Six weeks for hit and run driver who killed three-year-old breaches his ban four time

[AB Asks]

A man spent a pathetic six weeks in jail for mowing down a three year old girl in a stolen car. He never stopped after running her down; he had never passed a driving test in his life. His actions were apparently not bad enough to qualify as death by dangerous driving despite speeding through a 30mph zone at almost 50mph. The young girl died the following day in hospital. After being released from jail he then went on to flout his five year driving ban four times. He has now been given a 180 day sentence. What do you think? Should this man have been jailed for longer the first time around? Is this a massive insult to the young girl who died aged three?

[Quinlad]

I'd rather the sentence was decided by someone in possession of the full facts of case, who sat through the case.

Rather than selectively cherry-picking the most sensationlist facts from - I'm guessing - the Daily Mail and asking outraged armchair pundits what they think.

[brionon]

AB-The judges are drivers,the lawyers are drivers probably most of the Jury are---etc. What do you expect ?

[Pippa68]

Another case is of the Dutch lorry driver who drove a pregnant woman off the road, killing her and her unborn child.

He received a �1000 fine and points on a British licence (he doesn't have one). His Dutch licence is unaffected.

I think it is terrible how a person can spend a couple of years in jail for financial fraud, yet get fined for causing death by dangerous driving.

[jake-the-peg]

I wonder if you'd think a couple of years in jail was over the top for financial fraud if it was your pension that was lost?

[Pippa68]

I don't think it is over the top, jake.

I meant that if you compare the crimes it appears that money is more important than life.

Personally I think that financial fraud deserves a jail term, but death by dangerous driving deserves a longer one.

[Quinlad]

It's a difficult one though, Pippa. Should you punish people for the intention behind the crime or the result of it?

I remember the Zeebrugge ferry disaster. A man was charged with manslaughter for forgetting to shut the bow doors, killing dozens of people.

Compare that with men who regularly pose as the gas man and con their way into pensioners' houses to steal their pension book.

Who's more deserving of a long sentence?

[Pippa68]

I don't want to get into the length of jail terms regarding both cases ~ I don't know the answer and I do live in the 'grey area' side of things.

However I still think that something is wrong when a driver, whether careless or with intent, kills someone due to their actions and gets fined. Not to mention the fact that if they have a foreign licence it won't get points on it ~ that is a real kick in the guts!

[ludwig]

Where does it say a 'couple of years in jail is over the top for financial fraud'?. The point being made is that a fine is inadequate for death by dangerous driving.

[Pippa68]

Thank you ludwig!

[jake-the-peg]

Your example rather read that way.

I've still not seen the details - if he wasn't charged with causing death by dangerous driving it rather sounds as if there's something we don't know like she was in the middle of a road or something contributory.

The CPS have to think they have a reasonable chance of sucess or they won't press a charge - so we don't know why they thought they'd loose.

This has all the hallmarks of a tabloid paper trying to twist the facts.

I agree with Quinlad - I smell a Daily Mail story! One with half the facts buried in small print at the bottom!

[Jillius]

If that pathetic speciman of a man had run over my daughter and left her to die I would personally track him down and slaughter him, though no doubt i would be jailed for life for doing so !
What an insult to that little girl's life. It breaks my heart to think what the parents are going through. I bet when he's let out he will be protected so the family can't get revenge. Pathetic.

[Quinlad]

Fair enough.

All I'm saying is that - as harsh as it sounds - perhaps the death caused shouldn't affect the sentence too much?

If person X takes their eyes off the road for 10 seconds to fiddle with the radio and kills someone and person Y does exactly the same thing but doesn't, why should one person be punished more than the other?

Their intentions and actions were identical. You're punishing one person more on what grounds? Pure bad luck?

Or do you punish all people who take their eyes off the road like that as if their actions were potentially lethal? ie, with the harshness of manslaughter?

I don't know myself. Just throwing it out there.

[ludwig]

As usual the AB ed supplies no link - it's difficult to comment about it unless we know that he/she's not just making it up.

[Pippa68]

Here is the link I read, jake:

http://www.hen-news.co.uk/heartlandnews-news/D isplayArticle.asp?id=237745

As you can see the drivers pleas of not guilty of causing death by dangerous driving was accepted by the judge. I do understand that the driver is deeply upset and traumatised by the accident. However it is obvious the driver commited a crime as he was fined ~ in my first post I was comparing the crimes regarding money Vs death.

[brionon]

jake-the-peg
Yeah I hate these children who contribute to their own death. Leave 'em to die,I say. get away if you can. Top Gear forever.

[Jillius]

Perhaps if he had been distraught at his actions people might feel differently but he obviously couldn't care less and also the fact that he hadn't passed his test and had no insurance is enough to make people angry. Why should he just be allowed to get back in a car and do it again?

[Pippa68]

I don't know either, Quinlad.

I suppose that if you fiddle with your stereo, swerve and get caught by the police you will get pulled over and cautioned. You may also get a fine. Yes, you were lucky as you didn't cause an accident ~ but the term dangerous driving is there to point out that you could cause a very serious accident. I would imagine that this is in place to make sure you understand what the implications are if you continue to do it.

I would say that a fine is appropriate for this, but not when the result is death.

[Quinlad]

Pippa, I think Jake's just saying that the issue isn't as black and white as you suggest.

If a CEO deliberately fleeces a company's pension scheme over a 20 year period, stealing money from the poor without a care in the world, fully aware of the distress he's causing...

Is that less of a crime than driving at 40mph in a 30 zone once and fatally knocking someone of their bike?

I don't think it is. That's not putting money over a human life. That's assessing the malciousness and the evil, if you like, of the two criminals. Clearly one is more deserving of punihsment than the other.

[Quinlad]

So is it pure chance then, Pippa?

A maniac driving at 100mph through a residential area (and somehow avoiding pedestrians) deserves less of a sentence than someone driving at 40mph who does hit someone?

Doesn't feel very fair to me.

[Pippa68]

I did state that I didn't believe it was necessarily less of a crime, and I also stated that I too live in a grey world.

All I am questioning is why a death caused by driving erratically or improperly doesn't warrant a custodial sentence. The driver has done harm, and yes, a thief also causes harm. Take the 'missing canoeist'. Will the couple receive a custodial sentence, despite not actually harming anybody (apart from insurance premiums, of course)? they probably will.

Yet this man has no points on his Dutch licence, a fine paid from his company and the rest of his life to deal with the trauma of his actions, I suppose.

Yes, you are right!