mr henderson
|
| posted on 9/1/09 at 02:36 PM |
|
|
Crime, consequences and punishment
We are all interested in cars, driving and performance, so let me pose a question about what happens when things go wrong.
Case 1) Let’s suppose a chap goes out in his newly registered Locost for a spirited drive. On the way home he loses it on a roundabout and ends up
facing the wrong way with his car badly damaged, but no one else is involved. Let’s also suppose that he was not actually exceeding the speed limit,
which was 40mph, but obviously he did lose control and he was the person driving, so it was his fault.
In the case above, what should he be charged with, should he be found guilty and if so what should the punishment be?
Case 2) Now, continuing with our supposing, let’s suppose that instead of simply ending up as above, during the course of the accident two pedestrian
children are badly injured. Should that have a bearing on the court case, should his punishment be increased, and should a Victim Impact Statement be
read out in court before the sentencing?
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.
What do you think?
John
|
|
|
|
|
Phil.J
|
| posted on 9/1/09 at 02:42 PM |
|
|
In the case of the injuries to pedestrians, your visual risk assessment, which every driver is constantly making, should have registered them and the
speed adjusted accordingly. Not to have done so could be seen as criminally negligent.
|
|
|
cd.thomson
|
| posted on 9/1/09 at 02:44 PM |
|
|
I agree John but I doubt this is what would actually happen.
Losing control in a car is not necessarily down to recklessness and unless this could be proved then both incidents boil down to what was an
unpredicted accident.
In these situations I often feel that the punishment that I would experience knowing I had killed somebody else would be far worse than prison.
Craig
|
|
|
Mr Whippy
|
| posted on 9/1/09 at 02:47 PM |
|
|
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?
are the two the same really?
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?
|
|
|
cd.thomson
|
| posted on 9/1/09 at 02:48 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Phil.J
In the case of the injuries to pedestrians, your visual risk assessment, which every driver is constantly making, should have registered them and the
speed adjusted accordingly. Not to have done so could be seen as criminally negligent.
I'm sorry but that is ridiculous, as every driver and particularly those who drive for pleasure rather than just operating a machine to get from
A to B, I am constantly scanning for possible hazards.
This consistent checking (i.e. seeing children walking on a path) would not make me slow down in the same way as seeing a football bounce into the
road would. In this situation between the event causing me to lose control and the event causing the children to be in my path the fact I had been
aware of them would not have made any difference.
Craig
|
|
|
UncleFista
|
| posted on 9/1/09 at 02:49 PM |
|
|
There's been much debate about this in the legal newsgroups.
In theory, British justice should deal with an offence disregarding it's consequences, but in the case of motoring offences, this doesn't
happen.
It also doesn't happen in the real world really, but the way the law is instructed to deal with motoring offences, it's actually written
there in black and white that the consequences of the actions should be taken into account before decided even what to charge the offender with.
Whatever, there's been a few pretty heated discussions about this very topic, they can't come to any kind of agreement and most of the
people debating were legal professionals...
Tony Bond / UncleFista
Love is like a snowmobile, speeding across the frozen tundra.
Which suddenly flips, pinning you underneath.
At night the ice-weasels come...
|
|
|
eznfrank
|
| posted on 9/1/09 at 02:49 PM |
|
|
In scenario one he's "Lost control", in a major way, however, strictly speaking every time you set off a bit quick and light up the
wheels or your hand slips off the wheel you've lost control (in the eyes of the law), only just in a more minor way.
As above, he should have seen the kids and adjusted his speed accordingly.
Dependant on the road conditions and signage there may also be a claim against the council or highways agency for negligence but only usually if it
could be proven that they were already aware of an issue and chose not to act.
|
|
|
cd.thomson
|
| posted on 9/1/09 at 02:50 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?
are the two the same really?
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?
I dont think John was suggesting that a minor incident should be treated as if the worst had happened. Quite the opposite in fact.
Craig
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 9/1/09 at 02:53 PM |
|
|
should it be taken into account that the choice of vehicle was also poor, namely a vehicle that is more prone than normal cars to spinning off (light,
powerful, rwd)?
If your argument is right john, and the penalty in either scenario is to be the same, you would lean to making both harsher rather than more lenient,
wouldnt you?
|
|
|
Mr Whippy
|
| posted on 9/1/09 at 02:53 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by cd.thomson
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?
are the two the same really?
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?
I dont think John was suggesting that a minor incident should be treated as if the worst had happened. Quite the opposite in fact.
Thats not how I read it tbh
quote:
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
|
| posted on 9/1/09 at 02:54 PM |
|
|
possably I may have miss read it
maybe he could clarify?
|
|
|
mr henderson
|
| posted on 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
|
| posted on 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
|
| posted on 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
|
| posted on 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
|
| posted on 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
|
| posted on 9/1/09 at 03:11 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
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
|
| posted on 9/1/09 at 03:17 PM |
|
|
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.
|
|
|
mr henderson
|
| posted on 9/1/09 at 03:19 PM |
|
|
quote:
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
|
| posted on 9/1/09 at 03:24 PM |
|
|
loosing 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
|
| posted on 9/1/09 at 03:26 PM |
|
|
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.
Craig
|
|
|
mr henderson
|
| posted on 9/1/09 at 03:28 PM |
|
|
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.
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
|
| posted on 9/1/09 at 03:30 PM |
|
|
One 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
|
| posted on 9/1/09 at 03:49 PM |
|
|
tl;dr
|
|
|
smart51
|
| posted on 9/1/09 at 03:58 PM |
|
|
quote:
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.
|
|
|
