Seriously. Can anyone explain why this man is not going to prison?

POPPYOSCAR

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

The first thing to note is that he was convicted of causing death whilst driving without insurance and without a licence, which is a new offence brought in at the same time as causing death by careless driving. It's an important distinction because the offence he was actually convicted of is relevant. Most people will see the words 'caused death' and instantly think that we're looking at something akin to murder. We're not. He's not been convicted of causing death by dangerous driving, which would have surely resulted in immediate custody, or even causing death by careless driving. It was causing death without insurance, which doesn't even offer on a prima facie judgment within the offence of his actual standard of driving. Simply put, his culpability is inherently lower than with other offences, and hence his sentence almost inevitably will be as well.

The other problem is that, as usual, we don't know the full facts and haven't heard any mitigation. We have heard a very basic summary of the offence itself, and the only additional information is one previous conviction. The Court will have sentenced on the basis of far more information than that, and to be honest an accurate evaluation of the sentence cannot really be made without that. A suspended sentence is one that passes the custody threshold, but which for whatever reason is one that the Court deems suitable to be suspended. The Judge will have mentioned in sentencing him why he has suspended the sentence, but such a vital piece of information doesn't even make it in to the news articles.

One of the reasons why people don't understand the justice system is because they have no knowledge or experience of it other than what they read in the newspapers, which generally only report exceptional cases, and even then have a fantastic habit of including a lack of important information in their articles. In the circumstances, it is not surprising that most people feel that they don't understand the system. Because what they're being fed is very much a blinkered and information-lite version of it through the newspapers. This sentence may well have been absolutely spot on in the circumstances, but without knowing the circumstances we simply cannot know that.

I do not read newspapers so my understanding of the 'justice system' is not formed by them.

I watched recently an interview with two girls who had both been beaten up by girl gangs.One of the girls did not know her attackers.
The girls lives had been ruined you could see the torment in their faces and in their body language.One of them stays most of the time in her room. .I don't care what you say our 'justice' system is a waste of space and very often depends on how good the defending law team are.

The girls who had been attacked were devastated by the sentence(Community service) and so was I. Anyone who could do what they did should be locked up.When they walked out of court they stuck their fingers up to the cameras- says it all really,

I also know people in the police force and how frustrated they get sometimes at what goes on in the courts.

WhiteHorse

When reports like this come out, it's always interesting to see the number of people who are hostile to penalties imposed for drink driving. Lots of nervous people, it seems.

redpete

WhiteHorse wrote: »

When reports like this come out, it's always interesting to see the number of people who are hostile to penalties imposed for drink driving. Lots of nervous people, it seems.

Except that the court case that this report and thread are about did not involve drink driving and no-one on this thread has mentioned penalties for drink driving.

Arg

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

Why?
Maybe because his previous conviction has shown that he has total contempt for the law in the UK.

It's not something that's very hard to do in this country.

Crazy_Jamie

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

I do not read newspapers so my understanding of the 'justice system' is not formed by them.

So what, may I ask, is your view of the justice system based on? Because without wishing to appear insensitive (I do not doubt the effect of the crimes on the girls that you mentioned), the account you presented of that case was, as with the two initial articles in this thread, unbalanced and lacking relevant information. You mention the effect on the girls, but say nothing of the mitigation or actual reasons for the sentence. If you form your view of the criminal justice system based primarily on the position of victims, you are obviously going to conclude that the justice system is not harsh enough.