Multi-recidivist reckless driver kills a student while drunk, high on cocaine and cannabis and witho - Polidicks

[quote]The 34 year-old reckless driver who back in December 2012 ran over and killed a student in Montpellier while drunk and under the influence has been sentenced this thursday by the Court to 6 years of prison with no possibility of early release. The judges have also confiscated the driver's vehicle and prohibited him from getting a new driver's license for the next five years. The sentence proved more clement than what prosecutor Olivier Decout expected, having demanded a 8 years sentence along with a permanent ban from getting a driver's license. The man in his thirties, who was driving without a license, came to the Court this thursday for Manslaughter with six aggravating circumstances : hit-and-run, driving over the speed limit, under the influence of alcohol, cannabis and cocaine, invalidated driver's license and lack of car insurance, for running over in december 2012 at Montpellier Charlotte Landais, a 18 years old student in her second year of pharmaceutical studies. In the morning, around 150 people including the family of the victim had answered the call of the association Charlotte Mathieu Adan to a peaceful protest in the streets of Montpelier to demand a follow-up of the case at the higher-ranked Criminal Court.[/quote] [url]http://www.lepoint.fr/societe/le-chauffard-qui-avait-tue-une-etudiante-condamne-a-6-ans-de-prison-02-01-2014-1776282_23.php[/url] Source is in French, sorry about that. A 6 years sentence is extremely rare for a road offense, even for hit-and-run manslaughter. He deserves a heavier sentence and a trial among a higher court. The guy was already caught several times, had his license taken away, was high on three different types of drugs and drove away after the crime, six years doesn't seem that much. Although it happened a year ago the actual trial only happened yesterday.

Absolutely ridiculous. He should have a way harsher sentence. Especially for killing a med-student.

Whoever the judge is, he is a fucking IDIOT.

[QUOTE=Karmah;43399154]Absolutely ridiculous. He should have a way harsher sentence. Especially for killing a med-student.[/QUOTE] why should what the person does matter in sentencing not saying he should be getting more for a specific person, i mean that he should be getting more than 6 no matter who it was he killed

[QUOTE=Karmah;43399154]Absolutely ridiculous. He should have a way harsher sentence. Especially for killing a med-student.[/QUOTE] Are you implying that life of a med-student is more valuable than of anyone else?

I don't understand how the sentencing has worked? Is it lower because he was driving? What a fucking joke of jail time this guy is getting. He killed someone and he's only away for 6 years.

Six years of intense drug counseling and rehabilitation, combined with a permanent driving ban, and I could maybe understand. Six years of normal prison time? Ridiculous. The dude obviously needs professional psychological counseling.

[QUOTE=D3vils Buddy;43400108]I don't understand how the sentencing has worked? Is it lower because he was driving? What a fucking joke of jail time this guy is getting. He killed someone and he's only away for 6 years.[/QUOTE] Road offenses usually don't net you THAT much because accidents that cause death are normally considered manslaughter. And the sentence is carried out with a fairly long sentence (a year in prison is already REALLY long, three is enough for any normal human being to never do it again) plus a consequent fine and removal of your license. The issue with that one case is that the guy already had no license, he got it removed from another offense. It's a rather specific and rare case where he accumulated so much offenses and aggravating circumstances that the normal amount of years you'd get for a road offense isn't enough anymore. I assume the issue is that the judge wanted to avoid exemplarism. The same thing happened a few weeks ago when a huge riot was triggered by a bunch of douchebags right before a football match, and the people who were arrested were given rather low sentences compared to what they could have got, because the lawyer insisted on them not being judged extra-harshly to set up an example, which would have been unfair and arguably cruel. That may have crossed that judge's mind, although I'm more upset about him being able to get his permit back in five years than him only serving 6 years rather than say 8 or 10 (6 years is still one hell of a long time). Considering he's already been driving without a permit, I'm fairly certain he's attached enough to his car to immediately get his license back. [editline]3rd January 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=.Isak.;43400211]Six years of intense drug counseling and rehabilitation, combined with a permanent driving ban, and I could maybe understand. Six years of normal prison time? Ridiculous. The dude obviously needs professional psychological counseling.[/QUOTE] It's not his first time doing stupid shit with his car, it's apparently the first time it has claimed a life though. I guess it was the one time too many. Also prison has psychological support, it's not like you're thrown in a hole for x amount of years until you've made your time. Hell, the closest prison to where I live is right next to a hospital with a mental institute, and when I spent a month in that exact mental institute we had a long-time criminal with us, sent there for some counseling and to avoid going nuts in a normal prison environment. Because he's unable to get out sooner doesn't mean he'll be locked up tight literally.

Does the 5 years in which he can't get a driving license comes after the 6 he spends in prison? Otherwise it makes no sense to give him the ban because he would be locked up for all of it. The wording just seems a little confusing.

[QUOTE=NeonpieDFTBA;43400646]Does the 5 years in which he can't get a driving license comes after the 6 he spends in prison? Otherwise it makes no sense to give him the ban because he would be locked up for all of it. The wording just seems a little confusing.[/QUOTE] It wasn't clear in the original article either, it just said they took away the vehicle and he can't get a new license for five years. Also according to another source, the guy had between 2.40 and 4.30 grams of alcohol per liter of blood. The legal limit at which you cannot drive freely anymore is 0.5 gram per liter. He also not only denied the facts for over a month, but also tried to frame his childhood friend for the offense. What a scumbag. And they wanted eight years not as a random number, but because in a criminal trial (as in when you commit a crime, not an offense), injuries causing death can net you eight years in prison, without a chance of going out. They want this to be judged as a criminal case and not as a road offense. It would change it from manslaughter to voluntary violences causing death, allowing for a bigger sentence. It's understandable considering the amount of voluntary actions the man took that lead to the death of another person.

[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;43399983]Are you implying that life of a med-student is more valuable than of anyone else?[/QUOTE] Are you implying that all human life actually is equally worth?

[QUOTE=Rankzerox;43401267]Are you implying that all human life actually is equally worth?[/QUOTE] Yeah? I kinda believe in basic human rights, equality in questions of law, that kinda thing!

[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;43401302]Yeah? I kinda believe in basic human rights, equality in questions of law, that kinda thing![/QUOTE] It's a nice ideal, but you're bullshitting yourself and everybody if you say you'd save 5 murderers over 4 innocent people.

[QUOTE=sltungle;43401331]It's a nice ideal, but you're bullshitting yourself and everybody if you say you'd save 5 murderers over 4 innocent people.[/QUOTE] If there is no reason to believe they are still more dangerous than any innocent (for instance if they went through thorough rehabilitation and evaluation, if their murder was under extreme circumstances they won't get into again etc.) then you can be damn sure I will choose 5 over 4. If they are still clearly dangerous then I am picking the innocents, but then it's not about them being less worth it as humans, but the "number" of human lives being jeopardized by the possibility of them killing somebody again. What they have done before serves as nothing but clue of what they might do in the futre, but it's still a completely shitty one, and there are way better and more important ones.

From a purely judiciary standpoint then yeah everyone is equal and treated as equally by the law. From a more social, human perception standpoint, obviously in the case of a murder or manslaughter the victim's age, social status, etc will have its importance in people's perception of the murder. And, yes, it does have a bit of an effect when at the court. Which is why so many people have felt relatively indifferent towards the constant murders going on in Marseille (biggest city in the South of France, and one of the most criminally active), because it's thugs killing other thugs. They are more worried about the city getting a bad image and about stray bullets than about the actual scumbags ending each other with AK-47s. Especially since that peak in revenge murders has happened right in the year where the city got the temporary title of European Capital of Culture.

[QUOTE=sltungle;43401331]It's a nice ideal, but you're bullshitting yourself and everybody if you say you'd save 5 murderers over 4 innocent people.[/QUOTE] thats completely not what he said, he meant in the eyes of the law the victims should just be people and not actually be ranked according to their social level. Justice is supposed to be blind.

He's probably one of those assholes who say they drive better high too

[QUOTE=sltungle;43401331]It's a nice ideal, but you're bullshitting yourself and everybody if you say you'd save 5 murderers over 4 innocent people.[/QUOTE] that's besides the point. implying that we have any sort of inherent value is ridiculous. we're all mammals with basic needs. social standards shouldn't dictate this.

[QUOTE=Klammyxxl;43402230]that's besides the point. implying that we have any sort of inherent value is ridiculous. we're all mammals with basic needs. social standards shouldn't dictate this.[/QUOTE] Banning and segregating individuals from a group isn't exclusive to human beings, especially when it involves the well-being of the entire group. This being said penguins have a better adoption system than us so take that for what you will