# Driving deaths in Ireland



## Romulan (31 Oct 2008)

_A 19-year-old man who pleaded guilty to causing death by dangerous driving has been given a two-year suspended prison sentence._
_He was also disqualified from driving for six years._

*  VS*

_A man who assaulted his boss and broke his jaw in a dispute about working overtime has been jailed for a year._

A broken jaw is a serious injury and I know I am not comparing like with like but how is it that the courts tend towards suspended sentences in these cases?  

My perception is that those who cause death on the roads rarely get jailed.  Why?


----------



## Caveat (31 Oct 2008)

Possibly because it could be argued that the dangerous driving was accidental but the assault was intentional?


----------



## Romulan (31 Oct 2008)

Well in this instance there is a guilty plea to dangerous driving.

But in general how can some of these incidents be described as accidental?

If you drive at a speed inappropriate to road conditions or just plain crazy then you are bound to hit trouble.  Nothing accidental about it!


----------



## dereko1969 (31 Oct 2008)

in the driving case it was estimated that the speed of the vehicle was 145kmh so it was not accidental.
all you have to do not to go to jail is cry on the witness stand and have the family member of those you killed say something on your behalf, the driver in this case killed two others and should have done some serious time and should also have been banned from driving for at least 10 years. the whole he'll have to live with the guilt could apply to any crime and we don't let those people off so why should people that drive in an exceedingly dangerous fashion be excused jail?


----------



## rob30 (31 Oct 2008)

There was a man in the papers yesterday, who was drunk driving and killed his own 4 year old son. His wife has still died.
He got 3 years in prison and a long driving ban.
People do go to prison for drunken driving causing death, but in this case, i wonder has he enough unescapable punishment going on?


----------



## theoneill (31 Oct 2008)

Nobody put a gun their heads and forced them to either drive at criminally insane speeds or to drink 8 pints. I Personally I would favour of a charge of vehicular manslaughter being brought in. There should be no question of jail time and the driving ban should last their entire lives. There are plenty of good drivers out there whose lives are put at risk every day by morons like the above.


----------



## aircobra19 (31 Oct 2008)

Seems a strange disparity in sentencing. Thats common enough these days, it really should be sorted out.


----------



## Welfarite (31 Oct 2008)

rob30 said:


> There was a man in the papers yesterday, who was drunk driving and killed his own 4 year old son. His wife has since died.
> He got 3 years in prison and a long driving ban.
> People do go to prison for drunken driving causing death, but in this case, i wonder has he enough unescapable punishment going on?


 
Thinking out loud: I wonder does this sentence reflect the fact that this man was from the travelling community?


----------



## Caveat (31 Oct 2008)

Romulan said:


> But in general how can some of these incidents be described as accidental?


 
Easily - someone could make an ill judged manoeuvre, misjudge the speeds of others etc etc.  Pleading guilty doesn't necessarily mean that the dangerous driving wasn't accidental.

Obviously, driving at 145kph, if that's what we're talking about, cannot be accidental but this wasn't mentioned in the original post. Alcohol wasn't mentioned either.


----------



## Vanilla (31 Oct 2008)

Every case is judged on its own merits. You can't do a simple comparison of crime versus punishment without taking into account all of the facts. That's the system we have- common law versus civil.


----------



## FKH (31 Oct 2008)

Driving at 145kph may not be accidental but killing someone was. If you speed you are not guaranteed to kill someone and I would argue that most people speed a little. Granted I would have thought some prison time would be appropriate but the merits of the case might not warrant so.

As someone said attacking someone is a premeditated crime and is treated differently by the courts.


----------



## Ceist Beag (31 Oct 2008)

The word accident doesn't sit right for me - the bottom line is someone makes a conscious decision to either speed or to drink and drive and imo the price they pay for the consequences of these actions are not enough. I don't know the facts of this case so can't comment on it directly but I do feel that people don't take enough care for the responsibility they hold when getting behind the wheel.


----------



## Caveat (31 Oct 2008)

Ceist Beag said:


> The word accident doesn't sit right for me - the bottom line is someone makes a conscious decision to either speed or to drink and drive and imo the price they pay for the consequences of these actions are not enough. I don't know the facts of this case so can't comment on it directly but I do feel that people don't take enough care for the responsibility they hold when getting behind the wheel.


 
In general, I agree with you.  But the fact remains that it is possible to cause serious injury, or death, by dangerous driving with neither illegal speed nor alcohol being a factor.


----------



## FKH (31 Oct 2008)

It's possible to kill someone in a car driving at the correct speed doing nothing wrong and it can be completely the other party's fault (such as kid suddenly running into road). In that type of case in my opinion you should not be charged at all and I believe that people aren't.

The reason you get prosecuted at all is beacuse of the dangerous element such as speeding, drinking etc which means you were not obeying the law. Six months in prison would be a huge deal for an otherwise law abiding citizen who lost control of their car if speeding and killed someone. People who never expect in their lifetime to go to prison.


----------



## gipimann (31 Oct 2008)

In the motoring case mentioned by the OP, the families of the deceased asked for a non-custodial sentence to be considered.   Perhaps this was taken into account and partly explains why the lad walked from court, albeit with a suspended sentence and ban.


----------



## mathepac (31 Oct 2008)

FKH said:


> ...
> 
> As someone said attacking someone is a premeditated crime and is treated differently by the courts.



An assault may not necessarily be premeditated and may be a reactive thing; a lack of control or an inability to express hurt / anger in a more appropriate way.


----------



## starlite68 (31 Oct 2008)

at the end of the day its the judge who hears all the facts and makes his judgment...he is the one appointed and qualified to do the job.


----------



## aircobra19 (31 Oct 2008)

starlite68 said:


> at the end of the day its the judge who hears all the facts and makes his judgment...he is the one appointed and qualified to do the job.



They are not infallible.


----------



## starlite68 (31 Oct 2008)

aircobra19 said:


> They are not infallible.


 
true...but i would say they a lot more experienced than any of the posters on this forum, thats why they sit in judgement and we do not!


----------



## MrMan (31 Oct 2008)

starlite68 said:


> true...but i would say they a lot more experienced than any of the posters on this forum, thats why they sit in judgement and we do not!



A quick read through any weeks crime stories and you quickly start to question their judgement.


----------



## starlite68 (31 Oct 2008)

they can only work within the boundaries set by the justice system.


----------



## MrMan (31 Oct 2008)

starlite68 said:


> they can only work within the boundaries set by the justice system.



Yes but far too often they do not hand out maximum sentances.


----------



## aircobra19 (31 Oct 2008)

starlite68 said:


> true...but i would say they a lot more experienced than any of the posters on this forum, thats why they sit in judgement and we do not!



You're suggesting that a person in a job is always the best person to do that job. Can't agree. Life just isn't that simple.


----------



## starlite68 (1 Nov 2008)

aircobra19 said:


> You're suggesting that a person in a job is always the best person to do that job. Can't agree. Life just isn't that simple.


 what do you suggest? let someone who just has an "axe to grind" do the job!


----------



## aircobra19 (1 Nov 2008)

There seems to a problem with inconsistent sentencing. making excuses for the judges isn't the solution anyway.


----------



## starlite68 (1 Nov 2008)

aircobra19 said:


> There seems to a problem with inconsistent sentencing. making excuses for the judges isn't the solution anyway.


 sentencing is not consistent because cases are not consistent...no two cases have the same details.


----------



## aircobra19 (1 Nov 2008)

starlite68 said:


> sentencing is not consistent because cases are not consistent...no two cases have the same details.


 
Consistent doesn't mean identical. You can have variation and still be consistent. Thats whats lacking. The punishment doesn't fit the crime in so many cases.


----------



## starlite68 (1 Nov 2008)

aircobra19 said:


> The punishment doesn't fit the crime in so many cases.


 but who is to decide what punishment is fitting??


----------



## aircobra19 (1 Nov 2008)

No idea. I just think that theres too many inconsistencies in sentencing. Thats really all I've got to say on it.


----------



## Complainer (1 Nov 2008)

aircobra19 said:


> You're suggesting that a person in a job is always the best person to do that job. Can't agree. Life just isn't that simple.


You're suggesting that armchair experts on bulletin boards know more about doing a difficult job than those who have spent a professional lifetime preparing for that role. Can't agree. Life just isn't that simple.


----------



## aircobra19 (1 Nov 2008)

Complainer said:


> You're suggesting that armchair experts on bulletin boards know more about doing a difficult job than those who have spent a professional lifetime preparing for that role. Can't agree. Life just isn't that simple.


 
I never "suggested" anything. I was very specfic, and didn't propose anyone could do it better other than saying the judges themselves could be more consistent. IMO it weakens your point, (what point are you making) by misquoting and copying other comments. You don't always need years of experience to see when mistakes are made. In any profession.


----------



## bskinti (2 Nov 2008)

I have personal experience with close family members being involved in road death's, Person A: who was driving and passenger got killed when car veered off road and hit wall, He accepted full responsibility for what happened Pleaded Guilty in court,would accept any punishment they wanted to give him, anything to relive the sorrow, the pain he caused this family and our family, he didn't go out for to do such a thing, it ended with him been disqualified for a number of years and fined for careless driving causing death of which it was, He was careless when accident happened. He has to live with it for ever, maybe a jail sentence would have helped ease the pain for him. 
Person B: who was driving a truck and cut across in front of brother in laws car and he got killed, he didn't get sentencing either. He actually fought it in court He never apologized to our family and this was the hardest to accept, but still he lost his license, his job, and he might feel sorrow now, he had a young family and his wife was the one we felt sorry for,She looked ashamed of him in court, but still he didn't go out to do such a thing. I believe a jail sentience would do no good in these cases only turn people into criminals, there is enough sorrow and bereavement in road deaths and sitting in a cell what good would it do.


----------



## MrMan (3 Nov 2008)

Complainer said:


> You're suggesting that armchair experts on bulletin boards know more about doing a difficult job than those who have spent a professional lifetime preparing for that role. Can't agree. Life just isn't that simple.



So are you suggesting that we should not question the judgement of those making big decisions. Are we not all lambasting the govt over the budget and making them change their judgements even though we are armchair experts and they have spent a professional lifetime preparing for their role. It is simply not acceptable to have people in roles that have such a huge baring on society to not be accountable for their decisions.


----------



## starlite68 (3 Nov 2008)

MrMan said:


> It is simply not acceptable to have people in roles that have such a huge baring on society to not be accountable for their decisions.


 
i taught judges were accountable for their decisions,,,,,also most cases are open to appeal by the parties conserned.


----------



## MrMan (3 Nov 2008)

starlite68 said:


> i taught judges were accountable for their decisions,,,,,also most cases are open to appeal by the parties conserned.




I'm sure they are accountable to their peers, but the 'ordinary people' are right to question their judgement at times, the appeals process is there alright in some cases adding further time and money to cases. I think we are getting away from the point now anyway. My argument is simply that judges have too often shown little consistency in sentancing.


----------



## Complainer (3 Nov 2008)

MrMan said:


> So are you suggesting that we should not question the judgement of those making big decisions.


I'm suggesting that we should do some recent research (beyond reading a couple of Herald headlines) before lashing out criticisms.


----------



## Romulan (3 Nov 2008)

If you can call driving on a daily basis research, I've done plenty and every day I see examples of dangerous driving which amaze me.

There is little fear of loosing your license no matter how you drive and I don't feel the courts are doing enough to deter these drivers.

Within 15 minutes of getting into the car this morning I saw a bus force its way through a junction, overtaking at speed on a continuous white line in a 50KM zone and running a red light at a 4-way junction.

I don't read the Herald BTW


----------

