Can anyone explain why there aren't harsher sentences for dangerous driving?

[BakedBlossoms]

I was just watching police interceptors (don't judge me) and seriously - the sentences these dicks get for dangerous driving is beyond a joke. One guy drives the wrong way down a dual carriageway rying to avoid the police, with his girlfriend and young child in the car. Drives at 80pmh down residential roads, jumps all red lights, misses pedestrians and other cars by inches.

16 months suspended sentence and banned from driving for 2 years. Why don't these dangerous fuckers get a lifelong driving ban? Why is there so much leniency? It utterly baffles me.

I can't watch those programmes and that's the main reason.

I just cannot fathom it. You get harsher sentences for fraud!!!

I go all tooth gnashy when I hear about it!

Isn't there legislation making it through Parliament as we speak? It's due to go through next week or so. Apparently we have the 2nd safest roads in the whole of Europe (after Sweden), so maybe Parliament should spend more of their time legislating for self-driving cars and electric scooters instead. After all, you can't legislate for stupid people (they don't care what the law is), better to concentrate on what you can change.

Is it really?

Gregory's Girl!

wrong thread!

What are you trying to achieve though? Rehabilitation or retribution?

Do you want the justice system to result in people who can be a part of your community and live as your neighbour?

Or do you want people who have been ostracised from their communities, traumatised by a broken prison system, and whose lives are so wrecked by restrictions on their ability to work and contribute and live that they have no hope for the future and no respect for society?

The point of a justice system should be to correct and protect, not to cause further destruction. Revenge doesn't heal.

I don't know what I feel, but I do think that someone who drives 100mph in the wrong direction down a dual carriageway should never be allowed to drive again.

I don't know what the fuck they think they're doing anyway, trying to escape. You can't outrun the helicopter, matey so just pull over and stop making it worse for yourself.

@user1456324865563

What are you trying to achieve though? Rehabilitation or retribution?

Do you want the justice system to result in people who can be a part of your community and live as your neighbour?

Or do you want people who have been ostracised from their communities, traumatised by a broken prison system, and whose lives are so wrecked by restrictions on their ability to work and contribute and live that they have no hope for the future and no respect for society?

The point of a justice system should be to correct and protect, not to cause further destruction. Revenge doesn't heal.

Fabulous opinion. My husband was killed (murdered) by a drunk driver, driving whilst already banned, and on his third ban. I don't want revenge. I never have. But I did want justice. What I got was three fucking years - half served for "good behaviour". What "good behaviour" - like it's possible to get behind a, wheel whilst drunk in prison? Want to know how many more offences that drunk had had since being released? Four. That he was caught for. I don't cranky give a shit about his trauma at the "broken system". What about my kids trauma at the broken system that rated their fathers life worth 18 months???!

Moondust001

I'm so sorry

Disgusting system when the offender's life is judged more worthy than the victim's.

What are you trying to achieve though? Rehabilitation or retribution?

I don’t want more custodial sentences, but I do want longer driving bans (and custodial sentences for people who drive when disqualified).

As it is, the CPS are reluctant to prosecute dangerous driving, because the conviction rates are low. Lawyers can make a specialism in getting people off charges (like Mr Loophole) and claim disqualification would result in unreasonable hardship for their clients. Juries are reluctant to convict because “we’ve all been there” and “there but for the grace of god.” And you can’t say “tough, you shouldn’t be driving, on your bike” because who’d cycle when there are so many dangerous drivers on the road?

Meanwhile politicians underfund walking, cycling and public transport because everybody drives, thus locking in a culture of car dependence.

Just for the benefit of the OP: The Death By Dangerous Driving (Sentencing) Bill is set to be heard in the House of Commons on July 21, which could see those found guilty receive life sentences.

Leafyhouse crikey I had no idea about that. I can't see that passed by a bunch of Tory MPs who probably hare about like lunatics in their own cars.

I think it is because we don't often see any offence committed in a car as a crime in the way we do if it is elsewhere.

The primary reason is an absence of Mens rea (guilty mind).

For the vast majority of crimes, you need to have both the actus reus and Mens rea.

With pretty much all driving offences, there is no intent, premeditation, planning etc. Nobody sets off on a journey with the intent to kill, or cause really serious harm, so it is problematic from a legal perspective.

I also suspect that a lot of jurors, to an extent, have a sense of ‘there but for the grace of god’ about driving offences; most drivers have experienced a momentary lapse in concentration that resulted in a near miss.

The cases you describe are extreme, but I believe the reasons given are why this seems to be the only way you can kill a stranger and receive only a few years in prison.

I do agree with pp that when someone has caused death by dangerous driving, imprisoning the driver just causes more damage in the big picture. Is it really a good thing for 2 lives and families to be ruined, when the driver is (usually) of previous good character?

Given the absence of planning/intent for driving offences, the threat of a custodial sentence is of limited deterrent value in my view.