Does the punishment fit the crime.

ademort

A 56year old councillor appeared in court today charged with causing the death of a 30year old cyclist. The cyclist was at the head of a group of 3 riders when he approached a T junction. The 56year old man driving towards the T junction failed to give way and crashed into the 30 year old killing him instantly.Police proved that the councillor was driving far to fast at the time.A sentence of 120 hours community service and a driving ban have been asked for by the Crown. The judges will reveal there ruling in two weeks, however it,s not expected to be much different from the Crowns request. Pease remember this happened in the Netherlands, where the price of a life seems to be getting cheaper all the time.
Ademort :evil:

Limburger

Surely there must be an appeal against this.
Death by dangerous/careless driving = 120 hours polishing cobbles.

If I were at all cynical I would say the councilor had a few friends at the court.

deptfordmarmoset

If the punishment leads to people driving with more care and attention then yes, the punishment fits the crime. But it won't so it doesn't.

dennisn

ademort wrote:

A 56year old councillor appeared in court today charged with causing the death of a 30year old cyclist. The cyclist was at the head of a group of 3 riders when he approached a T junction. The 56year old man driving towards the T junction failed to give way and crashed into the 30 year old killing him instantly.Police proved that the councillor was driving far to fast at the time.A sentence of 120 hours community service and a driving ban have been asked for by the Crown. The judges will reveal there ruling in two weeks, however it,s not expected to be much different from the Crowns request. Pease remember this happened in the Netherlands, where the price of a life seems to be getting cheaper all the time.
Ademort :evil:

Are you looking for an eye for an eye sort of thing? If so then life is "getting cheaper
all the time". I'm of the opinion that in a perfect world these things don't happen, but......
You sound like you want justice based simply on the fact that a "cyclist" was killed
and this is somehow different from every other kind of accident that happens out there.
Key word here is "accident". It happens.

Limburger

dennisn wrote:

ademort wrote:

A 56year old councillor appeared in court today charged with causing the death of a 30year old cyclist. The cyclist was at the head of a group of 3 riders when he approached a T junction. The 56year old man driving towards the T junction failed to give way and crashed into the 30 year old killing him instantly.Police proved that the councillor was driving far to fast at the time.A sentence of 120 hours community service and a driving ban have been asked for by the Crown. The judges will reveal there ruling in two weeks, however it,s not expected to be much different from the Crowns request. Pease remember this happened in the Netherlands, where the price of a life seems to be getting cheaper all the time.
Ademort :evil:

Are you looking for an eye for an eye sort of thing? If so then life is "getting cheaper
all the time". I'm of the opinion that in a perfect world these things don't happen, but......
You sound like you want justice based simply on the fact that a "cyclist" was killed
and this is somehow different from every other kind of accident that happens out there.
Key word here is "accident". It happens.

So if the guy had come blaring up to a pedestrian crossing and not stopped causing him to hit someone you think 120 hours community service is reasonable?

I suggest you are diminishing the value of the cyclists life rather than the other way round.



*An accident is an unavoidable event. Say he had skidded on some spilled diesel and hit someone. that is unavoidable and unforeseen. This incident would appear not to fit those criteria.

Ollieda

from Ademort's description it would appear it's careless driving both due to the failure to give way and the speeding. Obviously we haven't got the full facts but if it was careless driving then killing someone on the road should result in atleast some prison time.

I would hope the sentence given reflects some information that we do not have, i.e. if the cyclist was partly to blame or something like that. If however it was the drivers fault and and his careless driving caused death then he should be given a much higher/bigger/stricter sentence

ademort

dennisn wrote:

ademort wrote:

A 56year old councillor appeared in court today charged with causing the death of a 30year old cyclist. The cyclist was at the head of a group of 3 riders when he approached a T junction. The 56year old man driving towards the T junction failed to give way and crashed into the 30 year old killing him instantly.Police proved that the councillor was driving far to fast at the time.A sentence of 120 hours community service and a driving ban have been asked for by the Crown. The judges will reveal there ruling in two weeks, however it,s not expected to be much different from the Crowns request. Pease remember this happened in the Netherlands, where the price of a life seems to be getting cheaper all the time.
Ademort :evil:

Are you looking for an eye for an eye sort of thing? If so then life is "getting cheaper
all the time". I'm of the opinion that in a perfect world these things don't happen, but......
You sound like you want justice based simply on the fact that a "cyclist" was killed
and this is somehow different from every other kind of accident that happens out there.
Key word here is "accident". It happens.

No Dennisn it,s not a case of an eye for an eye. I am merely pointing out that the person who killed this cyclist will only be sentenced to 120 hours community service and a driving ban and i for on e think its to lenient.As above, this was no accident, this man was driving far to fast and not paying attention when he collided with the cyclist.IMHO IT WARRANTS A CUSTODIAL SENTENCE.
Ademort

dennisn

Limburger wrote:

dennisn wrote:

ademort wrote:

A 56year old councillor appeared in court today charged with causing the death of a 30year old cyclist. The cyclist was at the head of a group of 3 riders when he approached a T junction. The 56year old man driving towards the T junction failed to give way and crashed into the 30 year old killing him instantly.Police proved that the councillor was driving far to fast at the time.A sentence of 120 hours community service and a driving ban have been asked for by the Crown. The judges will reveal there ruling in two weeks, however it,s not expected to be much different from the Crowns request. Pease remember this happened in the Netherlands, where the price of a life seems to be getting cheaper all the time.
Ademort :evil:

Are you looking for an eye for an eye sort of thing? If so then life is "getting cheaper
all the time". I'm of the opinion that in a perfect world these things don't happen, but......
You sound like you want justice based simply on the fact that a "cyclist" was killed
and this is somehow different from every other kind of accident that happens out there.
Key word here is "accident". It happens.

So if the guy had come blaring up to a pedestrian crossing and not stopped causing him to hit someone you think 120 hours community service is reasonable?

I suggest you are diminishing the value of the cyclists life rather than the other way round.



*An accident is an unavoidable event. Say he had skidded on some spilled diesel and hit someone. that is unavoidable and unforeseen. This incident would appear not to fit those criteria.

Apparently, in the Netherlands 120 hours is reasonable. Doesn't matter what I think.
As for the car sliding on some oil. That's not "unavoidable" either. At least to your way of thinking. Someone spilled the oil. Have you never had an accident? No one goes out there and tries to kill another human being in this manner. No one wants it to happen but it does.
You may be infallible and incapable of an accident or mistake in judgement but as for the rest of us accidents are a fact of life and WE all have them. Some with disastrous consequences. Mistakes are made. Cause and effect. In reality it doesn't matter if the person was a cyclist, pedestrian, driver, or whatever. He's gone as the result of human error. Something none of us can avoid.

Limburger

dennisn wrote:

Limburger wrote:

dennisn wrote:

ademort wrote:

A 56year old councillor appeared in court today charged with causing the death of a 30year old cyclist. The cyclist was at the head of a group of 3 riders when he approached a T junction. The 56year old man driving towards the T junction failed to give way and crashed into the 30 year old killing him instantly.Police proved that the councillor was driving far to fast at the time.A sentence of 120 hours community service and a driving ban have been asked for by the Crown. The judges will reveal there ruling in two weeks, however it,s not expected to be much different from the Crowns request. Pease remember this happened in the Netherlands, where the price of a life seems to be getting cheaper all the time.
Ademort :evil:

Are you looking for an eye for an eye sort of thing? If so then life is "getting cheaper
all the time". I'm of the opinion that in a perfect world these things don't happen, but......
You sound like you want justice based simply on the fact that a "cyclist" was killed
and this is somehow different from every other kind of accident that happens out there.
Key word here is "accident". It happens.

So if the guy had come blaring up to a pedestrian crossing and not stopped causing him to hit someone you think 120 hours community service is reasonable?

I suggest you are diminishing the value of the cyclists life rather than the other way round.



*An accident is an unavoidable event. Say he had skidded on some spilled diesel and hit someone. that is unavoidable and unforeseen. This incident would appear not to fit those criteria.

Apparently, in the Netherlands 120 hours is reasonable. Doesn't matter what I think.
As for the car sliding on some oil. That's not "unavoidable" either. At least to your way of thinking. Someone spilled the oil. Have you never had an accident? No one goes out there and tries to kill another human being in this manner. No one wants it to happen but it does.
You may be infallible and incapable of an accident or mistake in judgement but as for the rest of us accidents are a fact of life and WE all have them. Some with disastrous consequences. Mistakes are made. Cause and effect. In reality it doesn't matter if the person was a cyclist, pedestrian, driver, or whatever. He's gone as the result of human error. Something none of us can avoid.

Skidding on oil (or whatever) is out of the control of the driver.

This driver chose to break the speed limit - which is a criminal offence in itself.
The driver also chose not to stop at a junction that they should have - another offence.

The result of the persons CHOICES lead to them killing another human being with a motor vehicle. I fail to see where your ambiguity is coming from.

I have made mistakes and misjudged things in my time, at no time have I ever endangered the life of another person, I have never injured another person unintentionally and have certainly never killed anyone. I believe that is down to the choices I have made.

dennisn

Limburger wrote:

dennisn wrote:

Limburger wrote:

dennisn wrote:

ademort wrote:

A 56year old councillor appeared in court today charged with causing the death of a 30year old cyclist. The cyclist was at the head of a group of 3 riders when he approached a T junction. The 56year old man driving towards the T junction failed to give way and crashed into the 30 year old killing him instantly.Police proved that the councillor was driving far to fast at the time.A sentence of 120 hours community service and a driving ban have been asked for by the Crown. The judges will reveal there ruling in two weeks, however it,s not expected to be much different from the Crowns request. Pease remember this happened in the Netherlands, where the price of a life seems to be getting cheaper all the time.
Ademort :evil:

Are you looking for an eye for an eye sort of thing? If so then life is "getting cheaper
all the time". I'm of the opinion that in a perfect world these things don't happen, but......
You sound like you want justice based simply on the fact that a "cyclist" was killed
and this is somehow different from every other kind of accident that happens out there.
Key word here is "accident". It happens.

So if the guy had come blaring up to a pedestrian crossing and not stopped causing him to hit someone you think 120 hours community service is reasonable?

I suggest you are diminishing the value of the cyclists life rather than the other way round.



*An accident is an unavoidable event. Say he had skidded on some spilled diesel and hit someone. that is unavoidable and unforeseen. This incident would appear not to fit those criteria.

Apparently, in the Netherlands 120 hours is reasonable. Doesn't matter what I think.
As for the car sliding on some oil. That's not "unavoidable" either. At least to your way of thinking. Someone spilled the oil. Have you never had an accident? No one goes out there and tries to kill another human being in this manner. No one wants it to happen but it does.
You may be infallible and incapable of an accident or mistake in judgement but as for the rest of us accidents are a fact of life and WE all have them. Some with disastrous consequences. Mistakes are made. Cause and effect. In reality it doesn't matter if the person was a cyclist, pedestrian, driver, or whatever. He's gone as the result of human error. Something none of us can avoid.

Skidding on oil (or whatever) is out of the control of the driver.

This driver chose to break the speed limit - which is a criminal offence in itself.
The driver also chose not to stop at a junction that they should have - another offence.

The result of the persons CHOICES lead to them killing another human being with a motor vehicle. I fail to see where your ambiguity is coming from.

I have made mistakes and misjudged things in my time, at no time have I ever endangered the life of another person, I have never injured another person unintentionally and have certainly never killed anyone. I believe that is down to the choices I have made.

So you feel confident that for the rest of your life you will never make a bad decision or
a judgement error that might cause some sort of "catastrophe"(for lack of a better word)
to another human being. That's quite a bold statement, if that's what you're saying. Personally, I believe that within the next 10 minutes something could happen and I might make a bad judgement call and it could cost someone dearly. The possibilities are endless in this life. Saying that wrong place, wrong time and possibly a judgement error, will never happen to you is not a statement that anyone can make.

bobtbuilder

dennisn wrote:

Limburger wrote:

dennisn wrote:

Limburger wrote:

dennisn wrote:

ademort wrote:

A 56year old councillor appeared in court today charged with causing the death of a 30year old cyclist. The cyclist was at the head of a group of 3 riders when he approached a T junction. The 56year old man driving towards the T junction failed to give way and crashed into the 30 year old killing him instantly.Police proved that the councillor was driving far to fast at the time.A sentence of 120 hours community service and a driving ban have been asked for by the Crown. The judges will reveal there ruling in two weeks, however it,s not expected to be much different from the Crowns request. Pease remember this happened in the Netherlands, where the price of a life seems to be getting cheaper all the time.
Ademort :evil:

Are you looking for an eye for an eye sort of thing? If so then life is "getting cheaper
all the time". I'm of the opinion that in a perfect world these things don't happen, but......
You sound like you want justice based simply on the fact that a "cyclist" was killed
and this is somehow different from every other kind of accident that happens out there.
Key word here is "accident". It happens.

So if the guy had come blaring up to a pedestrian crossing and not stopped causing him to hit someone you think 120 hours community service is reasonable?

I suggest you are diminishing the value of the cyclists life rather than the other way round.



*An accident is an unavoidable event. Say he had skidded on some spilled diesel and hit someone. that is unavoidable and unforeseen. This incident would appear not to fit those criteria.

Apparently, in the Netherlands 120 hours is reasonable. Doesn't matter what I think.
As for the car sliding on some oil. That's not "unavoidable" either. At least to your way of thinking. Someone spilled the oil. Have you never had an accident? No one goes out there and tries to kill another human being in this manner. No one wants it to happen but it does.
You may be infallible and incapable of an accident or mistake in judgement but as for the rest of us accidents are a fact of life and WE all have them. Some with disastrous consequences. Mistakes are made. Cause and effect. In reality it doesn't matter if the person was a cyclist, pedestrian, driver, or whatever. He's gone as the result of human error. Something none of us can avoid.

Skidding on oil (or whatever) is out of the control of the driver.

This driver chose to break the speed limit - which is a criminal offence in itself.
The driver also chose not to stop at a junction that they should have - another offence.

The result of the persons CHOICES lead to them killing another human being with a motor vehicle. I fail to see where your ambiguity is coming from.

I have made mistakes and misjudged things in my time, at no time have I ever endangered the life of another person, I have never injured another person unintentionally and have certainly never killed anyone. I believe that is down to the choices I have made.

So you feel confident that for the rest of your life you will never make a bad decision or
a judgement error that might cause some sort of "catastrophe"(for lack of a better word)
to another human being. That's quite a bold statement, if that's what you're saying. Personally, I believe that within the next 10 minutes something could happen and I might make a bad judgement call and it could cost someone dearly. The possibilities are endless in this life. Saying that wrong place, wrong time and possibly a judgement error, will never happen to you is not a statement that anyone can make.

But these "bad decisions" cost another human being his life. 120 hours community service is a joke. There should be a custodial sentence.

dennisn

bobtbuilder wrote:

dennisn wrote:

Limburger wrote:

dennisn wrote:

Limburger wrote:

dennisn wrote:

ademort wrote:

A 56year old councillor appeared in court today charged with causing the death of a 30year old cyclist. The cyclist was at the head of a group of 3 riders when he approached a T junction. The 56year old man driving towards the T junction failed to give way and crashed into the 30 year old killing him instantly.Police proved that the councillor was driving far to fast at the time.A sentence of 120 hours community service and a driving ban have been asked for by the Crown. The judges will reveal there ruling in two weeks, however it,s not expected to be much different from the Crowns request. Pease remember this happened in the Netherlands, where the price of a life seems to be getting cheaper all the time.
Ademort :evil:

Are you looking for an eye for an eye sort of thing? If so then life is "getting cheaper
all the time". I'm of the opinion that in a perfect world these things don't happen, but......
You sound like you want justice based simply on the fact that a "cyclist" was killed
and this is somehow different from every other kind of accident that happens out there.
Key word here is "accident". It happens.

So if the guy had come blaring up to a pedestrian crossing and not stopped causing him to hit someone you think 120 hours community service is reasonable?

I suggest you are diminishing the value of the cyclists life rather than the other way round.



*An accident is an unavoidable event. Say he had skidded on some spilled diesel and hit someone. that is unavoidable and unforeseen. This incident would appear not to fit those criteria.

Apparently, in the Netherlands 120 hours is reasonable. Doesn't matter what I think.
As for the car sliding on some oil. That's not "unavoidable" either. At least to your way of thinking. Someone spilled the oil. Have you never had an accident? No one goes out there and tries to kill another human being in this manner. No one wants it to happen but it does.
You may be infallible and incapable of an accident or mistake in judgement but as for the rest of us accidents are a fact of life and WE all have them. Some with disastrous consequences. Mistakes are made. Cause and effect. In reality it doesn't matter if the person was a cyclist, pedestrian, driver, or whatever. He's gone as the result of human error. Something none of us can avoid.

Skidding on oil (or whatever) is out of the control of the driver.

This driver chose to break the speed limit - which is a criminal offence in itself.
The driver also chose not to stop at a junction that they should have - another offence.

The result of the persons CHOICES lead to them killing another human being with a motor vehicle. I fail to see where your ambiguity is coming from.

I have made mistakes and misjudged things in my time, at no time have I ever endangered the life of another person, I have never injured another person unintentionally and have certainly never killed anyone. I believe that is down to the choices I have made.

So you feel confident that for the rest of your life you will never make a bad decision or
a judgement error that might cause some sort of "catastrophe"(for lack of a better word)
to another human being. That's quite a bold statement, if that's what you're saying. Personally, I believe that within the next 10 minutes something could happen and I might make a bad judgement call and it could cost someone dearly. The possibilities are endless in this life. Saying that wrong place, wrong time and possibly a judgement error, will never happen to you is not a statement that anyone can make.

But these "bad decisions" cost another human being his life. 120 hours community service is a joke. There should be a custodial sentence.

To what end? Some sort of vengence? Won't help anyone.

Smokin Joe

I agree with Dennis.

We have to accept that people are capable of human error, no matter how bad the outcome. If the case involved an obvious instance of criminal behaviour such as drunk driving or racing then fair enough, a jail sentence would be appropriate.

But accidents happen, and we have all made mistakes that could have cost a life if circumstances had been different.

Ollieda

yes but the law is there to punish those who chose to do wrong and those who negligently do wrong. The fact remains that he was speeding whilst this happened, his choice. Had he been traveling at the speed limit and failed to give way then I would understand some leniency but with the speeding element on top he was driving carelessly. If you kill someone by mistake because of your careless negligence you should get punished.....especially if you do so whilst committing a criminal offense (i.e. speeding) it's a little thing called constructive manslaughter. Granted this incident is from the Netherlands and they most likely have a different legal system but I would hope they have an equivalent punishment.

If people make negligent mistakes and are not punished appropriately then what image does that give across. "Don't worry if your speeding and kill someone on the road, if it's a mistake you won't go to jail."

jairaj

People make mistakes that's a fact of life, I agree with that. But from the limited info in the 1st post it seems that the driver was speeding. This too me is being negligent and I think negligent mistakes should be punished to encourage people to take more care. In this case a person was killed so deserves in my opinion a stricter sentence.

At the same time I must add, I don't know all the facts so I'm merely speculating, there could be other factors not mentioned that should be taken into account?

bobtbuilder

The driver chose to exceed the speed limit. He either chose to ignore road laws governing approaching a T-junction, or by his excessive speed, was unable to do stop in time. Either way his behaviour led directly to the death of another human being.

Just because he didn't plan to kill someone doesn't make it alright. What about taking responsibility for the consequences of your actions?

What sort of f*cked up apologist society blandly writes this off as an accident? :evil:

teagar

bobtbuilder wrote:

The driver chose to exceed the speed limit. He either chose to ignore road laws governing approaching a T-junction, or by his excessive speed, was unable to do stop in time. Either way his behaviour led directly to the death of another human being.

Just because he didn't plan to kill someone doesn't make it alright. What about taking responsibility for the consequences of your actions?

What sort of f*cked up apologist society blandly writes this off as an accident? :evil:

The same country that gives cyclists right of way and a very extensive network of cycle paths...

Frank the tank

If the driver was exceeding the speed limit it demonstrates a certain level of either arrogance/dis-respect for the law and other road users.

I've come to the conclusion if you're going to kill someone, do it in a car. Chances are you'll all but "get away" with it.

ademort

jairaj wrote:

People make mistakes that's a fact of life, I agree with that. But from the limited info in the 1st post it seems that the driver was speeding. This too me is being negligent and I think negligent mistakes should be punished to encourage people to take more care. In this case a person was killed so deserves in my opinion a stricter sentence.

At the same time I must add, I don't know all the facts so I'm merely speculating, there could be other factors not mentioned that should be taken into account?

I,m sorry, but there were no other circumstances mentioned in the article. I,ve just quoted the article in it,s entirety and word for word.
To dennisn
To me Dennis an accident is something that happens suddenly and without warning and usually because of circumstances beyond anybodys control.This was not an accident dennisn, this was a driver who failed to stop at a T junction and who was driving to fast.Given those circumstances do you think this was an accident.As far as the punishment fitting the crime, if this was your Brother that had been killed Dennis would you feel that justice has been done if the man that killed your Brother got 120 hours community service and a driving ban.
Ademort

STEFANOS4784

I'm not going to re-quote everything and use a whole page but Dennis is right, it is an un-fortunate 'accident'. The driver made a bad call yes. But it was not intentional and if the guy wasn't involved and the police saw this behaviour i doubt they'd do anything more than a ticking off or fine. It is very unfortunate but not exactly crime of the century and where's the sense in locking the guy up, possibly ruining the lives of his family etc etc, on the flip side if he was going that fast why could the cyclist not have used his judgment to think 'me vs 1 tonne of metal' i think i'll wait, right of way or not. No he shouldnt have to but better safe than errrr sorry, or dead as the case is here.

STEFANOS4784

ademort


Have you ever gone 1mph over the speed limit? Ever broke any law in your life? If not then fair enough but i highly doubt that, goes for all the rest as well.

ademort

STEFANOS4784 wrote:

ademort


Have you ever gone 1mph over the speed limit? Ever broke any law in your life? If not then fair enough but i highly doubt that, goes for all the rest as well.

Yes i have broken the law, but i havent caused the death of another person.Quite honestly, if i ever did cause the death of another person i would fully expect a jail sentence, and rightly so.
Ademort

pepelepew

dennisn wrote:

Are you looking for an eye for an eye sort of thing? If so then life is "getting cheaper
all the time". I'm of the opinion that in a perfect world these things don't happen, but......
You sound like you want justice based simply on the fact that a "cyclist" was killed
and this is somehow different from every other kind of accident that happens out there.
Key word here is "accident". It happens.

I haven't read through all posts on this, but why is the key word "accident". This was a "collision", with the car driver's proven excess speed the contributory factor. You can't just dismisss this as an "accident".

Pross

ademort wrote:

STEFANOS4784 wrote:

ademort


Have you ever gone 1mph over the speed limit? Ever broke any law in your life? If not then fair enough but i highly doubt that, goes for all the rest as well.

Yes i have broken the law, but i havent caused the death of another person.Quite honestly, if i ever did cause the death of another person i would fully expect a jail sentence, and rightly so.
Ademort

Ditto. OK everyone probably breaks a speed limit at least occassionally (except me for all the coppers on here!) and we all make errors of judgement but in this case the speeding would appear to have led to the failure to give way. The only way to stop people taking chances like this is to ensure that the punishment makes you think twice. In most cases the guilt of having someone's death on your conscience will be a punishment but some would be relieved to still have their liberty and, more importantly, their punishment isn't a deterrent.

dilemna

So the UK isn't the only country that is soft on drivers who kill whilst at the wheel. Must admit that it comes as a shock that the Dutch are similarly soft given their well developed cycle network and emphasis on cycling as a viable means of transport in the developed Western world and legal frame work that places the presumption that a driver was at fault who is in collision with a cyclist or pedestrian unless they can show otherwise.

120 hrs community is too lenient a punishment where as the death penalty is far too harsh. Somewhere in between these must be more appropriate. 5 years in jail would seem about right to me, giving the driver time to reflect on what he has done, atone and to act as a deterrent to other less cautious drivers.

That's my 2p.