Six weeks for hit and run driver who killed three-year-old breaches his ban four time

[AB Asks]

A man spent a pathetic six weeks in jail for mowing down a three year old girl in a stolen car. He never stopped after running her down; he had never passed a driving test in his life. His actions were apparently not bad enough to qualify as death by dangerous driving despite speeding through a 30mph zone at almost 50mph. The young girl died the following day in hospital. After being released from jail he then went on to flout his five year driving ban four times. He has now been given a 180 day sentence. What do you think? Should this man have been jailed for longer the first time around? Is this a massive insult to the young girl who died aged three?

[Gromit]

Mohammed Aqueel Hussain's story can be read here.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles /news/news.html?in_article_id=501075&in_page_i d=1770

[Quinlad]

It certainly is a grey area.

But still, harm can't be the only - or main - criterion for sentencing.

In many road traffic offences, the criminal intent amounts to carelessness for a split second. Contrast that with the canoits couple who have committed a crime in full knowledge of what they were doing - and not just in a moment of madness, but over the course of several years, going to great lengths to continue acting criminally. All the while they were fully aware that they were doing wrong but decided in the cold light of day to go ahead and do it anyway.

Yes, no-one died. But their behaviour is surely worse than a lorry's driver lack of concentration.

[Pippa68]

Again, I haven't said that a fraudster shouldn't receive a maximum sentence.

I think that lack of concentration is serious when operating machinery ~ like the guy the other day who was using his mobile phone whilst driving (and swerving) across the roundabout in front of me.

I don't have the answer. However I still believe that causing death by improper or careless driving should carry a custodial sentence, and so should fraud. If I caused a death by driving I would expect it...whether the length of sentence is equal doesn't come into it.

[ludwig]

Quinlad - I know what you mean. Remember the case of the man who fell asleep at the wheel and his car ended up on a railway track causing a derailment and loss of life.
He was jailed - for a long time I seem to recall - and I remember thinking - blimey that was unlucky. if he'd have fallen asleep and hit a tree he'd have got nothing but sympathy.

But back to the case that the question refers to. Here you have a scumbag who shows consistent recklessness and criminality leading up to, during, and since the accident.
Surely a greater sentence was warranted?

[Pippa68]

That is also my point, ludwig.

Sentences consistently show that cases like this rarely receive lengthly sentences ~ or even sentences to 'fit the crime'.

The man in question is a persistent offender and another death is likely. If another death does occur, will he receive a long sentence? I am sure if he were a persistent fraudster he would ;o)

[Gromit]

The Government have recently tightened up the law and introduced in The Road Safety Act 2006

It creates two new offences, of:

"causing death by careless, or inconsiderate driving"

and

a distinct offence for causing (any) death by driving when unlicensed, or disqualified.

[Pippa68]

I am pleased that the two have been included, Gromit.

That might sort out the grey area.

I wonder what the sentencing levels will be?

[Supernick]

These issues are never black and white, and a number of factors have to be considered.
Does it matter that the car was stolen? Is that entirely irrelevant to the case? I think it probably is. It's a seperate charge for my mind.
Does 50mph in a 30mph zone constitute dangerous driving? It very much depends on the roads. I'll confess to having driven that speed before along a local road near me, where 30 seems utterly ridiculous, and cars regulaly drive at that speed in procession. If it's a housing estate, then that's something different.
Is not having a license relevant? I think this is the point to pick up on. This is really key. Not being qualified to operate a car makes you dangerous. You might not mean to hit anyone, but I think it changes the potential sentence. I would have thought a custodial sentence was appropriate primarily due to this.

[Quinlad]

"Sentences consistently show that cases like this rarely receive lengthly sentences ~ or even sentences to 'fit the crime'."

I still don't agree. It's very easy to look at the sensationalist stories that 'the driver who killed my son' gets let off lightly.

But what is being punished - quite rightly - is the behaviour of the driver during the incident. Not the unpredictable factors that surround it. The law recognises that it's unreasonable to punish one driver more than another who has behaved in an identical way - just because someone happened to be crossing the road. You either imprison every driver who drives at 40 in a 30 zone, or none of them.

Otherwise, it'd be like two burglas breaking into two identical houses and taking identical briefcases. They're arrested and the police open the briefcases up. In one is the homeowner's life savings. In the other is a pile of old newspapers. They've done exactly the same thing with exactly the same intent. The contents are something that they couldn't have known or affected, yet you'd punish one more than other based on that gravity of the result? That's pure chance.

[Pippa68]

I understand what you are saying. Of course the end result is important!

It's like saying that someone can take drugs all their life and only get punished once they are caught, or even a dealer only being punished once he has caused a death and is caught.

It will always be the end result which matters. You get into a car and have to think that your actions may kill someone, as you are in a powerful machine with no room for error.

If I am in a car accident and my car hits another car, regardless of the fact that it was icy conditions which caused the accident, I am punished through my insurance company.

[Quinlad]

I agree.

Every car driver should think long and hard about the responsibility they're taking on.

But that responsibility shouldn't be deemed more or less important just because someone two miles down the road decides to go for a walk.

And if you accept that, how can one driver be considered more of a wrongdoer than the other based on the unknowable activities of other random people?

[brionon]

Quinlan -How right you are. Do these people who WALK think they have RIGHTS ? Top Gear forever !

[Quinlad]

As a non-driver, I'd quite happily see all reckless drivers banged up. But not just the ones who happen to hit a pedestrian. That's just random isn't it?

[Pippa68]

Yes, if they get caught. They usually do get caught if they kill someone.

Now I have a headache.

[Quinlad]

I have one too now.

Are you saying that people who get caught should receive harsher sentences than those that don't? How can it be any other way?

I'm saying that if two reckless drivers doing the same thing with the same intent both get caught they should receive equal punishment. Whatever they do or don't collide with.

[Pippa68]

I agree with you there!

The reason I said 'if they get caught' is because if they don't get caught they won't be sentenced at all, would they?

lol..my headache is easing a bit now.

[NikkiB]

Sentencing for bad driving should be harsh when harm is involved. Intent in this case is not important. As with all cases where people are injured as a result of others, deterrent sentences must be so harsh as to be Draconian.

If you get into a car tomorrow and drive carelessly or recklessly, there is a good chance you will harm someone or even end their life. For those of you on this thread who are so soppy and liberal as to be deluded, a car is a very powerful piece of machinery. Driving it carelessly is as bad as brandishing a loaded machine gun around with occasional pulls on the trigger. Being genuinely sorry that you killed someone will be of no comfort to their loved ones.

[Everhelpful]

Personally I think quinlad is a Politically Correct Ar$ehole.!!!!

[Barter]

So do I !!