The Sick Moon Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 What purpose would it serve to send the perpetrator to jail? It's not going to remedy anything (it seldom does) but in cases like this a sentence serves as reparation for the family of the victim. It answers a very primitive need for restitution and recompense when a wrong has been done to someone. This is a feature of justice in human societies all over the world. We can't ignore this basic need. Well yes, and perhaps the family should be involved in the process. They might not see a custodial sentence as serving any purpose at all, who knows? But as long as we don't convince ourselves that custody will send any useful message out and effectively prevent other similar incidents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notwell Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 Did she receive a driving ban? Yes, three years - http://www.energyfm.net/cms/news_story_384617.html Hopefully to be fully served with a mandatory driving test should she want to continue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojomonkey Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 Did she receive a driving ban? Yes, three years - http://www.energyfm.net/cms/news_story_384617.html Hopefully to be fully served with a mandatory driving test should she want to continue. I could be wrong but I believe a disqualification means they will need to re-take their test after the time period has expired. I'm also fairly sure that there is no mechanism to shorten a disqualification so she will serve the full three years as a matter of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 Did she receive a driving ban? Yes, three years - http://www.energyfm.net/cms/news_story_384617.html Hopefully to be fully served with a mandatory driving test should she want to continue. I could be wrong but I believe a disqualification means they will need to re-take their test after the time period has expired. I'm also fairly sure that there is no mechanism to shorten a disqualification so she will serve the full three years as a matter of course. wrong on both counts I think. unless the judge ordered a driving test be retaken after the ban is up I don't think it's a mandatory requirement. but it might be if the ban is over a certain amount of time so she could qualify. second point, there are plenty of cases where people have been given their licences back early by the courts if they have a change in circumstances that gives a valid need that justifies them having the licence back. you'd have to check up to be sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojomonkey Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 Did she receive a driving ban? Yes, three years - http://www.energyfm.net/cms/news_story_384617.html Hopefully to be fully served with a mandatory driving test should she want to continue. I could be wrong but I believe a disqualification means they will need to re-take their test after the time period has expired. I'm also fairly sure that there is no mechanism to shorten a disqualification so she will serve the full three years as a matter of course. wrong on both counts I think. unless the judge ordered a driving test be retaken after the ban is up I don't think it's a mandatory requirement. but it might be if the ban is over a certain amount of time so she could qualify. second point, there are plenty of cases where people have been given their licences back early by the courts if they have a change in circumstances that gives a valid need that justifies them having the licence back. you'd have to check up to be sure. After a bit more googling as far as I can tell it is up to the court whether a test will be required. Not sure what what was said in this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 What purpose would it serve to send the perpetrator to jail? It's not going to remedy anything (it seldom does) but in cases like this a sentence serves as reparation for the family of the victim. It answers a very primitive need for restitution and recompense when a wrong has been done to someone. This is a feature of justice in human societies all over the world. We can't ignore this basic need. We should generally be moving toward a less retributive form of justice but I think there's still a place for it when someone has been seriously wronged. Blimey. I thought that need had been politically corrected out of existence. If not, maybe there is yet hope for us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vulgarian Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 What purpose would it serve to send the perpetrator to jail? It's not going to remedy anything (it seldom does) but in cases like this a sentence serves as reparation for the family of the victim. It answers a very primitive need for restitution and recompense when a wrong has been done to someone. This is a feature of justice in human societies all over the world. We can't ignore this basic need. Well yes, and perhaps the family should be involved in the process. They might not see a custodial sentence as serving any purpose at all, who knows? I know that if some airhead in a 4x4 ran my mum down I would personally stove their fucking head in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojomonkey Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 I don't think anything can compensate for the loss of loved one in such circumstances but (based on my understanding of the case) the minimum I would expect would be a custodial sentence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sick Moon Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 I know that if some airhead in a 4x4 ran my mum down I would personally stove their fucking head in. I doubt that's what she would have wanted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ta laue y jouyl ayn Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 All those commenting on whether the sentence is right or wrong need to remember that unless you were sat in court for the whole case, you haven't heard all the evidence and therefore are basing your views based on the limited information carried by the media. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vulgarian Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 I know that if some airhead in a 4x4 ran my mum down I would personally stove their fucking head in. I doubt that's what she would have wanted. You don't know my mum! Anyway, it's not about what she would have wanted, it's about my sense of justice and retribution. If we don't answer that in some way in cases like this then there may be a lack of public confidence in the justice system and acts of vigilantism such as I just described! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 All those commenting on whether the sentence is right or wrong need to remember that unless you were sat in court for the whole case, you haven't heard all the evidence and therefore are basing your views based on the limited information carried by the media. Normally i would fuly agree but ----- Elderly woman driving 4x4, admits to have been driving erratically, claims to have failed to see cyclist runs cyclist over and kills her. Later lies in an attempt to access legal aid. What more that is relevant that needs to be known? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ta laue y jouyl ayn Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 Spook whilst I understand you believe you know everything and enjoy telling us so, you do not know the full facts of this case. May I suggest you stick to commenting on matters you know about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dilligaf Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 All those commenting on whether the sentence is right or wrong need to remember that unless you were sat in court for the whole case, you haven't heard all the evidence and therefore are basing your views based on the limited information carried by the media. Why would you think that that is the only information people have. It's a small Island and most of us know a Policeman, a Medic, a Lawyer etc. Don't kid yourself that people don't know more than you do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quilp Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 All those commenting on whether the sentence is right or wrong need to remember that unless you were sat in court for the whole case, you haven't heard all the evidence and therefore are basing your views based on the limited information carried by the media. Why would you think that that is the only information people have. It's a small Island and most of us know a Policeman, a Medic, a Lawyer etc. Don't kid yourself that people don't know more than you do. Let's also not forget that this forum small Island is a hotbed of scurrilous gossip, chinese whispers and people who have an urgent tendency to make up what they don't know ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.