Why Lock The Thread re Death of a Cyclist?

Terra Nova

-null- wrote:

Terra Nova wrote:

I know that some people are going to think this way but null, what are you saying? Maybe our Tony should have been charged with causing paint damage to a truck's bumper by dangerous cycling had he survived. I know Stubbs sees himself as a victim and possibly he feels a huge imbalance in this case. However, I think he feels compensated for by getting the point across in court that my brother was indeed stupid and suicidal.

Please forgive the sarcasm for I accept that there are people who do hold this viewpoint and you are entitled to hold this viewpoint its just that your comment sent shudders down my spine.

I think everyone has to take some responsibility to keep themselves safe. Be they cyclists, pedestrians, whoever or whatever. We can't rely on other people even if it's to do something they should do (or not do something they shouldn't). We all have to expect the worse.

If he had survived, if Stubbs had heard him banging on the truck and stopped then the incident would have been blameless imho as both parties made a mistake which they rectified.

Beyond these initial mistakes (undertaking and not checking mirrors) more and more blame is transferred to Stubbs. As he continues to make mistakes that further compound your brother's minor error. As he doesn't hear your brother banging on the truck, still doesn't see him in his mirrors, doesn't feel the impact (or assumes it is road furniture) and on and on.

You said my brother was guilty. Guilty of what? I deleted that post because I didn't want to be drawn into a argument about this part of the incident. My brother did not commit a crime. Stubbs did. What my brother did or did not do cannot be proved. We can only prove where he was when Stubbs collided with him and that was in front of the lorry. My brother cannot tell us what he did as he is dead. Stubbs can tell us what he did because he is alive. You weren't in court, you didn't hear his testimony and his explanations.

My brother was an extremely responsible person, he didn't just commute on his bike or nip down teh shops without lights on, he went on 200+ mile journeys regularly, cycle toured in America etc. If anyone was acutely aware of his own safety on a bicycle it was he.

More and more blame is transferred to Stubbs? Only Stubbs is responsible for his driving, not the cyclist on the road. They were not just mistakes, they were a catalogue of driving calamities that lead to someone's death.

Terra Nova

spen666 wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

As for Stubbs allegedly trying to blame the cyclist. This is a by product of the adversarial nature of the legal system. Most people would try to lessen anyprison sentence they get. The nature of our legal system often means the way to do this is to blame your victim.

I think that is a far more damning criticism of the system rather than the individual. to reduce the culpability of yourself, you naturally try to move it to someone else.

Yes, the adversarial legal system but this is also a by product of a societal attitude to road safety that dismisses the deaths of people on our roads as an inevitable consequence of car proliferation, and that dismisses road traffic collisions that cause death as mere accidents first where we automatically protect the motorised vehicle driver first.

Whether it is a natural human behaviour trait to deny all allegations to preserve oneself or not I believe there should be honour and integrity in the way you defend yourself. Its easy to blame the system to explain your lack of remorse or sympathy and just as easy to blame any one else for your crimes.

suzyb

Terra Nova wrote:

-null- wrote:

Terra Nova wrote:

I know that some people are going to think this way but null, what are you saying? Maybe our Tony should have been charged with causing paint damage to a truck's bumper by dangerous cycling had he survived. I know Stubbs sees himself as a victim and possibly he feels a huge imbalance in this case. However, I think he feels compensated for by getting the point across in court that my brother was indeed stupid and suicidal.

Please forgive the sarcasm for I accept that there are people who do hold this viewpoint and you are entitled to hold this viewpoint its just that your comment sent shudders down my spine.

I think everyone has to take some responsibility to keep themselves safe. Be they cyclists, pedestrians, whoever or whatever. We can't rely on other people even if it's to do something they should do (or not do something they shouldn't). We all have to expect the worse.

If he had survived, if Stubbs had heard him banging on the truck and stopped then the incident would have been blameless imho as both parties made a mistake which they rectified.

Beyond these initial mistakes (undertaking and not checking mirrors) more and more blame is transferred to Stubbs. As he continues to make mistakes that further compound your brother's minor error. As he doesn't hear your brother banging on the truck, still doesn't see him in his mirrors, doesn't feel the impact (or assumes it is road furniture) and on and on.

You said my brother was guilty. Guilty of what? I deleted that post because I didn't want to be drawn into a argument about this part of the incident. My brother did not commit a crime. Stubbs did. What my brother did or did not do cannot be proved. We can only prove where he was when Stubbs collided with him and that was in front of the lorry. My brother cannot tell us what he did as he is dead. Stubbs can tell us what he did because he is alive. You weren't in court, you didn't hear his testimony and his explanations.

My brother was an extremely responsible person, he didn't just commute on his bike or nip down teh shops without lights on, he went on 200+ mile journeys regularly, cycle toured in America etc. If anyone was acutely aware of his own safety on a bicycle it was he.

More and more blame is transferred to Stubbs? Only Stubbs is responsible for his driving, not the cyclist on the road. They were not just mistakes, they were a catalogue of driving calamities that lead to someone's death.

You said

Is it the point we get behind the wheels of our cars and treat the entire world outside as if it's in our way?

That is what I was suggesting your brother was "guilty" of, assuming that he passed the lorry on the left as t it was sat at the junction. Which as you pointed out I do not know and am only surmising from what I have read. I apologise for that.

And yes Stubbs is to blame for his driving, that is what I'm saying (rather badly it would seem). That responsibility for the accident, the blame for your brothers death is ultimately Stubbs' because his continued bad driving turns what sounds like it should have been a close call or serious accident into the death of someone.

Terra Nova

spen666 wrote:

gtvlusso wrote:

hey Spen666:

IFirst thing I used to do was see what the prosecution case was (assuming client wanted to deny the offence)- ignoring for a minute what client said.

I would establish in my mind if I thought theprosecution case had weaknesses in it.

If itwas acase that seemed strong I would seek to find out how the client would answer the charges.

I would then seek to take instructionsfrom the client focussing especially around any weaknesses in the prosecution case.

Before you make your reposte Spen I will say from the outset that I understand fully the principles of legal defence and how barristers work for their client. Even the Yorkshire Ripper needed a defence barrister and his defence barrister was the judge in our first trial. I respected his judgement and thought he was brilliant at his job. I had tremendous respect for him despite the fact I thought he made one or two key mistakes at summing up which really hurt us and which I thought damaged the prosecution case. However, lets not nit pick on that.

I will also say that Stubbs’ defence barrister in my brother's case was also brilliant at his job. That doesn't mean to say I agreed with his defence, and that I sat there admiring the wonders of the British Justice system in full flow. I was quite simply appalled at practically everything he said. It was traumatic. For our family sitting on the victim’s side there were times when we thought the defence was actually attempting to pervert the course of justice himself. His attempts to undermine witnesses bordered on humiliating them, and his re-phrasing, and para-phrasing of what they were saying were to us attempts to misrepresent what they said to discredit their evidence. In his summing up he completely misrepresented witness evidence and said things that witnesses never said. Yet he was acting within the bounds of the law and judicial process at all times, as had he not been he would have been pulled by the judge.

His summing up (both summings up actually) was quite simply the most terrible experience I have had to endure. It WAS far worse than my brother’s funeral, it made it seem like a wonderful party. There were times when we thought he was in contempt of court and breaking the law (what that law was we had no idea). He fought tooth and nail for his client, we all said that if that is the standard of appraising a defence barrister then this was one hell of a defence barrister. I know, as you will probably point out that it is the adversarial system we have that is to blame for this. I believe in justice and I believe in a man’s right to a vigorous defence, don’t get me wrong.

I am not saying that as an emotionally charged blinkered biased ranting victim. There were impenetrable barriers between victim and accused and their reciprocal barristers which prevented us from engaging in any legal discussion with the defence but I did wonder how the man could go to such lengths in the course of his job of defending someone who was, in the end guilty of some terrible offences. And yet we fully accepted the legal process as it was.

It is interesting to note in your explanation of how you would approach this case you never once discuss establishing the truth or asking the client to tell you the truth. It sounds like a case of here is today’s argument, I want to win it, what are my chances of winning it? I noted the relationship between prosecution and dfence barrister too, tehy fought each other professionally, they had professional respect. I was completely traumatised by the experience but could still understand fully the entire scenario. It is a job to these people. Emotion can be a killer for them. It is for me in my job but its how I am.

Whatever the legal system is there has to be soem integrity in establishing the truth.

Terra Nova

-null- wrote:

[That is what I was suggesting your brother was "guilty" of, assuming that he passed the lorry on the left as t it was sat at the junction. Which as you pointed out I do not know and am only surmising from what I have read. I apologise for that.

And yes Stubbs is to blame for his driving, that is what I'm saying (rather badly it would seem). That responsibility for the accident, the blame for your brothers death is ultimately Stubbs' because his continued bad driving turns what sounds like it should have been a close call or serious accident into the death of someone.

There is no criminal offence for passing a lorry on the left on a bicycle. In exactly the same way you can take from a jury's verdict that Stubbs was only guilty of "careless driving" based on the fact that the original charge was not proved then you cannot say categorically that my brother passed the lorry on the left because that was not proved either.

Reading your latest post does look like you agree.

And in no way do I believe that Stubbs was not guilty of death by dangerous driving...

Terra Nova

spen666 wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

So, it is really back to what will try and ease the situation. Tougher sentences - no, i don't think so, as I dont think it is a factor, that will not stop someone losing concentration.

Education, a tougher driving test - I think this is where a difference can be made. Showing consequences of what could happen should be a deterrent. Back to basics, an overhaul of the whole learning to drive and attitudes around it. Not easy to do, as it will cost, and most people will have the attitude that it is their "right" to drive.

Again, I would be interested to hear Terra Nova's view's, and indeed yours Spen.
In the case you had, what would have stopped your client getting behind the wheel that day, you may not know, maybe nothing would have, but interested in your opinion.

What would have stopped him? Probably not a lot as he was high on drink & drugs and not thinking straight.

Personally, I would increase penalties for several offences:

1. No Insurance- I would make it imprisonable- so the courts can jail the persistent offenders.
2.Fail to Stop - I would increased the penalty to the maximum for death by dangerous driving ( 14 years IIRC). There must be no incentive to leave the scene of an accident- see the example I referred to above)

I would scrap dangerous/ careless driving offences and replace with a new offence of bad driving and allow the court to sentence according to the blame they attach ie max penalty the same as dangerous driving. I would do same for death by... offences

There is a general view that short prison sentences do not work- ie they are too short for prisons/ probation to do rehabilitation work, but I'm not sure that is what is needed for this type of offence. The real threat of prison will keep most drivers alert and driving carefully.

I would send more people to prison for motoring offences.

I would prosecute SMIDSY cases- IMHO that is a clear admission of careless driving ( bad driving under my new regime).

Wallace, here is some opinion:

Spen, Failure to stop? What is the state of play with that offence now? Bearing in mind your previous posts I am surprised you would see such a sentence for the failing to stop crime. In my brother’s case does that mean you would have seen Stubbs jailed for 14 years for that alone? As it was not part of the case I did not learn much about the failure to stop part of his crime.

Bad driving is an excellent idea. I made a point in another thread (I think it was my own in Outdoors Magic) that surely all driving that is careless is dangerous too? Does this mean you are in favour of yet stronger and stiffer sentences for such offences? I feel that drivers of large vehicles and HGV’s should be judged at a higher standard in law. Professionals whose occupations mean that other people’s health safety and well-being could be adversely affected if their skill and ability to do their job is not of a certain standard are professionally and legally accountable for their practice and their actions. I am in my job. I believe the same should apply for drivers of HGV’s. That would mean educating them not only on a skill level but on an aptitude level, and aptitude level and on a legal and ethical level. Make them professional and judge them accordingly.

Also, wipe out the unbelievable and staggering situation where we have huge killing machinesd let loose on roads cheek by jowel with pedestrians cyclists and other small cars that are designed so badly that the drivers have areas in their vicinity that they cannot see. I don’t; care what it takes, haulage companies profit from their business. Business and industry rely heavily on road haulage for supply and delivery at huge expense to safety and road congestion. Make them accountable for the safety of the vehicles that are on the road. Take them out of business – wipe out the blind spot excuse once and for all.

Terra Nova

Re: SMIDSY.

This is only a part of the defence put forward by Stubbs in my brother's case, the other's being SMIDHY, SMIDFYAI ROYB", and with the S for sorry being removed from all pleas. Yet some people accpet the jury's verdict in that case as that Stubbs was only guilty of mere careless driving but at the same time are advocating tough sentences and rigorous prosecutions for such an admission. Why is this?

spen666

Terra Nova wrote:

...Before you make your reposte Spen I will say from the outset that I understand fully the principles of legal defence and how barristers work for their client. Even the Yorkshire Ripper needed a defence barrister and his defence barrister was the judge in our first trial. I respected his judgement and thought he was brilliant at his job. I had tremendous respect for him despite the fact I thought he made one or two key mistakes at summing up which really hurt us and which I thought damaged the prosecution case. However, lets not nit pick on that.

I will also say that Stubbs’ defence barrister in my brother's case was also brilliant at his job. That doesn't mean to say I agreed with his defence, and that I sat there admiring the wonders of the British Justice system in full flow. I was quite simply appalled at practically everything he said. It was traumatic. For our family sitting on the victim’s side there were times when we thought the defence was actually attempting to pervert the course of justice himself. His attempts to undermine witnesses bordered on humiliating them, and his re-phrasing, and para-phrasing of what they were saying were to us attempts to misrepresent what they said to discredit their evidence. In his summing up he completely misrepresented witness evidence and said things that witnesses never said. His summing up (both summings up actually) was quite simply the most terrible experience I have had to endure. It WAS far worse than my brother’s funeral, it made it seem like a wonderful party. There were times when we thought he was in contempt of court and breaking the law (what that law was we had no idea). He fought tooth and nail for his client, we all said that if that is the standard of appraising a defence barrister then this was one hell of a defence barrister. I know, as you will probably point out that it is the adversarial system we have that is to blame for this. I believe in justice and I believe in a man’s right to a vigorous defence, don’t get me wrong.

I am not saying that as an emotionally charged blinkered biased ranting victim. There were impenetrable barriers between victim and accused and their reciprocal barristers which prevented us from engaging in any legal discussion with the defence but I did wonder how the man could go to such lengths in the course of his job of defending someone. And yet we fully accepted the legal process as it was.

It is interesting to note in your explanation of how you would approach this case you never once discuss establishing the truth or asking the client to tell you the truth. It sounds like a case of here is today’s argument, I want to win it, what are my chances of winning it?

Whatever the legal system is there has to be soem integrity in establishing the truth.

You cannot blame the defendant for fighting for his life so to speak. He is in a bear pit where he is facing many years in prison.

I'm sure you would fight for yourself if you werefacing a lengthy prison sentence.

Sadly this is bound to upset the victim or victim's family in any case.

This is an inevitable by product of the process.

spen666

Terra Nova wrote:

...

Wallace, here is some opinion:

Spen, Failure to stop? What is the state of play with that offence now? Bearing in mind your previous posts I am surprised you would see such a sentence for the failing to stop crime. In my brother’s case does that mean you would have seen Stubbs jailed for 14 years for that alone? As it was not part of the case I did not learn much about the failure to stop part of his crime.

Failure to stop currently carries a maximum of 6 months imprionment. - it rarely results in prison though.

Where drink or drugs are involved it is far better for driver to flee the scene and get done for failing to stop and say dangerous driving than to stay at scene and get done for death by dangerous whilst under the influence. Even if maximum sentences were involved.

My logic is to remove that incentive to leave the scene. The court would impose the sentence according to the facts of the case. So if D was done for death by careless- the max sentence in practice for the failing to stop wouldbe that for death by careless whilst under the influence...

not sure if that is clear. Its hard to type a sensible answer on a message board

Bad driving is an excellent idea. I made a point in another thread (I think it was my own in Outdoors Magic) that surely all driving that is careless is dangerous too?

No- they have seperate legal definitions. They are not definined by ordinary English meanings of the word

Does this mean you are in favour of yet stronger and stiffer sentences for such offences?

Not necessarily. I am more concerned with cases where Jury bring in careless driving related offences where it probably should have been dangerous. The sentencing generally is probably about right for dangerous driving (death by) cases

I feel that drivers of large vehicles and HGV’s should be judged at a higher standard in law. Professionals whose occupations mean that other people’s health safety and well-being could be adversely affected if their skill and ability to do their job is not of a certain standard are professionally and legally accountable for their practice and their actions. I am in my job. I believe the same should apply for drivers of HGV’s. That would mean educating them not only on a skill level but on an aptitude level, and aptitude level and on a legal and ethical level. Make them professional and judge them accordingly.

Also, wipe out the unbelievable and staggering situation where we have huge killing machinesd let loose on roads cheek by jowel with pedestrians cyclists and other small cars that are designed so badly that the drivers have areas in their vicinity that they cannot see. I don’t; care what it takes, haulage companies profit from their business. Business and industry rely heavily on road haulage for supply and delivery at huge expense to safety and road congestion. Make them accountable for the safety of the vehicles that are on the road. Take them out of business – wipe out the blind spot excuse once and for all.

Terra Nova

spen666 wrote:

[

You cannot blame the defendant for fighting for his life so to speak. He is in a bear pit where he is facing many years in prison.

I'm sure you would fight for yourself if you werefacing a lengthy prison sentence.

Sadly this is bound to upset the victim or victim's family in any case.

This is an inevitable by product of the process.

Oh yes you can Spen. There is a difference between defending yourself or fighting for your life and showing contempt for a human life. You can't keep hiding behind processes and "how things are". I repeat what I said in my OM thread about this very point to the Stubbs father who interuppted my thread:

"Mr Stubbs, when your son came to you that proud day you talked about you had a golden opportunity to prove your integrity too. You should have been telling your son his first duty was to the victim and the victim’s family. Tell them the truth, make your apologies, do everything you can to ease their pain and explain what happened and what you did. Then, if you are truly innocent, then stand in a court of law and defend yourself with integrity, with decency and respect for the victim and the victim’s family. You didn’t do that and he didn’t do that."

That was all we wanted. Process or not, there are other processes we as human beings should follow and they are called moral codes. In this case there was no moral code, not even a protestatin of innocence. There was nothing human connecting Stubbs with the plausability of innocence. So, that is not what is judged, but it counts morally.

spen666

Terra Nova wrote:

spen666 wrote:

[

You cannot blame the defendant for fighting for his life so to speak. He is in a bear pit where he is facing many years in prison.

I'm sure you would fight for yourself if you werefacing a lengthy prison sentence.

Sadly this is bound to upset the victim or victim's family in any case.

This is an inevitable by product of the process.

Oh yes you can Spen. There is a difference between defending yourself or fighting for your life and showing contempt for a human life. You can't keep hiding behind processes and "how things are". I repeat what I said in my OM thread about this very point to the Stubbs father who interuppted my thread:

"Mr Stubbs, when your son came to you that proud day you talked about you had a golden opportunity to prove your integrity too. You should have been telling your son his first duty was to the victim and the victim’s family. Tell them the truth, make your apologies, do everything you can to ease their pain and explain what happened and what you did. Then, if you are truly innocent, then stand in a court of law and defend yourself with integrity, with decency and respect for the victim and the victim’s family. You didn’t do that and he didn’t do that."

That was all we wanted. Process or not, there are other processes we as human beings should follow and they are called moral codes. In this case there was no moral code, not even a protestatin of innocence. There was nothing human connecting Stubbs with the plausability of innocence. So, that is not what is judged, but it counts morally.

i'm sorry, but nosensible person is going to sit there and take a longer than necessary prison sentence just because some person in the public gallery gets a bit aggrieved.

Will you go to prison for years to avoid upsetting me?

no? Funny that



In an adversarial system you must expect adversarial behaviour


You are living in a fantasy world igf you think people are going to avoid defending themselves just to avoid upsetting the victim or their family and in the process take a far longer prison sentence.

If you want the defence not to fight, then you have to stop the prosecution figthting as well


I suspect that you are too emotionally involved in your brother's case to take on board the reality of what you are proposing.

shouldbeinbed

Terra Nova wrote:

-null- wrote:

Terra Nova wrote:

I know that some people are going to think this way but null, what are you saying? Maybe our Tony should have been charged with causing paint damage to a truck's bumper by dangerous cycling had he survived. I know Stubbs sees himself as a victim and possibly he feels a huge imbalance in this case. However, I think he feels compensated for by getting the point across in court that my brother was indeed stupid and suicidal.

Please forgive the sarcasm for I accept that there are people who do hold this viewpoint and you are entitled to hold this viewpoint its just that your comment sent shudders down my spine.

I think everyone has to take some responsibility to keep themselves safe. Be they cyclists, pedestrians, whoever or whatever. We can't rely on other people even if it's to do something they should do (or not do something they shouldn't). We all have to expect the worse.

If he had survived, if Stubbs had heard him banging on the truck and stopped then the incident would have been blameless imho as both parties made a mistake which they rectified.

Beyond these initial mistakes (undertaking and not checking mirrors) more and more blame is transferred to Stubbs. As he continues to make mistakes that further compound your brother's minor error. As he doesn't hear your brother banging on the truck, still doesn't see him in his mirrors, doesn't feel the impact (or assumes it is road furniture) and on and on.

You said my brother was guilty. Guilty of what? I deleted that post because I didn't want to be drawn into a argument about this part of the incident. My brother did not commit a crime. Stubbs did. What my brother did or did not do cannot be proved. We can only prove where he was when Stubbs collided with him and that was in front of the lorry. My brother cannot tell us what he did as he is dead. Stubbs can tell us what he did because he is alive. You weren't in court, you didn't hear his testimony and his explanations.

My brother was an extremely responsible person, he didn't just commute on his bike or nip down teh shops without lights on, he went on 200+ mile journeys regularly, cycle toured in America etc. If anyone was acutely aware of his own safety on a bicycle it was he.

More and more blame is transferred to Stubbs? Only Stubbs is responsible for his driving, not the cyclist on the road. They were not just mistakes, they were a catalogue of driving calamities that lead to someone's death.

On the morning of 18th July 2007 my brother Tony had his panniers laden and packed and was about to cycle to Holyhead to catch a ferry to Ireland to meet a friend for a camping holiday. He was cycling through Wakefield towards our mother's house when he was approaching a traffic light. He was overtaken by a lorry approximately 170-100 metres from the traffic light junction. That lorry driver had just missed his turn at a roundabout 100 metres behind them both and was going the wrong way. From this moment on there is no clear evidence of how long it took our Tony to arrive in the position he was at the time of the collision, it is based only on estimation. From an estimate of the speed our Tony was travelling it was estimated how long it would have taken for him to reach the lights. Through tacograph evidence of the lorry’s speed, it was known how long it took the lorry to reach the lights. Those times put our Tony up to 30 seconds behind the lorry. It is therefore known that our Tony caught the lorry up at the lights and then proceeded past the lorry to take up a position at the front of the lights. Witnesses say the lorry was stationary at the lights........

from your initial post on OUTDOORSmagic.com http://www.outdoorsmagic.com/forum/forummessages/mps/UTN/32895/dt/4/URN/6/srchdte/0/cp/1/v/1/sp/

Your brother, for all of his responsibility, made a choice to filter past this truck and place himself in front of it once it had stopped. Stubbs can take absolutely no responsibility for that and whatever negative comment can be made about his driving and subsequent actions, the fact Tony was there in the first place was not of Stubbs doing and unfortunately was the significant contributing factor to the awful events that followed.

I'm mainly a commuter - 20 miles a day every day and plenty of leisure & family riding, I ride in/out of rush hour Manchester regularly so I know busy traffic & lights.
I don't do 200mile+ rides nor have I crossed America, but similarly I've never been so impatient or keen to get anywhere that I'd choose to endanger myself by passing and placing myself in front of a vehicle if I wasn't absolutely sure the driver could see me clearly.

Not to disparage your brother or any other cyclist that filters (I do it myself to cars) but in front of a truck is not the smartest or safest place to put yourself . Had your brother waited behind the truck and taken his turn like any other traffic would have had to, then neither your family nor Stubbs' would have been through what you both have.


I'd also add as an accredited expert witness, invariably for the prosecution, and long time police employee, I agree with Spen666 on the legal practicalities and stance of the defence. The law is made by other prople, it is available to both sides, if the defence make use of it in a way that can't be or isn't successfully countered by the prosecution then that is not the fault of the defence lawyers or their clients.

If I employ a builder I want them to do their best work for me even if it is inconvenient to my neighbours, if I go to the Doctor, I want the correct diagnoisis even if it keeps someone else waiting, If I employ a lawyer, I want them to do the best they legally can do in my interests.

simple_salmon

What a depressing read on all levels.

Terra Nova - I cannot understand the pain you are feeling, you have my absolute sympathy and utmost respect in the calm manner you have debated on this forum.

I do understand the arguments of the legal people here but I hate them (the arguments); this country has become morally bankrupt if people use legal rules (loopholes?) to get out of taking responsibility.

If you do something wrong then stand up and be accountable for yourself - take your punishment like you deserve; whether you have to legally or not.

I'd like to think that a higher power will judge these people after life but I fear that's probably not the case.

greg66_tri_v2.0

simple_salmon wrote:

I do understand the arguments of the legal people here but I hate them (the arguments); this country has become morally bankrupt if people use legal rules (loopholes?) to get out of taking responsibility.

If you do something wrong then stand up and be accountable for yourself - take your punishment like you deserve; whether you have to legally or not.

Translation: "if you did it, plead guilty and accept the consequences."

That's a noble sentiment, but it's one that simply doesn't exist in a very large chunk of the human race; it's not a question of this country having become (recently?) morally bankrupt: that human trait has existed for hundreds, and quite possibly thousands of years.

After all, if it didn't, we wouldn't need a criminal justice system.

cjw

simple_salmon wrote:

If you do something wrong then stand up and be accountable for yourself - take your punishment like you deserve; whether you have to legally or not.

You have the option of doing just that - pleading guilty at an early stage and receiving a lighter tarrif.

If you are to defend yourself then you would do so vigorously and robustly (I certainly would) and I would expect my barrister to behave no less than has been described above. If he didn't then I would try to seek a miss trial, appeal, and have another go. Maybe I am unique (but I don't expect so) but if I were fighting for my freedom I would expect and require my defense to use everything at their disposal. What the victims or relatives may feel would be irrelevant. Especially the relatives as they are not involved in the case at all - they are not even witnesses.

simple_salmon

If I was guilty I would plead so.

What the victims or relatives feel may be irrelevant to you but to me it's totally relevant - do unto others etc.

spen666

simple_salmon wrote:

What a depressing read on all levels.

Terra Nova - I cannot understand the pain you are feeling, you have my absolute sympathy and utmost respect in the calm manner you have debated on this forum.

I do understand the arguments of the legal people here but I hate them (the arguments); this country has become morally bankrupt if people use legal rules (loopholes?) to get out of taking responsibility.

If you do something wrong then stand up and be accountable for yourself - take your punishment like you deserve; whether you have to legally or not.

I'd like to think that a higher power will judge these people after life but I fear that's probably not the case.

There is more to an offence than the simple act.

for example theft- if I walk out of supermarket without paying for a loaf of bread, that is not sufficient for the offence.

The offence has the metal elements- eg Dishonesty - what is I had forgotten or if for example my child had loaf of bread in hand and I had not realised - not dishonest.

Intention to permanently deprive - again what if I saw some child in danger outside door and had gone to help child and intended to return to pay for bread -

you see in both these examples there are other things to the offencethan simply not having paid for the item.

These are not loopholes, they are part of the offence. If parliament didn't intend them to be part of the offence, then it would not have legislated for them to be part of the offence

simple_salmon

I agree with that example Spen but some of those described earlier leave me saddened as I wrote.

The thought that someone can be advised that they don't have to give themselves up whilst drink and drugs are in their system and can thus not get the full penalty for their crime sounds to my non-legal mind as a 'loophole'

Anyhow, semantics aside; I find the fact that it is legal to suggest and do that, morally wrong and depressing.

I couldn't care less whether it's governemnts parliaments or barristers who are responsible; to me it is wrong.

spen666

cjw wrote:

simple_salmon wrote:

If you do something wrong then stand up and be accountable for yourself - take your punishment like you deserve; whether you have to legally or not.

You have the option of doing just that - pleading guilty at an early stage and receiving a lighter tarrif.

If you are to defend yourself then you would do so vigorously and robustly (I certainly would) and I would expect my barrister to behave no less than has been described above. If he didn't then I would try to seek a miss trial, appeal, and have another go.

not in England and Wales you wouldn't- there is no such thing here as a mis trial

Maybe I am unique (but I don't expect so) but if I were fighting for my freedom I would expect and require my defense to use everything at their disposal. What the victims or relatives may feel would be irrelevant. Especially the relatives as they are not involved in the case at all - they are not even witnesses.

suzyb

All this talk of how the legal system works...I assume this is just in England and Wales as Scotland has a different system.

spen666

simple_salmon wrote:

I agree with that example Spen but some of those described earlier leave me saddened as I wrote.

The thought that someone can be advised that they don't have to give themselves up whilst drink and drugs are in their system and can thus not get the full penalty for their crime sounds to my non-legal mind as a 'loophole'

no loophole at all. Its the system innocent until proven guilty and the right not to incriminate yourself

why should anyone have to act to help the state punish them?

Anyhow, semantics aside; I find the fact that it is legal to suggest and do that, morally wrong and depressing.

I couldn't care less whether it's governemnts parliaments or barristers who are responsible; to me it is wrong.

spen666

-null- wrote:

All this talk of how the legal system works...I assume this is just in England and Wales as Scotland has a different system.

you need to be more specific about what you are talking about.

Different legal systems, but a lot of common features still

cjw

simple_salmon wrote:

If I was guilty I would plead so.

What the victims or relatives feel may be irrelevant to you but to me it's totally relevant - do unto others etc.

however, cases involving motoring are (I'm guessing a little as never been in the position) not clear cut.

Say you were in a car, indicated and turned left. In the process you hit the cyclist who was filtering past your left and killed him.

The victim's family clearly want you strung up.

CPS decide to prosecute you as clearly you hadn't paid sufficient attention and caused the death of the cyclist. You are now facing a prison term becasue you didn't notice a cyclist on your left. I wonder how you would behave in that circumstance. Going to prison you will lose your job could lose your home, family.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Terra Nova wrote:

And in no way do I believe that Stubbs was not guilty of death by dangerous driving...

I have suspected this was your view, but I don't think you have previously said it so explicitly. The plain fact though is that two juries didn't share that view.

There are two very distinct points/arguments/trains of thought in this thread: first, was the verdict in the case the correct one, and secondly, what can be done generally about road safety. I'm not sure the two really overlap much: the first, as is clear from your posts, is a point about reform of the the legal process at a quite fundamental level. The second isn't.

The first point, put in the narrow context of the right/wrong result, is in my view put to bed by the verdicts. At a broader level of reform of the process, it doesn't seem to me that there is much benefit in proposing or discussing widespread and fundamental changes (eg a defendant could make a non-incriminatory, "no strings" statement of the truth to the victim's family) based on the example of a single case.

So far as I can recall, on the second point there are a few recurring themes: education, blind spot elimination by cameras, mirrors etc. But there is an inherent, almost random element of danger to being on or near a road which is irreducible (see, for example the youtube video I posted in Spen's Anatomy of a Crash thread).

I see increased penalties as part of the second point, rather than part of the first (if you take the first as a broader reform of the criminal process point); you still have to get a conviction before you dole out the punishments.

Introducing new or different offences does, I suspect, bridge the two points. But I (and, I think, others in this thread) am of the view that introducing different offences is not a particularly effective way of modifying ingrained behaviour.

cjw

spen666 wrote:

not in England and Wales you wouldn't- there is no such thing here as a mis trial

Maybe I am unique (but I don't expect so) but if I were fighting for my freedom I would expect and require my defense to use everything at their disposal. What the victims or relatives may feel would be irrelevant. Especially the relatives as they are not involved in the case at all - they are not even witnesses.

That is why I would need legal professionals

suzyb

spen666 wrote:

-null- wrote:

All this talk of how the legal system works...I assume this is just in England and Wales as Scotland has a different system.

you need to be more specific about what you are talking about.

Different legal systems, but a lot of common features still

I was talking about your supermarket example. And the specific charges that can be brought against someone (is careless driving a charge in Scotland).

simple_salmon

Left hooking a cyclist is morally different to handing yourself in five days later so that drink and drugs have left your system; and being advised that it would be an appropriate course of action.

I'm not considering the law; I'm considering what I believe to be the difference between doing right and doing wrong.

Wallace1492

spen666 wrote:

simple_salmon wrote:

I agree with that example Spen but some of those described earlier leave me saddened as I wrote.

The thought that someone can be advised that they don't have to give themselves up whilst drink and drugs are in their system and can thus not get the full penalty for their crime sounds to my non-legal mind as a 'loophole'

no loophole at all. Its the system innocent until proven guilty and the right not to incriminate yourself

why should anyone have to act to help the state punish them?

Anyhow, semantics aside; I find the fact that it is legal to suggest and do that, morally wrong and depressing.

I couldn't care less whether it's governemnts parliaments or barristers who are responsible; to me it is wrong.

I am sure that anyone who has an accident while drink driving knows that they face serious consequences and will at least get a ban. I do not think they need advise from a lawyer to know that. If they then can manage to avoid being breathalysed then I am sure most would. After all why incriminate yourself? If you are reckless to get behind whel of car, then you will easily avoid being breathalysed till it is out of your system.

The people that think this is morally wrong are the ones that would never get behind the wheel of a car with a drink (Not that I would !!) But if you start the illegal act by driving while under the influence, then it is no skin of your nose to avoid being done for it.

bigmat

Its a crappy situation for all involved - the victim, the victim's family, the accused, the accused's family. Everyone involved would put things back the way they were if they could. But they can't. So an accused will have to focus on doing what is best for them and their family. That will usually involve getting the lightest possible sentence. That's understandable. I'm sure in 99.99% of cases there is no desire to cause more suffering to the victim's family, but ultimately that will be an unavoidable consequence of defending oneself.

As for the defence lawyer's involvement, their duty will be to their client and to the Court. No stone will be left unturned and everything that can be done will be done to defend the client. Its how an adversarial system works - without it the state could string up any old Tom Dick or Harry as it sees fit. A lot of us might find the prospect of defending a "guilty" man unsavoury, but we have to accept that it is an essential part of the justice system and be grateful that other people are prepared to do so,

greg66_tri_v2.0

cjw wrote:

Say you were in a car, indicated and turned left. In the process you hit the cyclist who was filtering past your left and killed him.

The victim's family clearly want you strung up.

CPS decide to prosecute you as clearly you hadn't paid sufficient attention and caused the death of the cyclist. You are now facing a prison term becasue you didn't notice a cyclist on your left. I wonder how you would behave in that circumstance. Going to prison you will lose your job could lose your home, family.

Modify the example:

The cyclist was what might be characterised as a militant cyclist. He deliberately sat in the blind spot of the car because he likes to surprise drivers. He saw the driver indicate left, then decided to undertake, reckoning it was an opportunity to shout, bang on the car, and generally make a point.

He makes his move, the driver is committed to the turn and/or doesn't see the cyclist appear, apparently from thin air. The driver clips the cyclist before he gets a chance to do his shouting/hitting thing. He goes down. He doesn't have a helmet on, cracks his head, has an internal bleed and dies.

The driver checked their mirror, saw nothing, indicated and started their move.

Witnesses see a car turn left, clip a cyclist who is killed.

Driver faces a prison sentence.

Show me the driver who puts his/hands up in those circumstances.