I personally feel that the punishment should be the same in each case. The causes of the accident were identical, and all the factors that led to the accident happening were present before the actual outcome. In the first scenario the outcome was unfortunate, and in the second it was tragic, but unless it could be shown that the driver was reckless, I can’t see what difference the actual consequences should make to the original crime.
quote:
maybe he could clarify?
Mr Whippy - 9/1/09 at 02:54 PMpossably I may have miss read it
maybe he could clarify?
mr henderson - 9/1/09 at 02:57 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Whippy
well then with that logic you'd say that me shooting a gun randomly at an empty space should be looked at as though I'd actually killed someone or indeed a whole heap of people, no?
Shooting a gun randomly is quite an extrapolation from what I was talking about!
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Whippy
Or should any time we break the speed limit also be looked upon in a worse case scenario and lead to a ban or imprisonment?
No. I think each case should be weighed on its merits. If the driver could have reasonably foreseen the risk to the children then I think he should be severely dealt with whether or not they came to any harm. OTOH, if not then not
John
neilj37 - 9/1/09 at 03:00 PM
I must have missed something but in the first case surely you wouldn't get charged with anything? You just lost control of the car and provided
that nothing else was damaged you would just claim of your insurance. As far as i am aware police would not even get involved.
In the second case you might get done for driving without due care and attention as you were not considerate of the hazards around you? However I
guess that they would have to prove that you were driving was unsuitable for the road conditions.
[Edited on 9/1/09 by neilj37]
mr henderson - 9/1/09 at 03:05 PM
quote:
Originally posted by neilj37
I must have missed something but in the first case surely you wouldn't get charged with anything? You just lost control of the car and provided that nothing else was damaged you would just claim of your insurance.
In the second case you might get done for driving without due care and attention as you were not considerate of the hazards around you?
Well, for the avoidance of doubt, let's say the presence of the children was not apparent at the time things went wrong.
John
02GF74 - 9/1/09 at 03:09 PM
quote:
Originally posted by mr henderson
Well, for the avoidance of doubt, let's say the presence of the children was not apparent at the time things went wrong.
John
in that case it is the children's fault and not the driver - you said the driver was not speeding.
Even in residential areas, you can drive within or below the speed limit and be as vigilent as you can but if some child decides to throw themselves into your path, there is not a great deal you can do about it.
Mr Whippy - 9/1/09 at 03:10 PM
quote:
Shooting a gun randomly is quite an extrapolation from what I was talking about!
quote:
yeah I know but both actions are recklessly dangerous and both can lead to people dieing so in a way they are similar... I mind on topgear (before it became rubbish) they said a car at 30mph had something like 600 times the energy of a hand gun.
In the first case the driver would leg it home to grab a trailer before the police came
neilj37 - 9/1/09 at 03:11 PMquote:
Originally posted by mr henderson
Well, for the avoidance of doubt, let's say the presence of the children was not apparent at the time things went wrong.
John
I guess that they would have to prove that your driving was unsuitable for the road conditions and that the pedestrians in question had not contributed to the accident. If the driver tried to negotiate the island at 40mph then i would say that they were driving beyond the road conditions.
My aunt hit a child who ran out in front of her and they were happy that there was nothing she could have done to avoid the accident as she was driving for the road conditions and made an attempt to avoid the accident ie braked.
smart51 - 9/1/09 at 03:17 PMSurely the outcome of an incident dictates the offence committed.
Attempted robbery is a lesser offence than robbery. Attempted murder is less than murder. Assault is less than murder, even if you intended to kill but didn't quite.
A spin in a car is either an accident if the driver couldn't have foresaw the cause of the slip, or perhaps driving without due care and attention if the cause was foreseeable. If you damage some property or injure some people then the offence is worse, even if it was just a matter of bad luck that people were in the way.
Crime is about what happened, not what could have happened.
Consider someone who went out with a sward to kill a whole group of people but overbalanced and fell over before anyone got hurt. Is he guilty of murder? GBH? ABH? or just possession of a knife in a public place? To prove attempted murder you'd have to prove with evidence that it was what he intended. If he claimed that he just wanted to pretend he was he-man with the sward, there is reasonable doubt about the attempted murder.
mr henderson - 9/1/09 at 03:19 PMquote:
Originally posted by Mr Whippy
quote:
Shooting a gun randomly is quite an extrapolation from what I was talking about!
quote:
yeah I know but both actions are recklessly dangerous and both can lead to people dieing so in a way they are similar... I mind on topgear (before it became rubbish) they said a car at 30mph had something like 600 times the energy of a hand gun.
I would agree that driving a car has the potential for danger, but not that it is recklessly dangerous
John
JoelP - 9/1/09 at 03:24 PMloosing control could be investiaged as a crime even if no third party suffered any loss - take Ronaldo for instance, to be interviewed over his mishap.
IMHO, attempted murder should be treated as murder.
cd.thomson - 9/1/09 at 03:26 PMquote:
Originally posted by smart51
Surely the outcome of an incident dictates the offence committed.
Attempted robbery is a lesser offence than robbery. Attempted murder is less than murder. Assault is less than murder, even if you intended to kill but didn't quite.
I'm afraid your logic is completely flawed. There is no attempted crime implicit to driving, its not known was attempted pedestrian slaughter everytime I pull out of my drive.
This is an accident, a sequence of unpredicitable events leading to someone dying.
mr henderson - 9/1/09 at 03:28 PMquote:
Originally posted by smart51
Surely the outcome of an incident dictates the offence committed.
Attempted robbery is a lesser offence than robbery. Attempted murder is less than murder. Assault is less than murder, even if you intended to kill but didn't quite.
A spin in a car is either an accident if the driver couldn't have foresaw the cause of the slip, or perhaps driving without due care and attention if the cause was foreseeable. If you damage some property or injure some people then the offence is worse, even if it was just a matter of bad luck that people were in the way.
Crime is about what happened, not what could have happened.
Consider someone who went out with a sward to kill a whole group of people but overbalanced and fell over before anyone got hurt. Is he guilty of murder? GBH? ABH? or just possession of a knife in a public place? To prove attempted murder you'd have to prove with evidence that it was what he intended. If he claimed that he just wanted to pretend he was he-man with the sward, there is reasonable doubt about the attempted murder.
I hear what you are saying, but do you agree that things should be that way?
Surely the most important fact in deciding culpability is what was in the mind of the person at the time.
For instance, let's suppose I am driving along a residential street and a child runs out, I hit it and kill it. I would hope that I wouldn't even be charged if I was driving with due car and attention and at a reasonable speed.
But what if it could be shown that I was actually hoping that a child would run out, that my whole reason for being there was the chance that I might have to kill the child (I know it sounds crazy, but bear with me). If such a thing could be proved beyond reasonable doubt, then I would hope that I would be found guilty of murder. So in this case we would have exactly the same consequence, but wildy different crimes
John
Mr Whippy - 9/1/09 at 03:30 PMOne of the main reasons for me giving up the bus driving was the increasing fear that I’d end up hitting some pedestrian, even though I obviously was trying my best to not do so. Had so many close calls over the 4 year I did it (folk walking backward into it as I drove by etc) and I just didn’t want to face the situation of trying to prove I hadn’t been reckless, more difficult than it sounds due to the time short timetables we were given as most of the day we were right at the speed limit. It may sound far fetched but I was not the only one there with the same concern, I mind one driver saying that if he hit a kid that would be the last he’d ever drive anything, he just could not live with it. It’s easy to be come blasé about the risks of pushing to hard on the road.
Benzine - 9/1/09 at 03:49 PMtl;dr
smart51 - 9/1/09 at 03:58 PMquote:
Originally posted by cd.thomson
quote:
Originally posted by smart51
Surely the outcome of an incident dictates the offence committed.
Attempted robbery is a lesser offence than robbery. Attempted murder is less than murder. Assault is less than murder, even if you intended to kill but didn't quite.
I'm afraid your logic is completely flawed. There is no attempted crime implicit to driving, its not known was attempted pedestrian slaughter everytime I pull out of my drive.
This is an accident, a sequence of unpredicitable events leading to someone dying.
No, you've got it all wrong. If you were driving dangerously you are culpable, if your driving was fine and the accident was caused by, say component failure, then you are not culpable. Your assertion that a sequence of unpredictable events cause the incident may or may not be true. Bad driving could have been the cause. Sure, driving in itself is not a crime but driving at 40 MPH where 15 MPH was appropriate for the conditions, for example, is.
I still assert that crashing but causing no damage or injury is a lesser offence than the same crash under the same conditions but killing everyone in a bus stop queue that happened to be at the site of your crash.
smart51 - 9/1/09 at 04:03 PMquote:
Originally posted by mr henderson
I hear what you are saying, but do you agree that things should be that way?
Surely the most important fact in deciding culpability is what was in the mind of the person at the time.
Exactly, but I'd like to see you prove that in court beyond reasonable doubt. You can prove what someone did. When they did it and how they did it. Sometimes you can demonstrate why they did it. If the accused wrote down what they intended to do then you can also use that as evidence, otherwise proving someone's intention is tricky.
I do believe that if someone intended to commit a serious crime but only achieved a lesser one, then they should be punished in accordance with what they did. Attempted murder is still less than murder. I would want to see a prison sentence, but would expect to see a lesser sentence than for murder.
mr henderson - 9/1/09 at 04:05 PMquote:
Originally posted by smart51
I still assert that crashing but causing no damage or injury is a lesser offence than the same crash under the same conditions but killing everyone in a bus stop queue that happened to be at the site of your crash.
But how do you defend that point of view, bearing in mind that the circumstances that led to the crash were the same in each case (in other words, the crime was the same in each case)
John
neilj37 - 9/1/09 at 04:25 PMquote:
Originally posted by mr henderson
quote:
Originally posted by smart51
I still assert that crashing but causing no damage or injury is a lesser offence than the same crash under the same conditions but killing everyone in a bus stop queue that happened to be at the site of your crash.
But how do you defend that point of view, bearing in mind that the circumstances that led to the crash were the same in each case (in other words, the crime was the same in each case)
John
The crime is not the same in each case though. Was the kids that were injured on the road, using a crossing or on the pavement.
If they were crossing the road without using a designated crossing then you could not be held liable for injurying them as you would not be aware that they were there. If they were using a crossing or on the pavement then you would be committing an offence.
If you crashed the car and mounted the pavement then you could be considered driving without due car and attention. If you just crashed in the road and did not cause any other damage than to the car then it is unlikely that the police would get involved.
[Edited on 9/1/09 by neilj37]
mr henderson - 9/1/09 at 04:30 PMquote:
Originally posted by neilj37
quote:
Originally posted by mr henderson
quote:
Originally posted by smart51
I still assert that crashing but causing no damage or injury is a lesser offence than the same crash under the same conditions but killing everyone in a bus stop queue that happened to be at the site of your crash.
But how do you defend that point of view, bearing in mind that the circumstances that led to the crash were the same in each case (in other words, the crime was the same in each case)
John
The crime is not the same in each case though. Was the kids that were injured on the road, using a crossing or on the pavement.
If they were crossing the road without using a designated crossing then you could not be held liable for injurying them as you would not be aware that they were there. If they were using a crossing or on the pavement then you would be committing an offence.
If you crashed the car and mounted the pavement then you could be considered driving without due car and attention. If you just crashed in the road and did not cause any other damage than to the car then it is unlikely that the police would get involved.
[Edited on 9/1/09 by neilj37]
No, Smart's example was meant, I'm sure, to illustrate a situation where the event was indeed the same, with the single exception that the children were killed in the second part, and not in the first
smart51 - 9/1/09 at 04:35 PMquote:
Originally posted by mr henderson
quote:
Originally posted by neilj37
The crime is not the same in each case though. Was the kids that were injured on the road, using a crossing or on the pavement.
If they were crossing the road without using a designated crossing then you could not be held liable for injurying them as you would not be aware that they were there. If they were using a crossing or on the pavement then you would be committing an offence.
If you crashed the car and mounted the pavement then you could be considered driving without due car and attention. If you just crashed in the road and did not cause any other damage than to the car then it is unlikely that the police would get involved.
[Edited on 9/1/09 by neilj37]
No, Smart's example was meant, I'm sure, to illustrate a situation where the event was indeed the same, with the single exception that the children were killed in the second part, and not in the first
Exactly so.
nstrug - 9/1/09 at 04:55 PMThe primary determinant of the severity of the sentence is not the severity of the offence, but the charge that the CPS chooses to bring.
In the first case, it is highly unlikely that a charge would be brought, unless the accident caused a road closure or damage to street furniture, in which case possibly a careless driving or driving without due care or attention charge might be brought.
In the second case there is a very specific charge that could be brought: causing death by careless driving. Note that this is NOT a reckless driving charge - the prosecution merely have to prove that you were careless, not reckless. The test for carelessness is if your driving falls below the standard expected of a reasonable, competent and prudent driver in all the circumstances of the case.
In reality, all the prosecution have to demonstrate is that a couple of drivers with clean licences (reasonable, competent and prudent) passed the scene of the accident travelling in the same direction as you shortly before you without mishap.
Nick
mr henderson - 9/1/09 at 05:49 PMquote:
Originally posted by nstrug
The primary determinant of the severity of the sentence is not the severity of the offence, but the charge that the CPS chooses to bring.
In the first case, it is highly unlikely that a charge would be brought, unless the accident caused a road closure or damage to street furniture, in which case possibly a careless driving or driving without due care or attention charge might be brought.
In the second case there is a very specific charge that could be brought: causing death by careless driving. Note that this is NOT a reckless driving charge - the prosecution merely have to prove that you were careless, not reckless. The test for carelessness is if your driving falls below the standard expected of a reasonable, competent and prudent driver in all the circumstances of the case.
In reality, all the prosecution have to demonstrate is that a couple of drivers with clean licences (reasonable, competent and prudent) passed the scene of the accident travelling in the same direction as you shortly before you without mishap.
Nick
Interesting. But is it fair? I think not. Unless it's the case that the driver who caused the accident was to be dealt with severely whether or not any harm came to anybody else. And my reasoning is that he has no control over whether anybody gets hurt or not, that's all down to chance.
John
scootz - 9/1/09 at 05:55 PMIn the first scenario, you've stated that only the chaps car was damaged - nothing else. This is a non-reportable accident. Therefore, assuming no-one saw it happening, then no-one needs to know, so no one gets charged.
If it was witnessed, and the witnesses feel the driving was careless (i.e. fell below the standard reasonably expected of a competent driver). Then they might report it to the police. Assuming there is sufficent evidence - the driver will either be warned or charged.
If the police witnessed it, they will either 'have words', warn, or charge.
Scenario 2 IS a reportable accident due to injury to another party, so it will be investigated as a matter of course. Because a child was injured it is likely that some sort of report would be submitted to the Crown - probably a careless driving charge resulting in injury.
As to whether there should ACTUALLY be any difference in terms of the prosecution / sentencing... great source of debate
It's even more interesting when put in the context of Causing Death by Careless Driving as, at present the accused is only punished on the basis of his carelessness - the fact someone died is not a sentencing factor (this is what's under review at present).
I would argue that every single one of us drives carelessly at some point in every single journey we make. I would therefore say that as there was NO INTENT to drive carelessly, then the staus quo should remain and the accused should be prosecuted / sentences on the basis of his carelessness.
Causing Death by Dangerous Driving is a VERY different area as the accused CHOSE to embark on a course of actions knowing them to carry considerable risk.
oldtimer - 9/1/09 at 07:26 PMThis is a very interesting but probably difficult to resolve post. The initial post said the driving was 'spirited' implying that 'normal' driving was exceeded, 40 mph zone or not, 40 mph may still be a dangerous speed to enter a roundabout. Speed limits are maximums, the safe speed can be considerably less.
mr henderson - 9/1/09 at 07:33 PMquote:
Originally posted by oldtimer
This is a very interesting but probably difficult to resolve post. The initial post said the driving was 'spirited' implying that 'normal' driving was exceeded, 40 mph zone or not, 40 mph may still be a dangerous speed to enter a roundabout. Speed limits are maximums, the safe speed can be considerably less.
Thanks for that, but how do you feel about the actual issue? (whether it's the consequences that decide the severity of the crime (if any))
John
oldtimer - 9/1/09 at 07:49 PMI believe the consequences are very important, and that the punishment, if any, should be proportionate. Luck has very little to do with it. Advanced driving techniques are available to all, these really do make you think before acting. A roundabout is a very complicated piece of the road and should be entred with caution, because we all have different abilities, and our children are the most unpradictable of all. You have to drive according to what may happen not just to what you can see.
mr henderson - 9/1/09 at 07:59 PMquote:
Originally posted by oldtimer
I believe the consequences are very important, and that the punishment, if any, should be proportionate. Luck has very little to do with it. Advanced driving techniques are available to all, these really do make you think before acting. A roundabout is a very complicated piece of the road and should be entred with caution, because we all have different abilities, and our children are the most unpradictable of all. You have to drive according to what may happen not just to what you can see.
Do I understand you to mean, then, that if he has an accident, but nobody is hurt, then that is less deserving of punishment than if someone is hurt?
John
Neil P - 9/1/09 at 08:35 PMConsider a scenario where you drive along a windy road with solid white centre lines and you get held up behind other traffic. You decide to take a chance and overtake anyway. You're lucky and get away with it.
A police officer behind you sees this happen and you probably get prosecuted for contravening the white line.
Another day you try the same manoeuvre and kill someone coming the other way.
You find yourself in crown court charged with causing death by dangerous driving. Your driving has fallen far below the standard of a careful, competent driver.
Same circumstances, different outcomes. The charges are based on outcomes, causes and mitigating factors.
You can't attempt to kill someone by dangerous driving and I think it rightly should be based on what the result was.
Careless driving has nothing to do with what is in the mind of the driver, it is based on objective assessment of what is good driving. Usually the circumstances would speak for themselves. If you pull out in front of someone from a junction you can't have been driving carefully. If you spin on a road you are not driving to the conditions, it's pretty straightforward really. If you do drive round a roundabout and kill someone you didn't know was there, should you have been driving in a way that allowed for the possibility that they could have been?
quote:That isn't true, the sentence for attempted offences are exactly the same as the full offence.
Attempted robbery is a lesser offence than robbery. Attempted murder is less than murder
Neil
oldtimer - 9/1/09 at 09:01 PMI suppose John that is the case. Call it Karma, fate, whatever. There is nothing to stop us reporting ourselves to the police for our motoring offences/failings but who does it? No one. The difference between minor accident and killing someone depends on the presence or absence of a victim, the difference between conviction and getting-away-with-it could simply be the presence/absence of you/car/victim/police.
The law is incapable of covering all the possible cenarios, thank God.
mr henderson - 9/1/09 at 09:51 PMquote:
Originally posted by oldtimer
I suppose John that is the case. Call it Karma, fate, whatever. There is nothing to stop us reporting ourselves to the police for our motoring offences/failings but who does it? No one. The difference between minor accident and killing someone depends on the presence or absence of a victim, the difference between conviction and getting-away-with-it could simply be the presence/absence of you/car/victim/police.
The law is incapable of covering all the possible cenarios, thank God.
I hate to seem like I'm labouring a point here, but I still haven't grasped whether you think it is a good thing that the severity of punishment for a driving offence should depend on what its consequences are. Maybe that was contained somewhere in your post, but I'm afraid if it was I missed it.
It's not a legal question, if I wanted an answer to that all I would need to do is to study some cases. It's a moral question.
quote:
Originally posted by Neil P
Consider a scenario where you drive along a windy road with solid white centre lines and you get held up behind other traffic. You decide to take a chance and overtake anyway. You're lucky and get away with it.
A police officer behind you sees this happen and you probably get prosecuted for contravening the white line.
Another day you try the same manoeuvre and kill someone coming the other way.
You find yourself in crown court charged with causing death by dangerous driving. Your driving has fallen far below the standard of a careful, competent driver.
Same circumstances, different outcomes. The charges are based on outcomes, causes and mitigating factors.
You can't attempt to kill someone by dangerous driving and I think it rightly should be based on what the result was.
Careless driving has nothing to do with what is in the mind of the driver, it is based on objective assessment of what is good driving. Usually the circumstances would speak for themselves. If you pull out in front of someone from a junction you can't have been driving carefully. If you spin on a road you are not driving to the conditions, it's pretty straightforward really. If you do drive round a roundabout and kill someone you didn't know was there, should you have been driving in a way that allowed for the possibility that they could have been?
Same question to you, Neil, how do you feel about the moral aspects.
John
oldtimer - 10/1/09 at 12:15 AMJohn, I honestly believe that the severity of the punishment for a driving offence should depend on what it's consequences are. But it is not a complete catch all. The degree of severity of punishment should be proportionate to culpability (accident versus negligence). I also believe in punishment for offences that have no consequence such as a motorist doing 180mph on the public road but not causing any accident. A victimless but potentially murderous act, if you like.
RK - 10/1/09 at 01:52 AMNo Whippy, the reason people give up driving buses is because of the abusive passengers.
Isn't it "driving without due care and attention" in both cases? You aren't supposed to look around and see what you might hit in case of... before you push it around a corner, at the speed limit or not.
smart51 - 10/1/09 at 08:29 AMquote:
Originally posted by oldtimer
John, I honestly believe that the severity of the punishment for a driving offence should depend on what it's consequences are... The degree of severity of punishment should be proportionate to culpability
Me too. Think of a graph with culpability along the bottom and severity of outcome along the side. Bottom left = zero punishment. Top right = maximum. I believe it is entirely right. But then that's the nature of political opinion. People vary.
Neil P - 10/1/09 at 11:38 AMquote:
Same question to you, Neil, how do you feel about the moral aspects.
My answer is in my third paragraph, I agree with punishment in proportion with the consequence.
Isn't that the same with most offences, anyway? if you damage a house window with a stone you'll get a caution. If you burn it down you're probably going to prison. Essentially the same offence though.
Neil
mr henderson - 10/1/09 at 03:42 PMquote:
Originally posted by Neil P
quote:
Same question to you, Neil, how do you feel about the moral aspects.
My answer is in my third paragraph, I agree with punishment in proportion with the consequence.
Isn't that the same with most offences, anyway? if you damage a house window with a stone you'll get a caution. If you burn it down you're probably going to prison. Essentially the same offence though.
Neil
Yes, you did indeed say how you felt about it, I should have read more carefully.
Not too sure about your house example though, throwing a stone is hardly likely to have the same consequences as setting a fire.
The way I see it, a crime arises as a set of circumstances in which an event takes place (in my earlier example it could be too much throttle being applied too soon).
The crime, as far as I am concerned, takes place at a cetain time, or is completed within a certain time frame. In my earlier example, though, the consequence happens later, after the crime. If the kids were not there then no problem, no crime even. How could that possibly be? The crime has already happened. Pull the kids out of the way, or let chance prevent them from being there in the first place, or chance provide a different trajectory to the vehicle, and suddenly there is no crime? It may be the law, but it sounds like an ass to me
John