Would having insurance have prevented the man's death?

You're missing the point. Not having insurance is a behavioural pattern. A lack of regard for the law in the same way he showed a lack of regard by driving off.

It showed he was acting recklessly. A reckless act resulting in the death of a human carries 5 years? He'll probably be out in less on good behaviour. Imagine that was your father, your son...your brother. Dead. 5 years?

How can we trust, respect........have faith in a system which shows such an abhorrent disreguard for human life?

It's disgusting.

FlexWheeler wrote:.. Not having insurance is a behavioural pattern. A lack of regard for the law in the same way he showed a lack of regard by driving off. Agreed FlexWheeler wrote:... A reckless act resulting in the death of a human carries 5 years? He'll probably be out in less on good behaviour. Imagine that was your father, your son...your brother. Dead. 5 years? But, the last people that can sentence the criminal fairly and dispassionately are of course the victim's family. It isn't therefore at all helpful to "imagine it was your father "etc. It is always somebody's father. It should not make a jot of difference to sentence that it was YOUR father. FlexWheeler wrote:...How can we trust, respect........have faith in a system which shows such an abhorrent disreguard for human life? It's disgusting. This is just your opinion. The system shows no such thing. The sentencing guidelines are meticulously thorough and whilst i don't question your right to believe that 42 years or whatever would be more just, I think most would say that you are conflating the degree of evilness/ wrongdoing with unforeseen and unintended consequences (which, incidentally, DO ramp up the sentence very considerably) Here are the sentencing guidelines for causing death by dangerous driving. The range of sentences is in fact 2 - 14 years. The courts rightly do and should take into account all the individual circumstances of any given case.

FlexWheeler wrote:.. Not having insurance is a behavioural pattern. A lack of regard for the law in the same way he showed a lack of regard by driving off. Agreed FlexWheeler wrote:... A reckless act resulting in the death of a human carries 5 years? He'll probably be out in less on good behaviour. Imagine that was your father, your son...your brother. Dead. 5 years? But, the last people that can sentence the criminal fairly and dispassionately are of course the victim's family. It isn't therefore at all helpful to "imagine it was your father "etc. It is always somebody's father. It should not make a jot of difference to sentence that it was YOUR father. FlexWheeler wrote:...How can we trust, respect........have faith in a system which shows such an abhorrent disreguard for human life? It's disgusting. This is just your opinion. The system shows no such thing. The sentencing guidelines are meticulously thorough and whilst i don't question your right to believe that 42 years or whatever would be more just, I think most would say that you are conflating the degree of evilness/ wrongdoing with unforeseen and unintended consequences (which, incidentally, DO ramp up the sentence very considerably) Here are the sentencing guidelines for causing death by dangerous driving. The range of sentences is in fact 2 - 14 years. The courts rightly do and should take into account all the individual circumstances of any given case.

I'm aware of that.

However, why not consider a system such as that in Scandinavia, which to our eyes might seem incredibly liberal, but which has far better outcomes than the UK has in terms of recidivism?

The other point is that the apparent severity of the US system appears to do nothing to lower crime levels by acting as a deterrent.

Unless you've seen the court papers on each case, all you're going on is media reports, so sentences may appear inconsistent. Until all the facts are known, via the court papers, we (the general public) are just ranting for no reason because we (you) don't know the ins and outs of the case.

We may take issue with the U.S. over aspects of their criminal law system but there is no doubt that a person locked up for 42 years will commit no offences against the public in those 42 years.

I don't accept that severe sentences don't act as a deterrent to at least some people. I think it flies in the face of reason to suggest that. Anyone considering doing an act will, in the majority of cases, have at least some regard for the possible consequences. We pass deterrent sentences in this country too and I simply do not accept that they deter no-one, and are thus entirely pointless.

I am generally against U.S. style draconian sentences but if you consider it from the other end, it is easy to see that deterrence is real and works; by way of example, take the case of shoplifting. This has always been common, but is now literally endemic, costing the economy billions, and has exploded since the effective decriminalisation of the offence. By which i mean, you would have to shoplift to some extremes to actually eventually end up in jail for any length of time, if you ever did. There is thus a very clear connection - people don't have that much fear of getting caught, cos the consequences are not seen as significant.

Another example, from a pickpocketing programme last week. In Spain, if you steal to the value of less than (I think) 100 euro, or something like that, no action against you will be taken. Thus getting caught usually means no more than you will simply be spoken to and moved on. And so pickpocketing is rife. I accept it is rife in other places too, eg London, but being caught pickpocketing in the UK is no big criminal deal for typical cases either, and I reckon any criminal does weigh up - to varying extents - the risk of getting caught (very low), the likely consequence if caught (not much) and the rewards if they get away with it (the ability to get food/drink/drugs which they can't otherwise afford.

I'd be pretty certain that even if possible consequences are ramped up, these can be outweighed if the perceived risk of being caught is low. And it is common to see in cases of serious crimes a belief that the offender was clever enough to get away with it. That obviously waters down the net worth of deterrence.

To prove the point with a simple illustration, people break the speed limit all the time, simply because they are accustomed to always getting away with it. However, put a speed camera up, it WILL act as a deterrent. Almost everyone slows down and goes past at or below the speed limit. Why? Because (a) the risk of detection is very high; and (b) the consequences of being detected (points, fine etc) people don't want. Thus, it is conclusively proved that knowing you are very likely to be caught is part of the picture; but if all that happened was you got a letter pointing out you had been speeding and asking if you'd mind slowing down in future, most people would ignore the camera. Whereas knowing that you'd get points and a fine is an extremely effective deterrent. yes millions are made from speed cameras but still there is no doubt at all that an extremely high percentage of drivers, who are speeding immediately before the camera, brake and pass it below the speed limit.

It's also true that in many cases, and that includes the most serious cases, people lose control and just do what they do in the heat of the moment. Whether anything they previously heard or read or were aware of in the past does or might restrain them from - say - stabbing or shooting somebody when all fired up is debatable.

Is one white and one brown?

You would think so, wouldn't you?

Yet in states that have re-introduced the death penalty, there is evidence that murder rates have risen rather than declined, which perhaps suggests that all is not as rational as we would like and/or expect.

I know that this is an unfashionable view in the modern era with its compensation culture and ranting tabloids, but sometimes people have accidents. Sometimes it rains and rivers flood their banks. Sometimes cars crash into other cars. Sometimes cars run other pedestrians. Of course these events are tragedies when they occur but serves no useful purpose to turn the emotions into a witch-hunt to find somebody to blame for what has happened.

This chap had no insurance certainly. But perhaps that was because he couldn't afford the fees charged by these state-backed monopoly fraudsters. Or maybe it had expired and he was unaware. Driving without insurance may be illegal and something that people shouldn't do, but it doesn't mean that such drivers are evil, any more likely to kill people or should be subject to disproportionate punishments such as 42 years.

Similarly driving off after hitting the pedestrian was clearly the wrong thing to do. However unless you have been in that situation you are unlikely to comprehend the high level of guilty and panic that must set in and inhibit their capacity to think clearly. Often when there is a fire or other disaster people panic and run around in a mindless manner that exacerbates the situation, rather than remaining calm and acting in an orderly manner that would actually ensure a better outcome.

All in all I don't think it is possible to judge this person to be a monster. I don't think that a series of mistakes, even if they led to this tragedy, should result in a life in prison or even the paltry 42 years that have been banded around.

Oh Dally: you're giving yourself away with posts like this!