You've misunderstood my post completely I'm no Sherlock Holmes, but if the driver of the car only served community service then I have enough faith in our justice system that it was ruled that this was an accident, but that the driver of the Porsche was culpable for the accident. That could be careless driving, speeding or driving under the influence as examples.. Again, I think it's fair to say based on the punishment, that this case probably didn't involve alcohol, but I was using that as an example. Re-reading my post, I didn't make it very clear that I was using alcohol as an example to my question. So i understand the confusion but my question still stands.. If I had four pints down the pub after work and got in my car to drive home then i'm guilty of a very irresponsible crime of endangering the lives of myself and more importantly others. If I stick to the speed limits and the rules of the road then driving under the influence is my crime. Of course the consequences of my actions are varied. It could range from getting home safely, to be being pulled over by the police or being involved in an accident of some kind which could harm nobody or at worst kill someone. The crime for all those outcomes remains the same. Its the consequence of that crime/action which changes. So if I had an accident and a child died as a result should my punishment be more than if I had been pulled over?
If you drink and drive, you invalidate your insurance...therefore you are technically driving without insurance. As drink slows down your reactions markedly, any accident (even one not your fault) could have been made worse by your slow reaction times. However, I suppose there is a difference between you hitting a child who ran out into the road and hitting a child by mounting a pavement. The judge will consider all these factors and also by how much you are over the limit....by a fraction (possible misjudgement) or by a lot (when anyone would know they shouldn't drive).
I watched that episode of the show and a brief recap of what happened - the driving issue discussed above: - not a motorway, an A-road (I believe) - red Porsche drifted off the road and into oncoming traffic - smashed into the Ford Focus, killing the 11-year-old in the rear of the car - no alcohol found in the Porsche driver's system - no drugs found in the Porsche driver's system - no past record of road traffic incidents - no CCTV covering the stretch of road - he wasn't exceeding the speed limit - there was no evidence of his phone (or any other electrical devices in the car) being used remotely close to the time of the incident - it was raining on the day of the incident The Porsche driver's defence was that he has driven that road countless times, he has no track record, he had no substances in his system that shouldn't have been there. He said he simply lost control as a short spell of ridiculous rain fell. The mother of the 11-year-old, who was driving her son to school in the Ford Focus, said that she initially thought the Porsche looked to be overtaking. In court he was charged with 'death by careless driving' rather than 'death by dangerous driving'. He denied the charge and was subsequently found guilty by a jury after a court trial that lasted less than a week. The mother of the 11-year-old asked to speak before the sentencing, and said she didn't want it to ruin the convicted man's life or deprive his pregnant wife and their soon-to-be-born child of a husband and a father. He then got a community sentence and a 12-month driving ban. Hopefully that's a useful summary for those who didn't see the hour-long episode focusing on this.
That's incredibly noble of the Mother and i'm sure that would have influenced the Judges sentencing. I spun my car once on a roundabout in heavy rain because I was going a bit too fast for the conditions. The road was quiet so I was fortunate enough to suffer with nothing more than a red face.
Manslaughter's a crime where circumstances are so variable that it is difficult to determine how long a sentence should be given. In the States, you can get as little as 5 years or as much as 30 years. Mind you there are probably less manslaughter convictions (in proportion to population) in the States then there are here. Probably a lot will be convicted of third/second degree murder. Here, it's either manslaughter or murder. No various degrees of murder.
So sentencing is today, what does everyone think he will get? I reckon something around the 4/5 mark.
I'm expecting about 5 years...she was not a very young child, but on the other hand he callously groomed her over a long period....could have changed his mind at any point. Perhaps a bit higher than 5 to make sure he serves 5 years.
He'd have to get 10 to serve 5 Don't see that happening. The other thing the judge could do is make the sentences run concurrently for each charge, hope not though.
Sometimes concurrent sentences are ridiculous...perhaps okay in this case....but concurrent (rather than consecutive) sentences for multiple murders/rapes/assaults is totally wrong.
I don't really agree with them in general, why sentence for a total of (for example) 6 years if they've only got to serve 2 - or 12 months for good behaviour!!
I used to have a little MR2 and, unknown to me, the wheels were incorrectly aligned/balanced . Going round a slight bend within the speed limit, the car slewed across the road without any warning whatsoever. Luckily, nothing was coming the other way but there could easily have been a Ford Focus on a school run................
Great to see a judge brave enough to give him a decent stretch. Hope he rots the prick. SEXUAL TOUCHING: Five years. KISSING: Four months (concurrent). GROOMING: One year (consecutive). Read more: http://www.sunderlandecho.com/live/event#ixzz43pLTor11
