jun 12 by BloomBlue |
The law on drink/drug driving has been an ass for years.
It should be manslaughter by default.
The arguement is its accidental, not deliberate. That's a load of b0llocks. The person consuming the drink/drugs has deliberately consumed them and then deliberately got into the vehicle and drove it.
I know one case where the drunk driver had been drinking all day and taking drugs, then got into a car drove it like a maniac, smashed into another car and killed the driver of the other car, a 23 year lad, and was only given 6 year jail sentence.
Made worse by the fact that drunk/drug driver had only recently got his license back after losing it for previous drunk driving. Losing his license should have been classed as a form of reform, re-educate himself on the dangers of drink/drug driving.
But nope, none of that, he does it again, and a young lad never gets the chance to live his life. That should be manslaughter minimum. |
It's just a semantic difference, though. Death by Dangerous Driving is merely, for sentencing purposes, a different flavour of manslaughter.
Look at the sentencing guidelines here for Unlawful Act Manslaughter:
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/crown-court/item/unlawful-act-mans
I would suggest that this would be a Category C offence at most, which carries an almost identical tariff to DBDD as discussed above. [Post edited 12 Jun 9:15]
| |
| |
| Can someone explain the justice system to me on 09:29 - Jun 12 with 1489 views | blueasfook |
| Can someone explain the justice system to me on 09:14 - Jun 12 by Zx1988 |
It's just a semantic difference, though. Death by Dangerous Driving is merely, for sentencing purposes, a different flavour of manslaughter.
Look at the sentencing guidelines here for Unlawful Act Manslaughter:
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/crown-court/item/unlawful-act-mans
I would suggest that this would be a Category C offence at most, which carries an almost identical tariff to DBDD as discussed above. [Post edited 12 Jun 9:15]
|
I think people understand the sentencing guidelines. What doesn't seem proportionate are the sentences given out to people who kill others in cars, epecially when under the influence of drink or drugs. Do you think the family of the girl killed feel justice has been served? [Post edited 12 Jun 9:30]
|  |
| |
| Can someone explain the justice system to me on 09:38 - Jun 12 with 1397 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Can someone explain the justice system to me on 09:29 - Jun 12 by blueasfook |
I think people understand the sentencing guidelines. What doesn't seem proportionate are the sentences given out to people who kill others in cars, epecially when under the influence of drink or drugs. Do you think the family of the girl killed feel justice has been served? [Post edited 12 Jun 9:30]
|
But the guidelines don’t make the distinction you’re claiming. If there is no intention to cause harm, it meets the lower culpability bracket irrespective of whether a car is involved or not. So I’m not convinced people do understand the sentencing guidelines (why would we? What nutter goes around reading them for fun other than to understand posts on TWTD?).
(Edit. I imagine the family feel they’ve been sold short of justice and I’ve some sympathy with them on that point) [Post edited 12 Jun 9:40]
|  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Can someone explain the justice system to me on 09:43 - Jun 12 with 1360 views | textbackup |
| Can someone explain the justice system to me on 08:28 - Jun 12 by DJR |
Personally, I've always thought there should be harsher sentences for killing someone when in charge of a motor vehicle.
But the law and sentencing guidelines are what they are. |
ESPECIALLY if under the influence of anything that could prevent you being 100% focused.
My dad gave me the biggest lecture when I passed my test, about a car being the most dangers piece of equipment I’ll ever be in control of. To the point it was burnt in my brain. Even now, aged 40, he’ll remind me how dangerous cars are! |  |
| |
| Can someone explain the justice system to me on 09:47 - Jun 12 with 1341 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Can someone explain the justice system to me on 09:43 - Jun 12 by textbackup |
ESPECIALLY if under the influence of anything that could prevent you being 100% focused.
My dad gave me the biggest lecture when I passed my test, about a car being the most dangers piece of equipment I’ll ever be in control of. To the point it was burnt in my brain. Even now, aged 40, he’ll remind me how dangerous cars are! |
I think in your case, a keyboard runs it a close second though  | |
| |
| Can someone explain the justice system to me on 11:18 - Jun 12 with 1236 views | EuanTown |
| Can someone explain the justice system to me on 09:01 - Jun 12 by BloomBlue |
The law on drink/drug driving has been an ass for years.
It should be manslaughter by default.
The arguement is its accidental, not deliberate. That's a load of b0llocks. The person consuming the drink/drugs has deliberately consumed them and then deliberately got into the vehicle and drove it.
I know one case where the drunk driver had been drinking all day and taking drugs, then got into a car drove it like a maniac, smashed into another car and killed the driver of the other car, a 23 year lad, and was only given 6 year jail sentence.
Made worse by the fact that drunk/drug driver had only recently got his license back after losing it for previous drunk driving. Losing his license should have been classed as a form of reform, re-educate himself on the dangers of drink/drug driving.
But nope, none of that, he does it again, and a young lad never gets the chance to live his life. That should be manslaughter minimum. |
And let's be honest he probably drove without a licence anyway and was not caught in the interim.
Like driving without taxing the vehicle. So easy as driving whilst on a mobile phone. Chances of getting caught minimal. So you take the percentages in your favour.
All wrong but done by millions on the roads everyday |  | | |
| Can someone explain the justice system to me on 18:10 - Jun 12 with 1002 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Can someone explain the justice system to me on 11:18 - Jun 12 by EuanTown |
And let's be honest he probably drove without a licence anyway and was not caught in the interim.
Like driving without taxing the vehicle. So easy as driving whilst on a mobile phone. Chances of getting caught minimal. So you take the percentages in your favour.
All wrong but done by millions on the roads everyday |
I’m the same as Texters in that it was drilled into me that you’re in control of a potential dangerous weapon. I would never use my phone when driving, but you’re right that you often see people doing so.
Yet on the other hand we’ve got all the car manufacturers essentially replicating the problems of using a mobile in their control systems with touchscreens requiring you to drill down menus to access functions. How you’re supposed to do that safely while driving I have no idea. There’s a lot to be said for good old fashioned buttons! | |
| |
| Can someone explain the justice system to me on 03:31 - Jun 13 with 795 views | Benters |
| Can someone explain the justice system to me on 09:47 - Jun 12 by Swansea_Blue |
I think in your case, a keyboard runs it a close second though |
Boom 😂👍 |  |
| |
| Can someone explain the justice system to me on 11:14 - Jun 13 with 603 views | TRUE_BLUE123 |
| Can someone explain the justice system to me on 09:43 - Jun 12 by textbackup |
ESPECIALLY if under the influence of anything that could prevent you being 100% focused.
My dad gave me the biggest lecture when I passed my test, about a car being the most dangers piece of equipment I’ll ever be in control of. To the point it was burnt in my brain. Even now, aged 40, he’ll remind me how dangerous cars are! |
It is crazy how many people are willing to risk it.
"I feel fine I can make a 20 min drive home" "I will be extra careful"
I'm not sure how much they do at schools these days to educate kids on DUI but it should be hammered home as much as possible. |  |
| |
| Can someone explain the justice system to me on 11:45 - Jun 13 with 559 views | stonojnr |
| Can someone explain the justice system to me on 09:01 - Jun 12 by BloomBlue |
The law on drink/drug driving has been an ass for years.
It should be manslaughter by default.
The arguement is its accidental, not deliberate. That's a load of b0llocks. The person consuming the drink/drugs has deliberately consumed them and then deliberately got into the vehicle and drove it.
I know one case where the drunk driver had been drinking all day and taking drugs, then got into a car drove it like a maniac, smashed into another car and killed the driver of the other car, a 23 year lad, and was only given 6 year jail sentence.
Made worse by the fact that drunk/drug driver had only recently got his license back after losing it for previous drunk driving. Losing his license should have been classed as a form of reform, re-educate himself on the dangers of drink/drug driving.
But nope, none of that, he does it again, and a young lad never gets the chance to live his life. That should be manslaughter minimum. |
Manslaughter is a separate charge , however there is no reason why manslaughter could not be used in cases like this.
The issue is the cps don't believe juries will convict on it, so they rarely use it | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
