Justice?

[expat]

I also believe we should have something like culpable homicide to deal with incidents like this.

We do, it's called "manslaughter".

I would also suggest that the driving of a car without proper documents "should" instantly make you guilty of offensive weapons related crimes.

Why?

[The Lone Gunman]

We do, it's called "manslaughter".

So why do they never use manslaughter laws in cases like this.

Why?

Because a motor vehicle in the wrong hands is a lethal weapon. It may make TWOCers think twice. This twat could then have been charged with assault with an offensive weapon and sent down for life.

Too many people take driving for granted.

[Paco]

Because a motor vehicle in the wrong hands is a lethal weapon. It may make TWOCers think twice.

But its not only TWOCers though, is it? When I was much younger, I drove my mate's car home from the pub because he was too pissed to drive it himself. As I didn't have a policy in my own name at the time to give me 3rd party cover, I was driving without insurance. Are you really suggesting that if caught, I should have been sent down for weapons offences? If somebody had stepped out in front of me whilst I was driving (under the legal limit), should I have gone down for longer just because I wasn't insured? Fair enough it wasn't the most responsible thing I've ever done, but I was young and it was a better option than letting him drive it himself.

I'm with expat on this, the punishment should fit only the crime that has been committed. You're on very dodgy ground once you introduce sentencing on the grounds of 'he's a scrote who had it coming to him'. It leaves a bad taste in cases like this, but IMHO its better than the alternative. I haven't even read the report on this particular case, but it seems to me that if he really was driving 80mp/h over the limit then it was the charge and not the sentence that was wrong.

[The Lone Gunman]

The sentence he got was in accordance with the charges he faced.

I think he wasnt charged with harsher offences because they are notoriously difficult to prove in motoring offences.

TWOCers is just an example, I wouldnt have charged you with weapons for no insurance, that is a different matter, but I would charge anybody who is driving without a licence, under the influence, without the owners permission or without an MOT.

I would like to see rules similar to some in Germany so that no vehicle is on the road uninsured. German insurers cover nicked vehicles so that no person injured by a stolen car will lose out.

[Joe Black]

I would like to see rules similar to some in Germany so that no vehicle is on the road uninsured. German insurers cover nicked vehicles so that no person injured by a stolen car will lose out.

Isn't that an incentive then to not have insurance, e.g. I'm covered anyway, even if I have an accident?

[threaded]

Same in Denmark, you can't get number plates for your car unless you have a valid MOT and insurance. And if your insurance or MOT runs out and you don't hand them in, the Police come mob handed (more than 2 cars plus vans) to, with a great show of flashing lights, remove the numberplates. Seen it happen to a chap in the neighbouring village: wondered WTF is going off over there, wanders over to be nosey, find out they are taking the number plates away. Quite a social faux pas. Only time I've seen more coppers is at a riot.

In Denmark if you hit a car on your bicycle, it is the car insurance that covers you. Doesn't really explain why Danish cyclists are so bad though, the Danes are just crap drivers in general.

[expat]

You're on very dodgy ground once you introduce sentencing on the grounds of 'he's a scrote who had it coming to him'. It leaves a bad taste in cases like this, but IMHO its better than the alternative.

Precisely! (And concisely)

[The Lone Gunman]

Isn't that an incentive then to not have insurance, e.g. I'm covered anyway, even if I have an accident?

No Joe, see Threadeds reply. The two round things you see on a german number plate show the car is insured taxed and MOTd. Cant remember exactly how it works, but if you dont pay the police come and remove them. A car driving without them is commiting a very serious offence and the fine will far out weigh any savings made.

Expat and Paco: I actualy think that being a scrote should be a factor in sentencing. A first offender who co-operated should have a lot of discunts available to their sentence, each further court appearence should reduce the available discount say 33% per case thus a career crim will get harsher punishment. Discounts also reduced for non co-operation with the police (running or lieing) pleading not guilty etc. It might make them think twice about pissing about and hiding behind the law if it doubles the prison time.

[hyperD]

I like the word "discunts" - it sounds quite rude!

Why don't the police come round and just impound your car then you cannot commit a crime unless you pay?