Too soft a sentence?

pinnocchio

Well-known Member
D

Deleted member 498601

Guest
Driver who rammed woman in car park jailed

Girl still in back brace and having to re-arrange wedding.

When you watch the video why wasn't she charged with attempted murder?

Not that I'm commenting on the sentence, but you don't at any point see anyone hit with the vehicle. I remember seeing the vid a few weeks ago and wondered then what it was all about - it only starts when the Citroen drives into another car, but I didn't see anyone getting driven into at any point.

From that video, I certainly couldn't in all conscience say that this driver was trying to kill somebody. Dangerous driving? 100%. Attempted murder? Not imo.
 

hippo99

Distinguished Member
She was jailed for three years and two months for offences including causing serious injury by dangerous driving.
Turner was also banned from driving for four-and-a-half years.
So does this driving ban start once she leaves prison or is running whilst she’s in prison (& thus not able to drive anyway) so only really a 1yr 4month ban?

If not a longer prison sentence, surely they could apply a longer driving ban?
 

Derek S-H

Distinguished Member
I agree with Doug on this, but I must also say that I think sentencing around driving offences is simply ludicrous.

I've said this before and I'll say it again: if you were to stab or shoot someone you'd be looking at a minimum of 10 years+, run them over in your car (leaving intent or otherwise aside for now) and you'll be lucky if you get five years.

A car is currently not treated as a lethal weapon for some reason, even though it causes just as much devastation. And yes, I still see idiots driving whilst blabbering on their mobiles.

The latest figures are from June 2018 (I think):

"Statistics on reported road casualties in Great Britain for the year ending June 2018 shows, there were: 1,770 reported road deaths. 26,610 people killed or seriously injured. 165,100 casualties of all severities, a decrease of 6%."

I've never had a knife waved in my face, I've never seen a gun in real life, but I'm surrounded by motorised vehicles. They're ubiquitous and are not regarded as dangerous, but just look at those statistics and that's just for one year!:eek:
 

captainarchive

Distinguished Member
I've never had a knife waved in my face, I've never seen a gun in real life, but I'm surrounded by motorised vehicles. They're ubiquitous and are not regarded as dangerous, but just look at those statistics and that's just for one year!:eek:
It's a purile comparison. If you stab or shoot someone it's with intent. Ask yourself this, how many people unexpectedly walk out into the path of an oncoming knife or bullet from a gun?
 

Derek S-H

Distinguished Member
It's a puerile comparison. If you stab or shoot someone it's with intent. Ask yourself this, how many people unexpectedly walk out into the path of an oncoming knife or bullet from a gun?

No, I don't agree.

First of all, the self-defence argument is still used for knife and gun offences, so clear intent is not always a motivating factor.

Secondly, whilst I see your point, I also think you're more likely to receive a heavier sentence from being accidentally killed from a drive by shooting than if you were deliberately run over.

Cars are simply not regarded as weapons and they should be, in my opinion. I don't expect much, if any, agreement on this and both driving and pedestrian behaviour reflects your perspective: hardly anyone seems to regard motorised vehicles as dangerous.
 
D

Deleted member 498601

Guest
It's a purile comparison. If you stab or shoot someone it's with intent. Ask yourself this, how many people unexpectedly walk out into the path of an oncoming knife or bullet from a gun?

I don't think it's purile at all. If you got drunk and accidentally killed someone whilst messing around with your shotgun on your farm, how is that different to getting drunk and getting behind the wheel of a car? Neither were deliberate acts per se, but the sentencing would be viewed completely differently. Or even remove drink from the equation if you like; an accidental killing, no matter what's used, a car, a gun or a knife, the sentences don't simply reflect that you've killed another human being.

I would go so far as to say that if a person drinks and drives, the risk of that driver then causing harm or death to another person is so high that it can't ever be ruled as 'accidental' or 'unexpected'. The act of drinking and then driving can be broken down into many deliberate and completely avoidable acts and therefore can't ever be down to pure bad luck.

The recent killing of a soldier by his mate in barracks won't be understood by civilians in the same way as a soldier views it; all soldiers are taught never, ever point your firearm at another person, not even in jest. Pretty much all soldiers will expect the book to be thrown at this young guy and rightly so.

Soldier admits killing colleague while 'playing around' with a pistol
 

arenaman

Moderator
That video looks like a poor motorist was fleeing an angry mob, no doubt that was used in the defence to some degree
 

nvingo

Distinguished Member
Read the article.
The woman who was sentenced, was an uninsured getaway driver of a rented car, who had driven at the shop worker at speed to evade security after being involved in the shoplifting of quantity of alcohol.
The video started after the getaway driver and the shoplifting accomplice had exchanged seats, so it was the accomplice being surrounded by shoppers who had witnessed the original incident, and who eventually managed to leave the store car park.
 

hippo99

Distinguished Member
I don't think it's purile at all. If you got drunk and accidentally killed someone whilst messing around with your shotgun on your farm, how is that different to getting drunk and getting behind the wheel of a car? Neither were deliberate acts per se, but the sentencing would be viewed completely differently. Or even remove drink from the equation if you like; an accidental killing, no matter what's used, a car, a gun or a knife, the sentences don't simply reflect that you've killed another human being.

I would go so far as to say that if a person drinks and drives, the risk of that driver then causing harm or death to another person is so high that it can't ever be ruled as 'accidental' or 'unexpected'. The act of drinking and then driving can be broken down into many deliberate and completely avoidable acts and therefore can't ever be down to pure bad luck.
Reminds me of that case last year, where a drunk driver killed 3 teenagers walking on the pavement & was sentenced to just 13 years. What are the chances he’ll be out to carry on with the rest of his life after just 6-7 years?

3 children’s lives ‘worth’ just 7 years behind bars...:(
Parents react to drink-driver sentencing
 
D

Deleted member 498601

Guest
Reminds me of that case last year, where a drunk driver killed 3 teenagers walking on the pavement & was sentenced to just 13 years. What are the chances he’ll be out to carry on with the rest of his life after just 6-7 years?

3 children’s lives ‘worth’ just 7 years behind bars...:(
Parents react to drink-driver sentencing

About 12 years ago, a woman in a Range Rover nearly ran my daughter and I over, whilst I was on the pavement pushing her in a pushchair. I had to actually throw the buggy clear of the car. The worst that this driver got was me tearing her a new one on the petrol station forecourt that she drove into about 50 metres later (opposite my house). That one incident could have been so much worse, thankfully, it wasn't.
 

Derek S-H

Distinguished Member
^^^^
I Googled this and found this link:

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.u...th-by-driving-sentencing-leaflet-for-web1.pdf

I don't know how up to date it is.

So the woman in Doug's example could've got a maximum of 14 years if she'd killed him and his daughter (I don't know what she would've received if they'd "just" been injured) and a slap on the wrist if she had good lawyers who argued successfully for the lesser charge of careless driving and/or pleaded guilty early (five years maximum, you usually serve half that).

Utterly ridiculous.
 

simonblue

Distinguished Member
I think the sentence was very lenient,the facts ?

This is what she was charged with

"She was jailed for three years and two months for offences including causing serious injury by dangerous driving.

Turner, from Borehamwood, also pleaded guilty to two charges of theft, attempted theft, using a vehicle without insurance, driving while disqualified, failing to stop and failing to report a collision"

:(.
 

Solomon Grundy

Distinguished Member
As a supporter of corporal and capital punishment, as well as work houses and forced labour for criminals, I think almost ALL sentences are too lenient.
 

nheather

Distinguished Member
I'm sort of in the @Solomon Grundy camp, but thinking objectively

(i) we don't see her drive into the shop worker
(ii) I would be very surprised if she planned out killing the shop worker so it can't see how it could be attempted murder
(iii) I doubt she even wanted to drive into the shop worker at any point - her preference, surely would have been to get out of the car park without incident and notice so she could avoid capture

I suspect she was driving too fast in the car park and the shop worker tragically was in the way or stepped into the way.

I imagine the most that could be thrown at her is 'causing bodily harm through dangerous driving' or whatever the proper legal term for that is. If the shop worker was killed I think there could have been 'manslaughter through dangerous driving" (which is what they were trying to charge the Shoreham Hunter pilot with).

So in summary, being in the @Solomon Grundy camp I think she should have received a tougher punishment but objectively I imagine she got the worst that the the courts could make stick under current UK law.

Cheers,

Nigel
 

pinnocchio

Well-known Member
Here's my take.....

1. She has refused to name the male driver, this to me shows little or no true remorse therefore punishment should be more severe to reflect lack of remorse.

2. While attempted murder may be a slight step too far, attempted manslaughter, in effect willing (not desiring) to kill others with disregard for anyone else but self (goes back to the remorse issue).

3. If you look at the theft element and all the criminal damage to the vehicles, £10k-£15k impact roughly?

4. She was nicking booze.....likely therefore to sell as possibly a junkie.

5. If the bloke had been driving at the time would he have got the same sentence?

There is in every local society a small 'core' of miscreants who are responsible for a disproportionate high amount of the local crime and the system isn't working to break the cycle. What's always interesting about these individuals is they seem, in so many instances, to share a disregard for societal norms and are only interested in themselves, the rest of us can "go get fudged". Personally if you fall into the criteria of being one of these I'd be happy to see them shipped off to some cold, wet island in the Atlantic and let them survive only with their own kind.
 

Delvey

Distinguished Member
Here's my take.....

1. She has refused to name the male driver, this to me shows little or no true remorse therefore punishment should be more severe to reflect lack of remorse.
Completely agree, and personally, she should remain in prison until she confesses

2. While attempted murder may be a slight step too far, attempted manslaughter, in effect willing (not desiring) to kill others with disregard for anyone else but self (goes back to the remorse issue).
I would go with attempted murder, the chances are, if running someone over on purpose, the intent is to serious harm them/kill them. Like shooting or stabbing someone

3. If you look at the theft element and all the criminal damage to the vehicles, £10k-£15k impact roughly?
Another issue I have. Compensation should be amount in relation to damages. It should be taken directly from your wages/benefits (if they can take student loans out of wages, why not with fines etc?)


4. She was nicking booze.....likely therefore to sell as possibly a junkie.
Another story completely

5. If the bloke had been driving at the time would he have got the same sentence?
Definitely not, another injustice in our justice system

There is in every local society a small 'core' of miscreants who are responsible for a disproportionate high amount of the local crime and the system isn't working to break the cycle. What's always interesting about these individuals is they seem, in so many instances, to share a disregard for societal norms and are only interested in themselves, the rest of us can "go get fudged". Personally if you fall into the criteria of being one of these I'd be happy to see them shipped off to some cold, wet island in the Atlantic and let them survive only with their own kind.
The problem is, they have no deterrent
For example, this incident Brierley lorry crash death: four men jailed for over 48 years for causing death by dangerous driving
One of them men had already been convicted of death by dangerous driving, and received 3 and a half years. The same offence, ans he gets 12 years. For me, he should die in prison[/QUOTE]
 

nvingo

Distinguished Member
The trouble with taking fines from incomes, is that reduces the perpetratora disposable funds. Rather than adjust their spending, they feel justified in supplementing that from criminal activity.
 

captainarchive

Distinguished Member
I don't think it's purile at all. If you got drunk and accidentally killed someone whilst messing around with your shotgun on your farm, how is that different to getting drunk and getting behind the wheel of a car? Neither were deliberate acts per se, but the sentencing would be viewed completely differently.
In my experience the drunk driver would get a harsher sentence. I know of two brothers who were drinking with their cousin and her boyfriend. One of the brothers brought out a shotgun and started to mess about with it, it went off and the boyfriend caught the full blast. Fortunately he wasn't killed but had to have his leg amputated. After the incident was investigated neither of the brothers were charged, they didn't even lose their gun licence.


Or even remove drink from the equation if you like; an accidental killing, no matter what's used, a car, a gun or a knife, the sentences don't simply reflect that you've killed another human being.
l
If we extend the logic of your argument then the pilot of the plane that crashed in Ethiopia the other week is as guilty as the people who flew the planes into the World Trade Centre. The clues in the word 'accidentally', for it to be a criminal act there has to be an element of premeditatation, 'Mens rea actus reus'.
 

domtheone

Distinguished Member
Soft on crime. Soft on the causes of crime.

Welcome to GB.
 
D

Deleted member 498601

Guest
If we extend the logic of your argument then the pilot of the plane that crashed in Ethiopia the other week is as guilty as the people who flew the planes into the World Trade Centre. The clues in the word 'accidentally', for it to be a criminal act there has to be an element of premeditatation, 'Mens rea actus reus'.

That's a real stretch imo. The plane crash in Ethiopia was not a deliberate act, 9/11 was.
 

The latest video from AVForums

Are the TCL MiniLED TVs better than OLED? TCL Interview with Marek Maciejewski | AVForums Podcast
Subscribe to our YouTube channel

Latest News

iFi Audio launches NEO Stream music streamer with DAC
  • By Ian Collen
  • Published
Musical Fidelity launches M6x 250.7 multi-channel power amplifier
  • By Ian Collen
  • Published
Is Google set to rival Dolby Vision and Atmos?
  • By Ian Collen
  • Published
'Tizen TV by Samsung' brands coming to UK?
  • By Ian Collen
  • Published
Denon announces five new 8K AV receivers
  • By Ian Collen
  • Published

Full fat HDMI teeshirts

Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom