Arrrgh this doesn't seem right

Arnold

Arnold

www.alanarnold.co.uk
Moderator
Site Supporter
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7865114.stm

21 months???

Would you get 21 months if you 'accidentally' pulled out a gun and shot someone in the head? It's ridiculous that someone's life is valued at less than 2 years in prison, just because it's a motoring related offence - and the judge said "Lets hope it puts out a clear message to deter others. Yeah right! If you wanna murder someone, drive into them whilst on your phone! You'll practically get away with it.

Stupid cow :mad: :mad: & the legal system
 
But how ironic, she didn't die in the accident, but an innocent victim did. That is the real unjust in this case, wish she had died instead and i wouldn't even shed a tear. Thats what you would get for using and texting on a -phone whilst driving.
 
this is what i dont understand wbout the legal system in this country.

judges give out the punishment as they are deamed part of the judicial system. above and beyond the parlimentary system.

yet the government is suggesting that judges use government guidlines when sentencing. this actualy contravenes the very foundations this country is based on.

a judge is apointed as a "judge" in order to see things from a mearly legal stand point and cannot be swayed this way or that by the ramblings of the government of the time.


The essence of English common law is that it is made by judges sitting in courts, applying their common sense and knowledge of legal precedent (stare decisis) to the facts before them. A decision of the highest appeal court in England and Wales, the House of Lords, is binding on every other court in the hierarchy, and they will follow its directions. For example, there is no statute making murder illegal. It is a common law crime - so although there is no written Act of Parliament making murder illegal, it is illegal by virtue of the constitutional authority of the courts and their previous decisions. Common law can be amended or repealed by Parliament; murder, by way of example, carries a mandatory life sentence today, but had previously allowed the death penalty.

so the government cannot change murder to be a non criminal act as it is in the "law of the land" as it were and not something labour has brought up in the last 10 years.




but this type of story is undermining that so that however someone is killed the judges arent allowed to make a judgment and are being restrained by the politicaly correct mob that states "every life is prescious and they shouldnt be locked in a cage"

GRRRRRRRRRRR australia here i come.
 
it doesn't say she was using her phone when the accident happened. It just says shortly before. So maybe the sentence reflects the lack of certainty, rather than a flawed system?
 
Murder should be murder. Doesn't matter how it was orchestrated, it's the same thing.

Although, if she wasn't using the phone at the time, it could be seen as a manslaughter.
 
richj said:
it doesn't say she was using her phone when the accident happened. It just says shortly before. So maybe the sentence reflects the lack of certainty, rather than a flawed system?
Click to expand...

Yes but its still Death by Driving without due care and attention.
 
capnmchl said:
Murder should be murder. Doesn't matter how it was orchestrated, it's the same thing.

Although, if she wasn't using the phone at the time, it could be seen as a manslaughter.
Click to expand...

its not quite as simple as that, murder is not as clear cut as that.
 
But there is a vast difference in someone taking a gun, hidden away, and then pulling it out to shoot someone dead, the victim has no chance of seeing the gun well before hand to take any evasive action.

in the case of a driver driving a car, without due care and attention, he or she ends up ramming into someone innocent, there is as much chance of the culprit killing himself as there is the chance of killing the innocent victim,

The two cases of deaths are different so they attarct different kind of sentencing.
 
There is also no intent to kill or harm another, not justifying what this woman did ofcourse but she's not a murderer, shes just very stupid and her carelessness has been at the cost of someones life im pretty sure that this will haunt her for the rest of her life. also the family will more than likely sue her for negligence aswell.
 
murder requires 2 things

1. mens rea / motive
2. the means / ability......so murder isnt the subject here.....death by dangerous /careless driving is....either way its loss/change of life



IMO Auto-pilot driving is just as lethal and selfish as 'on the phone' or 'chatting to passengers' (or anything else distracting or blatently deliberate)...the bummer is that 'autopiloting' (and / or MANY other human factors) are virtually impossible to detect, prove and/or enforce :-(

and so the government capitalise on the easier things to detect, prove and enforce ...like "speed" (without being able or willing to evaluate any other influences to a scenario) & "exceeding the blood alcohol limit" (without being able or willing to evaluate any other influences to a scenario).....


considering the whole subject ..poor care, attention, and consideration behind the wheel (or anywhere else) really stinks
 
let me give you an example of how ridiculous the law can be, my lecturer was talking about a case the other day where a man was on trial for rape, his sentence was halved! because he wore a condom!
 
daveeeeee said:
let me give you an example of how ridiculous the law can be, my lecturer was talking about a case the other day where a man was on trial for rape, his sentence was halved! because he wore a condom!
Click to expand...

Thats unbelievable grrgrrgrr
 
SammoHung said:
murder requires 2 things

1. mens rea / motive
2. the means / ability......so murder isnt the subject here.....death by dangerous /careless driving is....either way its loss/change of life



IMO Auto-pilot driving is just as lethal and selfish as 'on the phone' or 'chatting to passengers' (or anything else distracting or blatently deliberate)...the bummer is that 'autopiloting' (and / or MANY other human factors) are virtually impossible to detect, prove and/or enforce :-(

and so the government capitalise on the easier things to detect, prove and enforce ...like "speed" (without being able or willing to evaluate any other influences to a scenario) & "exceeding the blood alcohol limit" (without being able or willing to evaluate any other influences to a scenario).....


considering the whole subject ..poor care, attention, and consideration behind the wheel (or anywhere else) really stinks
Click to expand...


funny you should say that, becuase driving at a lower speed basically causes "auto-pilot" driving.

I also know people that have driven into the back of cars whilst texting but luckily at 20mph, and they have learnt. Its lethal, especially at 70 80mph on a motorway.. but lets face it, most people have done it, luckily some of us learnt not too before killing somebody.
 
Back
Top