To think this is unreasonable and this judge knowingly scentenced this man to death

[Sootyandsweep2019]

Just read a heartbreaking story in the paper about an 87 year old man, who given a 27 month prison sentence after he killed someone in a car accident. The judge was warned at the time by the man's doctors that this was highly likely to lead to his death; but went ahead and did it anyway. As predicted, he died nine days later. This was not murder, this was not malicious; it was a complete, tragic accident.

By all means ban him from driving if he was a danger, look at tightening the driving regulations around older drivers.

But our obsession with "making people pay," for genuine accidents has led to this utter tragedy .

The poor man must have been terrified. I really think this particular judge/ case needs urgent investigation; and we need a wider look at whether prison is always an appropriate response to car accident s like this.

Sadly I don't expect the judge/ CPS/ solicitors etc. Feel guilty at all.

Have to agree with the others. He showed malice and no remorse so absolutely deserved a custodial sentence. Maybe this will serve to deter other older drivers who are no longer fit to drive to continue to insist to do so and they will hang up their keys.

No sympathies. My childhood friend was hit by an 80 year old driver as a baby who swerved off the road and hit mum and baby in a pram. His mum died and he was left with a brain injury. He is a 20 something year old man with the mental age of a toddler.

I have zero sympathies for the older driver

Also to the accusations about ageism
"Treat older people the same as you would young people"

Elderly man commits heinous crime and is given custodial sentence like anyone else would be (and possibly much lighter sentence due to his advanced age)

Cries of "No, you are being unfair, give him a lighter sentence" or "Disregard his crime completely because he is an elderly man"

Pick one, special treatment due to age or not.
Surely not being ageist means the man gets a sentence similar to what a 25 year old man should get- which in that case he certainly did get off lightly

I looked it up (sorry it's the DM, there are other articles but I can't always connect to them for some reason):

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7833247/Driver-87-dies-heart-attack-prison-nine-days-jailed-killing-woman.html

Very interesting what the deceased woman's partner said; so sad for the other woman who had a stroke as a result of this accident, i do hope she recovers.

Someone earlier in the thread said the man should have had better medical care in prison and maybe an open prison would have been more appropriate. I agree with that, the Scrubs was not right for him.

Whilst I understand where you are coming from it could be argued that all these cases are tragic accidents. Also it could set a president about similar incidents.
It doesn’t matter how old you are when you get behind a wheel you are saying that you’re safe to drive. In my opinion too many older people who for various reasons shouldn’t drive. It is selfish and someone was killed.

I am rather disgusted at your attitude, OP. Not once have you shown any compassion for the victims or their families, only the man who killed them. It makes me wonder if you or a relative of yours has done the same thing.
Which part of what the driver did specifically was the accident you keep referring to? The hitting a bollard? The road rage? Almost hitting a man and his children? Dragging two women under his car for 100 feet whilst speeding in reverse? Killing and maiming his innocent victims? Feeling no remorse and never apologising? Which bit was accidental on his part? Which bit was out of his control? Which bit was he completely powerless over?
If you find an 87 year old law breaker dying more tragic than one woman being killed and another having life changing injuries inflicted upon them then I believe there is something wrong with you.

And to be practical, would the £20,000 or so per year spent on keeping people like this in prison not be better spent on road safety measures to help others to live?

Exactly. Nothing is gained by imprisoning him. I am taken aback by people wanting punishment for something that is essentially an accident. Is this really the best use of our prisons? He’s no longer a threat once you take that license away.

It’s the same logic that sees parents thrown in jail for leaving their children in hot cars. We will always be susceptible to momentary lapses in concentration and focus. Jail doesn’t change this aspect of human nature, even if we wish it to.

By this logic we shouldn’t put murderers in jail either

Public safety? This aspect would have been covered by taking his license away permanently.

This aspect would have been covered by taking his license away permanently as above, this only works if the person abides by the ruling.

He died where he should have been due to his own actions; the only pity is that he didn't live longer to truly reflect on his actions

It was an accident though? It caused death and severe injury, but intention does matter. He was an old incompetent driver, and unless you have a maximum age for driving (not the most horrible idea) then this sort of thing will keep happening.

Science on deterrence is tricky; it’s not been proven that harsher sentences change individual behaviour. In countries where harsh penalties for general crime has been applied, no corresponding decrease has been measured.

So deterrence isn’t really a factor here. It’s solely about punishment and retribution.

this only works if the person abides by the ruling

If he’d had this accident under a suspended license I’d be inclined to agree with the sentence but this wasn’t established as a pattern of behaviour at all.

Is there no provision for home detention in the UK? There is here in Oz. With monitoring and allowed to attend doctor and other verified necessary appointments with supervision but otherwise not allowed to leave the house? This seems a better answer to me. I understand that he killed someone. No small crime by a long yardstick, even though he didn’t actually mean to do it. Someone is still dead. There do need to be consequences. I can see that it would be tough to admit you can’t drive anymore. For many, it means independence. However, there is no way that someone should die for your independence. A sad situation. The fact that he has not admitted remorse may be on legal advice. That would be the situation in Oz, as it’s can be considered an admission of guilt. I can only think that the old chap is absolutely gutted, unless he is a complete sociopath.

It seems an entirely appropriate sentence for someone whose driving was so reckless, negligent and fell so far below a safe standard as to kill and seriously injure people.

I don’t feel the slightest bit of sympathy for him. He was angry because he’d hit a bollard and because of that, he wasn’t in control. The lack of apology or remorse shown to the families affected was revoltingly arrogant.

whose driving was so reckless, negligent and fell so far below a safe standard as to kill and seriously injure people

Safe drivers can kill people though; the fact that death was a result doesn’t prove he was a dangerous driver. It wasn’t established as a pattern of behaviour and he still had a legal license. As far as the state was concerned, he was competent.

So maybe we should talk about maximum age limits instead. Since we can’t predict beforehand who will be involved in this type of accident or when their wits will suddenly deteriorate to this point? That would save far more lives than pointlessly jailing someone after the fact.

hello I think that his lack of remorse or apology, gives rise to my concern that he saw nothing wrong in his actions- and could have just dismissed the ruling. He did not actually stop his car, it was the second bollard that he hit that actually stopped him.

Safe drivers can kill people though; the fact that death was a result doesn’t prove he was a dangerous driver

Yes of course they can. Someone who was driving safely when someone stepped out into the road and was killed would be treated entirely differently and would be unlikely to find themselves in court, let alone be convicted of anything.

What proves he was a dangerous driver was the manner he drove in. It's an open and shut case of dangerous driving.

What proves he was a dangerous driver was the manner he drove in. It's an open and shut case of dangerous driving

I’m not disputing this. I’m disputing the unnecessarily harsh punishment. It should have been enough to permanently suspend his license. He was much too old to have been driving on the roads.

I agree totally Juliette. No more driving for him. ( Meant non sarcastically just to clarify tone).

I agree totally Juliette. No more driving for him

Do you actually think jailing him saves more lives than taking away his license? There is no indication he would have driven a car ever again.

I would have been more inclined to agree with the sentencing if he had driven under a suspended license or if a pattern of dangerous driving had been established.

Jailing him? Very harsh. I believe that I recommended home detention if poss in the UK. I have no doubt that there was no deliberate malice here, but somebody died.

I take no pleasure from seeing Mr Heagren jailed. What needs to happen now is a change in the law on older drivers. Jeanette would have done it for me

This is what the loved one of the deceased said, by the way. He was (quite rightly) campaigning to get older drivers off the road, not punish them harshly when they inevitably make a mistake and kill people.

This is how you save lives. Not by pointlessly jailing people for deterrence purposes (which has never been proven to work in studies).

Hellomykitty@ that’s like saying that because someone gets caught they won’t do it again. He won’t drive again because he get caught. He killed someone.

Erm the callousness of some people disgusts me

Yet, the callousness of the offender does not seem to bother you in the slightest.

This guy didn’t really seem to think he did the wrong thing, certainly was not sorry for what he did - which, let’s face it, is really strange as if you have a genuine accident and this happened you would be beyond distraught and feel extremely sad and sorry for the victims. He is certainly not remorseful.

I think it’s all that that got him sentenced - basically his lack of willingness to accept any fault and HIS extreme callousness.

I’m not disputing this. I’m disputing the unnecessarily harsh punishment.

It wasn't harsh, it was lenient. It was literally the shortest sentence the judge could offer given the sentencing guidelines for the crime.

As I mentioned before, generally we're far too lenient on drivers that kill. In order to secure a conviction, the charge is often dropped to 'death by careless driving', rather than dangerous, as it's easier to prosecute, but unfortunately carries much lower sentences.

We need to retest everyone every 10 years, switching to 5 years at 60 and every year at 70. If a driver kills or injures someone and it was their fault, then it should be a mandatory jail sentence and lifetime ban from driving. Mandatory jail for anyone driving without a licence, with a longer sentence for banned drivers doing so. Instant bans for anyone found driving whilst holding a phone, etc.

Driving isn't a right, it's a privilege, and one that kills too many people due to our lax attitude to it.

@Sootyandsweep2019 are you known to the perpetrator? It seems an odd thread to start if not?