Why isn't this manslaughter?

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 1 of 2 1 2 > Last >>

Stuk Top half 24 Jul 15 3.45pm
[Link] Two 16 year old kill a telecoms engineer and are charged with dangerous driving. If you cannot drive, you should not be able to be charged with dangerous driving. You've killed someone with a weapon essentially. Optimistic as ever
Alert a moderator to this post

Stuk

Top half 24 Jul 15 3.45pm

[Link]

Two 16 year old kill a telecoms engineer and are charged with dangerous driving.

If you cannot drive, you should not be able to be charged with dangerous driving. You've killed someone with a weapon essentially.

Optimistic as ever

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 24 Jul 15 3.59pm
I'd guess its to do with intent to cause harm. Its basically manslaughter if you ask me, but the CPS might not be able to be certain of a conviction of manslaughter "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 24 Jul 15 3.59pm

I'd guess its to do with intent to cause harm. Its basically manslaughter if you ask me, but the CPS might not be able to be certain of a conviction of manslaughter

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

OknotOK Cockfosters, London 24 Jul 15 4.05pm
I don't care whether they call it manslaughter or not, it should carry a similar sentence. "It's almost like a moral decision. Except not really cos noone is going to find out," Jez, Peep Show
Alert a moderator to this post

OknotOK

Cockfosters, London 24 Jul 15 4.05pm

I don't care whether they call it manslaughter or not, it should carry a similar sentence.

"It's almost like a moral decision. Except not really cos noone is going to find out," Jez, Peep Show

Alert a moderator to this post

Stuk Top half 24 Jul 15 4.18pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 24 Jul 2015 3.59pm I'd guess its to do with intent to cause harm. Its basically manslaughter if you ask me, but the CPS might not be able to be certain of a conviction of manslaughter I'd argue that driving a car when you can't is intending to cause harm. I'm fairly sure it would be the case if I took an HGV for a joyride. Optimistic as ever
Alert a moderator to this post

Stuk

Top half 24 Jul 15 4.18pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 24 Jul 2015 3.59pm

I'd guess its to do with intent to cause harm. Its basically manslaughter if you ask me, but the CPS might not be able to be certain of a conviction of manslaughter

I'd argue that driving a car when you can't is intending to cause harm.

I'm fairly sure it would be the case if I took an HGV for a joyride.

Optimistic as ever

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 24 Jul 15 4.25pm
Quote Stuk at 24 Jul 2015 4.18pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 24 Jul 2015 3.59pm I'd guess its to do with intent to cause harm. Its basically manslaughter if you ask me, but the CPS might not be able to be certain of a conviction of manslaughter I'd argue that driving a car when you can't is intending to cause harm. I'm fairly sure it would be the case if I took an HGV for a joyride. But could you prove it beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused, intended to cause harm. Though the sentence is up to 14 years (max). "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 24 Jul 15 4.25pm

Quote Stuk at 24 Jul 2015 4.18pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 24 Jul 2015 3.59pm

I'd guess its to do with intent to cause harm. Its basically manslaughter if you ask me, but the CPS might not be able to be certain of a conviction of manslaughter

I'd argue that driving a car when you can't is intending to cause harm.

I'm fairly sure it would be the case if I took an HGV for a joyride.

But could you prove it beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused, intended to cause harm. Though the sentence is up to 14 years (max).

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Stuk Top half 24 Jul 15 4.36pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 24 Jul 2015 4.25pm Quote Stuk at 24 Jul 2015 4.18pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 24 Jul 2015 3.59pm I'd guess its to do with intent to cause harm. Its basically manslaughter if you ask me, but the CPS might not be able to be certain of a conviction of manslaughter I'd argue that driving a car when you can't is intending to cause harm. I'm fairly sure it would be the case if I took an HGV for a joyride. But could you prove it beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused, intended to cause harm. Though the sentence is up to 14 years (max). Why shouldn you have to. If you haven't been trained to operate a vehicle the probability is that you will cause harm. Be it to people or property, including the car you've taken. Optimistic as ever
Alert a moderator to this post

Stuk

Top half 24 Jul 15 4.36pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 24 Jul 2015 4.25pm

Quote Stuk at 24 Jul 2015 4.18pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 24 Jul 2015 3.59pm

I'd guess its to do with intent to cause harm. Its basically manslaughter if you ask me, but the CPS might not be able to be certain of a conviction of manslaughter

I'd argue that driving a car when you can't is intending to cause harm.

I'm fairly sure it would be the case if I took an HGV for a joyride.

But could you prove it beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused, intended to cause harm. Though the sentence is up to 14 years (max).

Why shouldn you have to. If you haven't been trained to operate a vehicle the probability is that you will cause harm. Be it to people or property, including the car you've taken.

Optimistic as ever

Alert a moderator to this post

fed up eagle Between Horley, Surrey and Preston... 24 Jul 15 7.45pm
Quote Stuk at 24 Jul 2015 3.45pm [Link] Two 16 year old kill a telecoms engineer and are charged with dangerous driving. If you cannot drive, you should not be able to be charged with dangerous driving. You've killed someone with a weapon essentially. Very true and a common sense comment, unfortunately common sense is not used in our penal system, and most judges are away with the fairies and won't convict criminals anymore, just like they won't deport people like captain Hook and that stinking piece of shyte Choudary. Our justice system used to be the envy of the world, now it's the laughing stock of the world instead.
Alert a moderator to this post

fed up eagle

Between Horley, Surrey and Preston... 24 Jul 15 7.45pm

Quote Stuk at 24 Jul 2015 3.45pm

[Link]

Two 16 year old kill a telecoms engineer and are charged with dangerous driving.

If you cannot drive, you should not be able to be charged with dangerous driving. You've killed someone with a weapon essentially.

Very true and a common sense comment, unfortunately common sense is not used in our penal system, and most judges are away with the fairies and won't convict criminals anymore, just like they won't deport people like captain Hook and that stinking piece of shyte Choudary. Our justice system used to be the envy of the world, now it's the laughing stock of the world instead.

Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle 24 Jul 15 8.57pm
Funny old world we live in,but Courts tend to go by what the law actually is rather than a lynch mob mentality. If you do want to blame anyone,blame governments,they pass laws. We can't possibly say on what we know from the link whether there was or wasn't any legal basis to charge for manslaughter.A number of things can come into it,some to do with the particular "state of mind" of the driver. What is interesting is that if they are being charged with dangerous driving,they are not being charged with the offences of "Causing Death By Dangerous Driving" or "Causing Death By Careless or Inconsiderate Driving".Though even then,there can be good reason why not.
Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle

24 Jul 15 8.57pm

Funny old world we live in,but Courts tend to go by what the law actually is rather than a lynch mob mentality.

If you do want to blame anyone,blame governments,they pass laws.

We can't possibly say on what we know from the link whether there was or wasn't any legal basis to charge for manslaughter.A number of things can come into it,some to do with the particular "state of mind" of the driver.

What is interesting is that if they are being charged with dangerous driving,they are not being charged with the offences of "Causing Death By Dangerous Driving" or "Causing Death By Careless or Inconsiderate Driving".Though even then,there can be good reason why not.

Alert a moderator to this post

-TUX- Alphabettispaghetti 24 Jul 15 9.38pm
A sad story. Not much to go by from the link but personally i'd lock them up. Time to move forward together.
Alert a moderator to this post

-TUX-

Alphabettispaghetti 24 Jul 15 9.38pm

A sad story.
Not much to go by from the link but personally i'd lock them up.

Time to move forward together.

Alert a moderator to this post

fed up eagle Between Horley, Surrey and Preston... 24 Jul 15 10.12pm
At 16 aren't they too young to be driving? Forgive me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty certain I had to wait until 17 until being able to take driving lessons. So surely that's a charge in itself?
Alert a moderator to this post

fed up eagle

Between Horley, Surrey and Preston... 24 Jul 15 10.12pm

At 16 aren't they too young to be driving? Forgive me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty certain I had to wait until 17 until being able to take driving lessons. So surely that's a charge in itself?

Alert a moderator to this post

Stuk Top half 27 Jul 15 2.18pm
Quote legaleagle at 24 Jul 2015 8.57pm Funny old world we live in,but Courts tend to go by what the law actually is rather than a lynch mob mentality. If you do want to blame anyone,blame governments,they pass laws. We can't possibly say on what we know from the link whether there was or wasn't any legal basis to charge for manslaughter.A number of things can come into it,some to do with the particular "state of mind" of the driver. What is interesting is that if they are being charged with dangerous driving,they are not being charged with the offences of "Causing Death By Dangerous Driving" or "Causing Death By Careless or Inconsiderate Driving".Though even then,there can be good reason why not. It's not a good reason, it's their age. The law becomes total s*** when the CPS decide someone is a bit on the young, or old, side. Optimistic as ever
Alert a moderator to this post

Stuk

Top half 27 Jul 15 2.18pm

Quote legaleagle at 24 Jul 2015 8.57pm

Funny old world we live in,but Courts tend to go by what the law actually is rather than a lynch mob mentality.

If you do want to blame anyone,blame governments,they pass laws.

It's not a good reason, it's their age.

The law becomes total s*** when the CPS decide someone is a bit on the young, or old, side.

Optimistic as ever

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 27 Jul 15 2.25pm
Quote Stuk at 24 Jul 2015 4.36pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 24 Jul 2015 4.25pm Quote Stuk at 24 Jul 2015 4.18pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 24 Jul 2015 3.59pm I'd guess its to do with intent to cause harm. Its basically manslaughter if you ask me, but the CPS might not be able to be certain of a conviction of manslaughter I'd argue that driving a car when you can't is intending to cause harm. I'm fairly sure it would be the case if I took an HGV for a joyride. But could you prove it beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused, intended to cause harm. Though the sentence is up to 14 years (max). Why shouldn you have to. If you haven't been trained to operate a vehicle the probability is that you will cause harm. Be it to people or property, including the car you've taken. Its the necessity of criminal law, is proving mens and actus rae for each offence. Which means for proving manslaughter you need to show that the actions of the guilty party were intending to cause serious harm to someone. I'm inclined to agree with you, by the way, that death by dangerous driving should carry the same sentence as manslaughter (i.e. potentially a life sentence). The problem is proving it beyond reasonable doubt with a driving offence. The solution, is to raise the sentencing of Death by Dangerous Driving to match a maximum sentence of life. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 27 Jul 15 2.25pm

Quote Stuk at 24 Jul 2015 4.36pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 24 Jul 2015 4.25pm

Quote Stuk at 24 Jul 2015 4.18pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 24 Jul 2015 3.59pm

I'd guess its to do with intent to cause harm. Its basically manslaughter if you ask me, but the CPS might not be able to be certain of a conviction of manslaughter

I'd argue that driving a car when you can't is intending to cause harm.

I'm fairly sure it would be the case if I took an HGV for a joyride.

But could you prove it beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused, intended to cause harm. Though the sentence is up to 14 years (max).

Why shouldn you have to. If you haven't been trained to operate a vehicle the probability is that you will cause harm. Be it to people or property, including the car you've taken.

Its the necessity of criminal law, is proving mens and actus rae for each offence. Which means for proving manslaughter you need to show that the actions of the guilty party were intending to cause serious harm to someone.

I'm inclined to agree with you, by the way, that death by dangerous driving should carry the same sentence as manslaughter (i.e. potentially a life sentence).

The problem is proving it beyond reasonable doubt with a driving offence. The solution, is to raise the sentencing of Death by Dangerous Driving to match a maximum sentence of life.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 1 of 2 1 2 > Last >>

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Why isn't this manslaughter?

Site Map

Sponsors