Lynch mob justice?

[JumbleDuck]

If your first statement was true all cars would be fitted with a tachograph ......

It would cost too much, so we have the law instead. However, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the use of GPS monitors spread a long way further than the young drivers who chiefly get them for insurance cuts.

and no-one has suggested the second statement in quite those absolute terms. However, who would argue that, in relative terms, a good driver with 36 mg/dl cannot be an order of magnitude better at driving than a sober poor driver.

The evidence is quite clear. In one piece of research, for example, a single unit of alcohol significantly impaired the judgement of skilled and experienced bus drivers who after taking it were much more likely to think they could get their bus through a gap (between road cones, for the experiment) too narrow for it. No level of driving skill can compensate for the dulling of perception, the slowing of reflexes and the damage to judgement caused by even small amounts of alcohol. Despite what gammon in pubs has been claiming since the drink-drive limit was introduced.

 

[alant]

Can you quote a few examples to support your opinion?

Didn't the guy who hit the big steel buoy in Southampton Water some years ago following Cowes Week fireworks, with a several girls onboard, who where severely injured, get jailed on that basis?

 

[Uricanejack]

I offer a perspective drawn from actual events.

The chap who was my best man was a very very fast driver. He was also a very competent driver with lightening fast reactions.
His finance sitting in the passenger seat got used to moving at high speed. She was not a competent driver. But she was used to moving fast so she also drove at high speed. We had only one drive with her at the wheel and were both very scared. The inevitable happened. She lost control of the car on a sharp bend and went into the front of a lorry on the other side of the road.

Was it misadventure? Or manslaughter on behalf of my friend?

Of course it was not under maritime law.

Not sure I understand what happened. I suspect you friends fiancé was killed in head on as a result of excess speed. Alone?
She as a driver is reasonable for her own actions.
Your friend, is responsible for his, My opinion both are equally guilty regardless of skill. Which doesn't change the loss. Your Friend was never caught or charged. He never had an accident while driving dangerously. He was lucky I hope he has changed his ways. Its a hard way to learn. Truth is I have also driven or ridden, way to fast and dangerously when young. I was lucky I survived, I was lucky I didn't kill anyone.

I am sorry she lost her life.

 

[duncan99210]

Just a thought; is there any evidence, other than the blokes own statement, that the girl was actually at the helm when the incident occurred?

 

[Seajet]

Good point, and guilty people like he APPARENTLY is always seem to try to shift the blame; still ends up though, he was the skipper even though he probably doesn't recognise that word as he hides in a hole.

As I said earlier, they could easily have run over a family in a tender or small boat making it even worse.

She was I think just a pretty girl being chatted up by a prat, happens every day but he was not aware of his responsibilities, showing off; best to show off a Rolex or nice meal and apartment, not take them out pissed in a sports car or boat.

I'd like to to think it might be a lesson to girls dating, but I doubt it; I would be horrified to have a young daughter and up all night, not in case she'd had sex, but the sort of prat she was with.

 

[Capt Popeye]

Seems as if a Newspaper has now put a 'price' on his head, an offer leading to his whereabouts, so look under your tarps this week and check out your boats to see if he is in hiding here, corr, the reward could buy one another or newer boat {#

 

[DownWest]

Apart from the 'other' matter that plod want to talk about. The bloke seems to have married and had a child since the accident. Wonder how that is working in hiding?

 

[Seajet]

Seems as if a Newspaper has now put a 'price' on his head, an offer leading to his whereabouts, so look under your tarps this week and check out your boats to see if he is in hiding here, corr, the reward could buy one another or newer boat {#

Fer Chrissake - he may be a prat guilty of a horrible accident, but that really is lynch mob stuff.

Has the same newspaper put a reward out for info on asian gangs grabbing and raping young white girls ?

 

[RichardS]

It would cost too much, so we have the law instead. However, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the use of GPS monitors spread a long way further than the young drivers who chiefly get them for insurance cuts.

No, we most definitely do not have any law which says We don't ask all drivers to have the same skill but we do insist that they don't do anything which they know will impair whatever skill they have. as you have suggested. Many millions of drivers are driving every day when their skills are impaired by tiredness or illness or anxiety etc. There is absolutely no law which prevents this unless the impairment is so bad that the driver commits a specific driving offence such as "careless driving/driving without due care and attention"

The evidence is quite clear. In one piece of research, for example, a single unit of alcohol significantly impaired the judgement of skilled and experienced bus drivers who after taking it were much more likely to think they could get their bus through a gap (between road cones, for the experiment) too narrow for it. No level of driving skill can compensate for the dulling of perception, the slowing of reflexes and the damage to judgement caused by even small amounts of alcohol. Despite what gammon in pubs has been claiming since the drink-drive limit was introduced.

I'm afraid that is all completely irrelevant to anything I have said. I'm failing to understand why you cannot grasp the difference between impairment of an absolute level of driving skill, which you constantly keep referring to, and the relative levels I am trying to discuss ...... but I will have one more go:

There are drivers who are excellent drivers. There are drivers who are appalling drivers. An excellent driver could unarguably have 36 mg/dl alcohol in their breath and still be a far far far better driver than the appalling driver. The appalling driver drinks to 36 mg/dl and kills someone driving home. The excellent driver also drinks to 36 mg/dl but does not kill anyone because of his level of skill. In fact, he has never had an accident of any sort in his entire driving career but is pulled over and breathalysed because of a failed light bulb which blew a few minutes earlier.

UJ believes that the sentence under the law given to the driver who had never had an accident but who showed 36 mg/dl should be the same as the sentence given to the 36 ml/dl driver who has killed someone i.e. almost certainly a custodial sentence.

Seriously?

Richard

 

[bedouin]

Can you quote a few examples to support your opinion?

The case that immediately sprang to mind was the cyclist who was in an accident that caused the death of a pedestrian. Seemed to be a harsh judgement but no doubt he was a p**t.

In comparison the courts seem very reluctant to convict/jail average motorists for what I would regard as more serious behaviour. The officer on the Pride of Bilbao was not convicted of manslaugher

I recall cases of doctors being convicted but given suspended sentences.

 

[RichardS]

Driver A or Driver B.
Both chose to get in a car and drive after drinking, both were over the limit. My opinion driving skills are irrelevant. This time I think the Law agrees with me.

The law certainly agrees with you that if a rotten driver and a skilled driver are both stopped and are both over the limit, then both will receive the same punishment, all other things being equal.

However, that is not the point you were arguing, which was that the punishment should be the same even if one of the drivers kills someone whilst under the influence and the other does not even have an accident.

Ignore the fact that JD is suggesting that British law, in some way, already applies the same punishment to both drivers in the latter case. It most certainly does not. :encouragement:

Richard

 

[Tranona]

The case that immediately sprang to mind was the cyclist who was in an accident that caused the death of a pedestrian. Seemed to be a harsh judgement but no doubt he was a p**t.

In comparison the courts seem very reluctant to convict/jail average motorists for what I would regard as more serious behaviour. The officer on the Pride of Bilbao was not convicted of manslaugher

I recall cases of doctors being convicted but given suspended sentences.

Making such comparisons is fraught with danger, and tends, just as you say here to reflect your personal values.

The whole purpose of the courts is to deal with the evidence specific to the case and is governed by first the law and then sentence guidance as explained by JD earlier. This often results in outcomes that offend other people either because they appear to be too lenient or too harsh - often both depending on who is commenting.

The problem, for example with the cyclist is that there is no statute law that governs cyclist behaviour in the same way as motor vehicles so the prosecution depends on common law. Similar with the Pride of Bilbao incident, where there was insufficient evidence to prove negligence.

It is sometimes the case that the arguments on both sides are finely balanced - the Doug Innes case is a perfect example - and the burden of proof so demanding that juries can have difficulty in deciding. So it is inevitable that some outcomes are controversial.

Inevitably some cases highlight the inadequacy of existing law, but it is up to parliament to change it, although refinements do come through case law. The danger with case law is that it can potentially change the intention of parliament as has been claimed by many in the recent case involving Cliff Richard and the BBC.

These arguments are never going to go away and are just part of the process of developing law to reflect societal norms.

 

[macd]

The law certainly agrees with you that if a rotten driver and a skilled driver are both stopped and are both over the limit, then both will receive the same punishment, all other things being equal.

However, that is not the point you were arguing, which was that the punishment should be the same even if one of the drivers kills someone whilst under the influence and the other does not even have an accident.

Ignore the fact that JD is suggesting that British law, in some way, already applies the same punishment to both drivers in the latter case. It most certainly does not. :encouragement:

In practice, both drivers would be chargable with driving under the influence, only one with an additional charge of causing death by xxxxx* driving. The lesser charge may not the pursued by the prosecution in the latter case or, if it is, may be omitted from media reports due to its relative triviality.


* dangerous or the different offence of careless/inconsiderate driving. The level of blame is increased when the driver was under the influence of drink/drugs, which is an 'absolute': there is no requirement for the prosecution to prove the degree of impairment.

 

[Mark-1]

I'm a bit skeptical about the idea of this guy being deemed 'skipper'. No doubt he was guilty but I'm not at all convinced it was because of any kind of status as 'captain' of the boat.

If that's wrong can someone point to the specific bit of the rules/law that states the specific criteria using to determine who is 'Skipper' in a small powerboat? Or if there are no specific criteria, the specific bit of the rules/law that defines the 'not-very-specific' criteria.

According to google this has been covered before on various forums including this one and AFAICT there are no manning requirements on a small pleasure boat and no need for a 'captain' or legal position of 'captain':

http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthread.php?225079-Skippers-responsibility-liability
http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthread.php?337269-A-Skipper-s-Responsibilities-RYA-Legal
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en-GB#!msg/uk.rec.sailing/dBkIMRWUY3Q/t8zIjgBN0RwJ

 

[Motor_Sailor]

. . . can someone point to the specific bit of the rules/law that states the specific criteria using to determine who is 'Skipper' in a small powerboat?

It's got nothing to do with whether he was, or wasn't considered 'the skipper'. No maritime laws were evoked in his prosecution. He was found guilty of 'manslaughter', the fact he was in a boat was purely the scenario in which this crime was committed.

It was manslaughter because in the carrying out of his 'plan', there was both a high degree of negligence shown together with considerable recklessness. If your gross negligence and recklessness results in the death of another, it's manslaughter, irrespective of the environment in which it occurred.

 

[Uricanejack]

The law certainly agrees with you that if a rotten driver and a skilled driver are both stopped and are both over the limit, then both will receive the same punishment, all other things being equal.

However, that is not the point you were arguing, which was that the punishment should be the same even if one of the drivers kills someone whilst under the influence and the other does not even have an accident.

Ignore the fact that JD is suggesting that British law, in some way, already applies the same punishment to both drivers in the latter case. It most certainly does not. :encouragement:

Richard

My point of view is out of step with the way the law works.

My opinion the "criminal act" is the drink driving. In this particular case it was drinking at least a bottle of wine then driving or operating a boat, compounded by speeding, and dodgy condition of boat.

This particular idiot killed someone, He didn't intend to kill anyone. He made a decision to drink and drive. His disregarded the safety of his passenger and anyone else.

Two drivers. Both decide to drive after drinking, In my view both are guilty of the same offence. Driving skills do not excuse drinking driving. Its an excuse used by drivers to justify their disregard for other peoples safety.
My opinion is condemn them for the action they decided to take. Rather than the unintended consequence.

To some extent most drink drivers will only face charges after an accident. Because those who successfully get where hey are going don't get caught.
The potential consequence of drink driving is death. Of the driver or someone else. My opinion is charge convict and sentence based on the choice to take this risk. Which may mean a more serious consequence for drinking and driving and getting pulled over and a less serious consequence for having an accident which injures or kills someone.

Two drivers have accidents involving a fatality. One was a good driver who had been drinking did not react in time. The other a poor driver did not react in time.
To my mind the driver who drank is the one who did something wrong.
I accept the Law does not work the way I am arguing. Society expects greater penalty for causing death. Than risking causing death.
Society view of drinking and driving has changed greatly during my life time. When I was young it was pretty much accepted today it is not. Yet some people still think its ok. Despite education. Most have changed their habits due to concern about loosing their licence rather than concern about killing someone. I think it is a case where more severe penalty for the decision to drink would have a greater deterrent and reduce the no of incidents.

Boats, Where is the deterrent? If there is no licence to loose? A fine, I suppose? What would have been required to deter this particular idiot? Unfortunately a jail sentence after he has killed someone is to late.

 

[RichardS]

Two drivers have accidents involving a fatality. One was a good driver who had been drinking did not react in time. The other a poor driver did not react in time.
To my mind the driver who drank is the one who did something wrong.

I accept the Law does not work the way I am arguing. Society expects greater penalty for causing death. Than risking causing death.

The Law could never work such that a poor driver who kills someone through their bad driving could be perceived as having done nothing wrong.

There are many many occasions in life when individuals or groups take a risk and get away with it and no-one is injured. There must always be a greater penalty for causing death than for taking a risk which could have caused death. The opposite would give rise to so many unjustifiable cases.

Richard

 

[Biggles Wader]

My point of view is out of step with the way the law works.

My opinion the "criminal act" is the drink driving. In this particular case it was drinking at least a bottle of wine then driving or operating a boat, compounded by speeding, and dodgy condition of boat.

This particular idiot killed someone, He didn't intend to kill anyone. He made a decision to drink and drive. His disregarded the safety of his passenger and anyone else.

Two drivers. Both decide to drive after drinking, In my view both are guilty of the same offence. Driving skills do not excuse drinking driving. Its an excuse used by drivers to justify their disregard for other peoples safety.
My opinion is condemn them for the action they decided to take. Rather than the unintended consequence.

To some extent most drink drivers will only face charges after an accident. Because those who successfully get where hey are going don't get caught.
The potential consequence of drink driving is death. Of the driver or someone else. My opinion is charge convict and sentence based on the choice to take this risk. Which may mean a more serious consequence for drinking and driving and getting pulled over and a less serious consequence for having an accident which injures or kills someone.

Two drivers have accidents involving a fatality. One was a good driver who had been drinking did not react in time. The other a poor driver did not react in time.
To my mind the driver who drank is the one who did something wrong.
I accept the Law does not work the way I am arguing. Society expects greater penalty for causing death. Than risking causing death.
Society view of drinking and driving has changed greatly during my life time. When I was young it was pretty much accepted today it is not. Yet some people still think its ok. Despite education. Most have changed their habits due to concern about loosing their licence rather than concern about killing someone. I think it is a case where more severe penalty for the decision to drink would have a greater deterrent and reduce the no of incidents.

Boats, Where is the deterrent? If there is no licence to loose? A fine, I suppose? What would have been required to deter this particular idiot? Unfortunately a jail sentence after he has killed someone is to late.

I agree and accept we are a minority. I can see the merit in some difference or extra punishment if the consequences of a criminal act causes a death but I think we have it out of proportion. If a drunk driver has a crash and is therefore caught, but no one is killed or injured he can expect a driving ban and a financial punishment in the form of a fine and ongoing costs from loss of transport. If he kills someone he can expect a lengthy stay in prison,up to 14 years now I believe? That is because we have a justice system that is required to deter, punish and exact retribution. I think the retribution aspect has become far too prominent, especially in cases where there was no intent to kill.

 

[Tranona]

It's got nothing to do with whether he was, or wasn't considered 'the skipper'. No maritime laws were evoked in his prosecution. He was found guilty of 'manslaughter', the fact he was in a boat was purely the scenario in which this crime was committed.

It was manslaughter because in the carrying out of his 'plan', there was both a high degree of negligence shown together with considerable recklessness. If your gross negligence and recklessness results in the death of another, it's manslaughter, irrespective of the environment in which it occurred.

+1

Well said - I tried to explain that earlier. Pity the thread has wandered away from the central issue that was raised in the original question as most of the discussion about car crashes is completely irrelevant. The case is solely about whether his actions based on the evidence met the test for manslaughter.

 

[Mark-1]

It's got nothing to do with whether he was, or wasn't considered 'the skipper'. .

Yes, which is why I wrote "No doubt he was guilty but I'm not at all convinced it was because of any kind of status as 'captain' of the boat.".