Two people killed through speeding, you wont believe the length of this sentence.

[Ozzayel]

I can't believe the amount of people on here who think he should serve no time or that what he got was fair.
Two people are dead... seriously think about that for a moment.

Who cares how sad he feels, those two people will no longer live out there lives as perhaps they were supposed to.
He took away their lives because he's an idiot who thinks it's fun to drive fast.

If you're gonna be an idiot then fine, by all means do it somewhere where if you screw up and crash you're only going to kill yourself.
If you kill other people you damn well better go to prison.

And just to be clear, in circumstances where it is clear to be an accident, then obviously this does not apply.
But this was not, it was a second offence, and driving 60 in a 30 AND accelerating is a clear choice on his part and any resulting crash is his fault.

[Ryuukon]

Go to the first page and read the article again. Thank you

I have read the article, thank you. I just followed the direction of the thread.

Doesn't really change much though. Some idiot thinking it's OK to do twice the speed limit kills people, and gets a slap on the wrist. How is that any different?

[Ragedaug]

Yep and those 10mph could be the perceived reason if you get into an accident, the same rules would apply to you, the punishment isn't based on the severity of the broken law, it doesn't matter if you are 10mph over the limit or 30mph if the reason for the accident is determined to be the speeding

For everyone who still doesn't get it, this is why he didn't get a life sentence or drawn-and-quarters. Harming someone else (even fatally) through negligence, with no intent, never carries a hefty jail sentence. You can't legislate or judge stupid. If this guy gets a long jail sentence then almost everyone who has caused an accident would be criminally liable. The person who causes the accident, even if not speeding, broke the law and will get a ticket - could be not conceding right of way because they weren't looking, etc. So if the argument is that the people died while the assailant who breaking the law, you have to extend that to everyone who causes an accident that results in death.

This is why intent is important when sentencing and IQ isn't.

---------- Post added 2013-03-03 at 11:51 AM ----------

Because the Death Penalty in the US has really helped it stop having the highest murder rate in the world. Ohwait.

(Not saying this is murder, of course, but the whole deterrent argument hasn't really proved successful over the years)

Not sure what to do with this one...
/facepalm

Who told you that, your older brother? Dad maybe?

---------- Post added 2013-03-03 at 11:56 AM ----------

Some idiot thinking it's OK to do twice the speed limit kills people

I missed that one. Who said it was OK to speed and kill people?

[vep]

No, it was not an accident. An accident is where you leave your phone in your pants before you send them to the dry cleaners. An accident is where you run over your garbage can because you failed to check your blind spots. An accident is where you work for hours on a business document, the power goes out, and you realize that you didn't have auto-save on.

Getting shit faced then getting behind the wheel, which means people DIE, is not an accident. It's a choice. Either you don't get shit faced, or you DO get shit faced and call a cab.

Killing people because you were shit faced is NOT an accident. Ever. You made the choice, then you made the motions. Oh look, people are dead now. How is that any different than taking a butcher knife and slashing a dozen people to death?

"Oh sorry officer, I didn't mean to do it, but I saw this knife on the counter and this voice just kept saying "KILL! KILL! KILL!" so I decided to slash up a couple of people. But it was an accident! I didn't MEAN to see that knife! I didn't want this to happen! I didn't mean to kill them with a kitchen knife! It just happened! It was an accident!.... Right?"

You make the decision, you pay the consequences.

I'd say something now but I don't think it's worth getting banned because of you.

Anyway, you are wrong. You are referring to his choices of driving too fast as him intentionally killing two people. Where that is not the truth. You're just trying to come up with some sort of pathetic argument to justify your desire to see the guy punished.
I once stabbed a guy with a compass in class. I had no intention of hurting him but I didn't see him nor did he see what I was doing. He wound up with his hand hurt because neither of us were paying attention to the other one. That was an accident. Had I stabbed him because I wanted to that would be intention. It goes the same with this case. Maybe the people he killed/hurt didn't watch across the street and just ran over. Maybe it was something else. But it wasn't intentional.
Also, another thing that happened to a friend of my dad: he was driving around with his elbow out the window. A truck came around and hit him and he lost his arm. While I do not know all the factors involved in the accident I can tell you for sure that a random stranger didn't just come up with the idea of "hey, let's take that guy's arm away, should be fun!". So by your logic that guy is guilty because he willingly sat behind the wheel of the truck even though it might have been the fault of the guy who got hurt for any apparent reason such as driving recklessly.

So yeah, stop trying to defend your will for vengeance with stupid, irrational, completely invalid arguments.

[Aspect of Death]

This is not the only thing that gives close to zero time in prison, rapists get nothing aswell. Just now some 65y/o in scandinavia (some of those countrys) molested 3 girls at the age of 10 and 11, and he gets 5 years in prison. And that is really fucked up.
Anyway drunk drivers etc killing others on the road should get higher punishment. And those who drive too fast.
As an example, a bunch of "teenager 18-20s" drives 80mph, crashes with a man in his 50s, the teenagers die, and so does the innoscent 50 y/old man. These teenagers deserve to die and i couldn't give a more shit about them. However i feel terrible for the family of this 50y/old mad, as in loosing their husband/father/grandfather etc because of the action of brats.

[The One Percent]

Because the Death Penalty in the US has really helped it stop having the highest murder rate in the world. Ohwait.

(Not saying this is murder, of course, but the whole deterrent argument hasn't really proved successful over the years)

How is a murder rate of 4.8 one of the highest in the world?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._homicide_rate

[Austilias]

I'm still confused as to how driving at ~60mph in a ~30mph area is an accident. This seems to be what the entire argument on behalf of a light punishment rests upon, and it doesn't make any sense at all. Carelessness and recklessness are not accidents.

[Deleted]

Question, what should the purpose of the justice system be?

a) rehabilitate
or
b) vengeance

It's not called the rehabilitation system or the vengeance system...

[Deleted]

What kind of punishment do you want? They should be drawn and quartered? Put away for life?

pretty much, yes

[Deleted]

For everyone who still doesn't get it, this is why he didn't get a life sentence or drawn-and-quarters. Harming someone else (even fatally) through negligence, with no intent, never carries a hefty jail sentence. You can't legislate or judge stupid.

Maybe it's time we should?

[zephid]

Making crimes less appealing, I think.

That doesn't work since most crimes are not planned. When you do something by mistake, on a whim or while drunk you don't consider the consequences.

That's why the death penalty in the US doesn't work as a deterrent. There are no less murders etc. in the states which has the death penalty compared to the ones who doesn't. Because people who kill in rage etc doesn't plan ahead, they don't think about what could happen if they get caught etc.

So in short, harsher punishment doesn't work as a deterrent.

---------- Post added 2013-03-03 at 05:14 PM ----------

Who told you that, your older brother? Dad maybe?[COLOR="red"]

Pretty much every study that has been done shows that the death penalty has no effect on the number of murders etc.

[Lucarocks92]

my dad speeds 24/7 and i would call him a safe driver, bad drivers that speed however are a danger to society.

[Elegiac]

Pretty much every study that has been done shows that the death penalty has no effect on the number of murders etc.

Philosophically speaking, the death penalty's deterrence factor is an incidental effect; the primary purpose of it is to use on criminals that have committed offenses so heinous they are not capable of living in society (in which case solitary confinement for life would be inhumane).

[Super Friendly Kitty Cat]

Two people dead, two more injured. Driver doing almost 60mph in a 30mph zone. Will be out of prison in less than 8 months. England and its fucked up judicial system.

Full story.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...ester-21616296

The article doesn't really go into any length of how the accident happened other than that the guy was driving 25 miles over the speed limit. I just bought an old muscle car, and I have to really watch my speed, not to be safe, but to be under the speed limit. I have never driven the car the guy was driving so I can't speak on the experience of it, but 25 miles over the speed limit really isn't that unsafe.

It sounds like he was driving fast and the other people who died pulled out into traffic not judging correctly how close and fast the guy was driving was going.

[Luko]

Law's the law. Obey it.

Everyone's obeying the law and someone dies, that's a freak accident and should be handled accordingly. Speeding (breaking the law) and you kill someone, it's murder. I understand these are my opinions but I'm very strict about them. The law has become a comedic list of guidelines in the past few decades and especially with the younger generations. People literally laugh in your face if you tell them to obey they law as if it were some optional suggestion. It's sick.

The driver in the OP deserves 10 years minimum and should be treated like the murderer he is. Had he made the same mistake at 30MPH, people may still be alive today, hence the point of the law in the first place.

[Super Friendly Kitty Cat]

Law's the law. Obey it.

Everyone's obeying the law and someone dies, that's a freak accident and should be handled accordingly. Speeding (breaking the law) and you kill someone, it's murder. I understand these are my opinions but I'm very strict about them. The law has become a comedic list of guidelines in the past few decades and especially with the younger generations. People literally laugh in your face if you tell them to obey they law as if it were some optional suggestion. It's sick.

The driver in the OP deserves 10 years minimum and should be treated like the murderer he is. Had he made the same mistake at 30MPH, people may still be alive today, hence the point of the law in the first place.

Pulling out into traffic without checking for cars and taking the time to judge their speed and closeness is also a crime.

[Exeris]

Question, what should the purpose of the justice system be?

a) rehabilitate
or
b) vengeance

a + and to protect the public.

[Kalis]

Law's the law. Obey it.

Everyone's obeying the law and someone dies, that's a freak accident and should be handled accordingly. Speeding (breaking the law) and you kill someone, it's murder. I understand these are my opinions but I'm very strict about them. The law has become a comedic list of guidelines in the past few decades and especially with the younger generations. People literally laugh in your face if you tell them to obey they law as if it were some optional suggestion. It's sick.

The driver in the OP deserves 10 years minimum and should be treated like the murderer he is. Had he made the same mistake at 30MPH, people may still be alive today, hence the point of the law in the first place.

Murder requires intent. There was no intent to crash his car, so there was no intent to harm others. As he swerved to avoid the accident, he would have been found not guilty of any prosecution that tried to claim he had intent to harm.

It was an accident caused by his careless driving and that is what he was sentenced for.

[Vargur]

It's involuntary manslaughter, get over it. Ride in tin cans, take the risk.

[Deleted]

Question, what should the purpose of the justice system be?

a) rehabilitate
or
b) vengeance

or c) protecting society from dangerous individuals.

I'd go with a and c.