UK drivers who kill while on mobile phones could face life sentences - Polidicks

[QUOTE=geel9;51475921]If the goal of justice is rehabilitation, then intent should play a [b]massive[/b] role in the sentencing. [editline]4th December 2016[/editline] [B]"If you don't want to serve life don't use your phone while driving :)"[/B] isn't a valid argument. It's exactly as valid as "if you don't want to get stoned to death don't commit adultery (even if you were raped) :)" All you're doing is restating the punishment. You're not [b]justifying the fucking punishment,[/b] you're just telling people what the punishment is as if that somehow justifies it.[/QUOTE] you won't get life for just using your phone. you might do if you cause a crash while using your phone.

[QUOTE=geel9;51475921]If the goal of justice is rehabilitation, then intent should play a [b]massive[/b] role in the sentencing. [editline]4th December 2016[/editline] "If you don't want to serve life don't use your phone while driving :)" isn't a valid argument. It's exactly as valid as "if you don't want to get stoned to death don't commit adultery (even if you were raped) :)" All you're doing is restating the punishment. You're not [b]justifying the fucking punishment,[/b] you're just telling people what the punishment is as if that somehow justifies it.[/QUOTE] Is it better if we rephrase it to "Don't take negligent actions that result in the death of another person if you don't want to get a jail sentence"?

What are the current sentences for rape and murder?

[QUOTE=EXPLOOOSIONS!;51476008]you won't get life for just using your phone. you might do if you cause a crash while using your phone.[/QUOTE] And why is that? No one has explained this yet.

[QUOTE=TacticalBacon;51476030]Is it better if we rephrase it to "Don't take negligent actions that result in the death of another person if you don't want to get a jail sentence"?[/QUOTE] What makes you think I have an issue with [i]jail sentences?[/i] Of course my issue isn't with [i]jail sentences[/i], it's with [i]life in prison as the sentence.[/i] Seriously?

[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;51476141]What are the current sentences for rape and murder?[/QUOTE] For [URL="http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/rape_and_sexual_offences/sentencing/"]rape[/URL], 5 at a minimum, life for serious cases, though [URL="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/may/26/rape-sentence-average-eight-years-justice-figures"]the average is 8 years[/URL]. In the non-life cases, usually half of the sentence is carried out under 'licensing wherein the guilty party isn't imprisoned, but they're (in practice) monitored routinely. [URL="https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_-_mandatory_life_sentences_in_murder_cases/"]Murder[/URL], on the other hand, [URL="https://fullfact.org/crime/how-long-do-murderers-serve-prison/"]averages around 17 years[/URL]. They [B]must[/B] serve a 15 year minimum (in jail) before appealing, and even when they're released they'll probably be on licensing for the rest of their lives. Convicts on full life (which you won't get for manslaughter) don't even get an appeal process. They're there forever. But that's very, very rarely handed out. -edit- [QUOTE]And why is that? No one has explained this yet.[/QUOTE] the circumstances involving a life sentence for causing a crash while on the phone will obviously vary from case to case, but chiefly will be because the accused is a repeat offender, or someone who shows no clear remorse for their actions, no care for the laws of the road, the consequences of their actions or the lives they destroy. this won't be handed out lightly, the best i can find on average manslaughter charges is anywhere between 4-8 years. this, naturally would depend on the severity of the incident. in any case, they will be unlikely to see a prison cell for the full duration. let me be clear; if you willingly break the law by using your phone while driving, and as a result kill someone, that's involuntary manslaughter. you were aware of the potential consequences, but chose to act anyway. you didn't mean any harm, but that doesn't lessen the severity of your actions, nor does it change the circumstance. in the case of phone usage, it's [B]very[/B] clear. from the first driving lesson, the theory test, the practical exam. do not do this. if you decide to use your phone anyway, you've made a conscious decision to disobey the law and risk the lives of others. your sentence will entirely depend on other circumstances; did you have a clean record? had you received points for a phone usage offence before? was it at a junction or crossing (where you should/must be paying attention)? how many were killed/critically injured as a result of your actions? these will dictate how long you'll be seeing a prison cell for. you talk about 'intent', but involuntary manslaughter doesn't account for intent, it accounts for responsibility. if a construction worker doesn't secure a crane properly, and as a result kills a co-worker, that's involuntary manslaughter. it doesn't matter whether he meant to do it or not, it was his responsibility to secure the crane, he didn't, and now someone is dead and action must be taken.

[QUOTE=EXPLOOOSIONS!;51476244]For [URL="http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/rape_and_sexual_offences/sentencing/"]rape[/URL], 5 at a minimum, life for serious cases, though [URL="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/may/26/rape-sentence-average-eight-years-justice-figures"]the average is 8 years[/URL]. In the non-life cases, usually half of the sentence is carried out under 'licensing wherein the guilty party isn't imprisoned, but they're (in practice) monitored routinely. [URL="https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_-_mandatory_life_sentences_in_murder_cases/"]Murder[/URL], on the other hand, [URL="https://fullfact.org/crime/how-long-do-murderers-serve-prison/"]averages around 17 years[/URL]. They [B]must[/B] serve a 15 year minimum (in jail) before appealing, and even when they're released they'll probably be on licensing for the rest of their lives. Convicts on full life (which you won't get for manslaughter) don't even get an appeal process. They're there forever. But that's very, very rarely handed out.[/QUOTE] This is my main problem with this proposed law; They're seriously trying to argue that texting while driving is more serious than rape and murder. That's ridiculous.

[QUOTE=Fr3ddi3;51475017]can be 1 year up to 14 years max if you cause a death while under the influence (it's rarely 1 year, more often than not it's in the middle 7-8 years, but i stress, it's done case by case), a life sentance here is usually 15. As i said in a previous post above, being under the influence of drugs and or alcohol have the diminished responisbility defence because you are not capable of making sound judgement. You don't get that defense if you use a phone, you are making the conscious decision free of imparment to do something stupid and you know is dangerous.[/QUOTE] Is getting drunk with no plan of getting home somehow not a conscious decision? Don't go to a fucking bar if you don't have a ride. You make that decision just as much as checking a text.

[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;51476257]This is my main problem with this proposed law; They're seriously trying to argue that texting while driving is more serious than rape and murder. That's ridiculous.[/QUOTE] but people aren't going to prison for texting while driving they're going to prison for [I]killing people[/I] while on their phones

[QUOTE=EXPLOOOSIONS!;51476303]but people aren't going to prison for texting while driving they're going to prison for [I]killing people[/I] while on their phones[/QUOTE] OHHHHHHHHHHHH, that makes it entirely different! That's way worse than raping or intentionally murdering people! You're right!

[QUOTE=EXPLOOOSIONS!;51476303]but people aren't going to prison for texting while driving they're going to prison for [I]killing people[/I] while on their phones[/QUOTE] Except killing people while driving with their phones out is a [i]completely unintended side-effect[/i] that most people do not think will ever happen. [b]Morally[/b], the two situations are exactly equivalent. The intent is the exact same.

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;51475413]If you take away peoples ability to drive in rural areas, they essentially are stagnated for life. Can't get a job because you can't drive, can't go to university, can't meet friends, can't leave the house, etc.[/QUOTE] Then maybe they hsould have thought about it before they decided to do something irrelevant that puts people's lives at risk. I don't give a single fuck what needs someone might have to drive, if they like to text while doing so they can take a fucking bus. Or walk. Or have someone else drive them. Society can't be all 'Oh well you live in the sticks so you aren't subject to penalties for doing this really dumb and lethally dangerous thing behind the wheel'. [QUOTE=Morgen;51475429]I don't know if anything will really deter people from doing this though, no matter how severe the punishment. People will just say "nah that won't happen to me". People are dumb. Self driving cars are probably the best way to fix this issue.[/QUOTE] No, they're not. Stricter penalties for infractions and stricter requirements for getting a license in the first place(AKA we need to stop treating it as a right in the Western world) are the solution. Self-driving cars are at best a 4-6 year bandaid. They will start crashing en masse when the lack of maintenance irresponsible owners are already bad about overwhelms the computer's ability to keep the thing on the straight and narrow.

[QUOTE=TestECull;51476332] Self-driving cars are at best a 4-6 year bandaid. They will start crashing en masse when the lack of maintenance irresponsible owners are already bad about overwhelms the computer's ability to keep the thing on the straight and narrow.[/QUOTE] This sounds like the delusional rantings of someone who's terrified that electric cars will take their hobby away and makes up baseless accusations to support his own self-delusion. Oh wait it's TestECull so that's about right.

[QUOTE=TestECull;51476332][B]Stricter penalties for infractions[/B].[/QUOTE] they recently increased the penalty for being caught on your phone while in a moving vehicle in the UK: 6 points on your license and a £200 fine. uh .. not sure how it works in the US, but if you get too many points on your license you lose it. You can have a max of 6 if you've been driving less than 2 years, or 12 if you've been driving longer. time will tell if it will work but i think it will. if new, young drivers know they'll immediately lose their license for texting while driving that should encourage them to not do it. -edit- [QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;51476308]OHHHHHHHHHHHH, that makes it entirely different! That's way worse than raping or intentionally murdering people! You're right![/QUOTE] I'll assume this is sarcasm. at the end of the day dude someone is fucking dead because of one person being a ignorant, negligent and utterly irresponsible human being. how do you stop a murder or rape? i don't know. how do you stop deaths from fuckjobs on their phones crashing and killing people? don't use phones while driving, simple as that. if a death could have been so easily preventable and, if you read the article, life isn't going to be the standard, it's going to be the maximum limit, essentially in line with other manslaughter charges, as i mentioned somewhere else, the using of the phone offence carrying further weight to your sentence. i mean, you could get 6 years or more for accidentally dropping a pallet of cinder blocks on someone, which is the same sentence as raping someone so Y'KNOW.

[QUOTE=geel9;51475921]If the goal of justice is rehabilitation, then intent should play a [b]massive[/b] role in the sentencing. [editline]4th December 2016[/editline] "If you don't want to serve life don't use your phone while driving :)" isn't a valid argument. It's exactly as valid as "if you don't want to get stoned to death don't commit adultery (even if you were raped) :)" All you're doing is restating the punishment. You're not [b]justifying the fucking punishment,[/b] you're just telling people what the punishment is as if that somehow justifies it.[/QUOTE] How's this for justification: Your dumb ass killed another person because checking your worthless, inane, drivel-filled facebook wall was more important than paying attention to the road while driving down it at high speed. Far as I'm concerned throwing someone behind bars for the same time that you'd get if you accidentally killed someone with a punch to the head during a fistfight(Which does happen) is the same thing. Your negligent, reckless action ended the life of another person, therefore you belong in jail. End of story. It doesn't matter if the cause of death was a freak response to a punch or a facebook post behind the wheel. [editline]4th December 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=EXPLOOOSIONS!;51476359]they recently increased the penalty for being caught on your phone while in a moving vehicle in the UK: 6 points on your license and a £200 fine. uh .. not sure how it works in the US, but if you get too many points on your license you lose it. You can have a max of 6 if you've been driving less than 2 years, or 12 if you've been driving longer. time will tell if it will work but i think it will. if new, young drivers know they'll immediately lose their license for texting while driving that should encourage them to not do it.[/QUOTE] Not too different here. Also not strict enough. Being caught texting behind the wheel should be automatic six month suspension [b]minimum[/b]. There shouldn't be a 'oh you get x points and x fine', because that just gives the person another chance to do it again ten minutes later. No. If they're pulled over for texting while driving they get to take the bus for the next six months.

Getting a driving licence is already pretty hard in the UK. I don't know why self driving cars will crash from lack of maintenance. If the computer finds something wrong then the car simply doesn't work. [editline]5th December 2016[/editline] 6 points in the UK is also an immediate suspension for anyone with aa licence less than two years old and teens are probably the most likely to text.

[QUOTE=TestECull;51476360]How's this for justification: Your dumb ass killed another person because checking your worthless, inane, drivel-filled facebook wall was more important than paying attention to the road while driving down it at high speed. [/QUOTE] Should someone caught using a phone whilst driving be given a life sentence regardless if they cause a death or not? No one here has actually given an answer to this yet for some reason.

[QUOTE=gk99;51476265]Is getting drunk with no plan of getting home somehow not a conscious decision? Don't go to a fucking bar if you don't have a ride. You make that decision just as much as checking a text.[/QUOTE] Ultimately i think drink driving is a culpable act too, but that's completely irrelevant. Diminished Responsibility is what a Lawyer for the defendant can plea, they often do. It's up to the Jury and judge to decide if it has any ground or not. Arguments sake, Man finds out wife is cheating on him, man gets drunk at home, his wife gets back from work and they have an argument, man storms out of the house, angry and upset, gets in his car. That would be a case where diminished responsibility could successfuly be argued. Man goes to the pub, gets drunk and drives home instead of getting a taxi. Diminished responsibility could be argued by the defense, but it's chance of sucess would be alot lower. case by case. [QUOTE=RobL;51476484]Should someone caught using a phone whilst driving be given a life sentence regardless if they cause a death or not? No one here has actually given an answer to this yet for some reason.[/QUOTE] If they caused a death, maybe thats what the court is for, if they didnt, no, because they didnt kill anyone. I don't think anyone is arguing that using a phone at the wheel without killing anyone = life in prison. And even if there is someone arguing that, the goverment isnt.

[QUOTE=Fr3ddi3;51476532] If they caused a death, maybe, if they didnt, no, because they didnt kill anyone. [/QUOTE] Let me set it out. Intent and consequence are distinct things. Consequence being seperate from intent means that it is outside of one's control. In the instance of phone-driving, the intent is willful negligence. The consequence is the death of another person. You're saying that the sentence is based on the consequence and not the intent. However, we've established consequence is outside of one's control, and therefore you are advocating punishing what is essentially an accident. Punishing an accident serves no purpose if the function of justice is either deterrent or rehabilitation. Therefore you see justice merely as revenge. Am I wrong here?

You are wrong, because if there is intent, it's murder. If there isnt intent, it's manslaughter, willful or otherwise. They get tried under manslaughter charges the length of sentance starts at 1 year up to life. Murder sentances start at life. - Ill add in here, the charge is dangerous driving, max of 14 years (often around about 4 years), what they want to do is make is compareable to manslaughter which means it COULD get you a life sentance, which starts at 15 years, or you could get as little as 4 years. And because it keeps being missed, They want to change the [I]Upperlimit[/I] for the sentancing. You COULD face life, not WILL. Telegraph opening line talks out of it's arse. [URL]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38199720[/URL] The BBC does not. [QUOTE]Ministers want to bring the offence, which has a maximum sentence of 14 years, in line with manslaughter. Motorists who cause death by speeding, street racing or while on a mobile phone are among those who could face longer sentences. [/QUOTE] It's not even stictly about mobile users either.

[QUOTE=ZestyLemons;51474092]I have to agree. It's incredibly shitty to drive while distracted by phones or other stuff, but they're not planning to murder people with their vehicle. Something like a 10 year ban from driving on top of legal fees is more suitable than putting them in prison.[/QUOTE] Not planning on killing anyone? No you're just actively taking your eyes off the road and doing something that has been publicly campaigned against for years now, there's no excuse. 'b-but I didn't mean it!'

Fairer would be anyone who looks at their phone while driving instantly loses license for a year.

[QUOTE=geel9;51476321]Except killing people while driving with their phones out is a [i]completely unintended side-effect[/i] that most people do not think will ever happen. [b]Morally[/b], the two situations are exactly equivalent. The intent is the exact same.[/QUOTE] Right right so the punishment should be more lax because even though we've had public campaigns about texting and driving being a leading killer, people are retarded and think they're above that possiblity Honestly if I kill a guy drinking and driving I should just lose my license for 10 years, I mean I was just having fun! I wasn't planning on killing anyone!

[QUOTE=No Party Hats;51476696]Not planning on killing anyone? No you're just actively taking your eyes off the road and doing something that has been publicly campaigned against for years now, there's no excuse. 'b-but I didn't mean it!'[/QUOTE] Obviously all people who use their phones while driving are lunatics who have no ulterior motive than killing innocents

[QUOTE=duckmaster;51476725]Obviously all people who use their phones while driving are lunatics who have no ulterior motive than killing innocents[/QUOTE] No, obviously they're retarded and have no valid excuse. Ignorance doesn't even remotely count because again, texting and driving is the second most campaigned against crime behind drinking and driving. Most of the world has passed specific legislation about texting and driving and plenty has been done to inform the public. Willful negligence is NO excuse, especially when someone ends up dead from it

[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;51476257]This is my main problem with this proposed law; They're seriously trying to argue that texting while driving is more serious than rape and murder. That's ridiculous.[/QUOTE] What? At very most the life-sentence makes it equal to murder, not greater than.

Again, your argument falls apart when I say 'i just had a couple drinks! didn't mean to hurt anyone!'

[QUOTE=PsiSoldier;51476765]What? At very most it makes it equal to, not greater than.[/QUOTE] I'll exclude rape on account of the fact you can't compare the 2. As for "Argue that it's more serious than Murder", No they're not, they're trying to make it level with manslaughter, which is below murder, and ergo, not as serious as murder.

[QUOTE=Fr3ddi3;51476792]I'll exclude rape on account of the fact you can't compare the 2. As for "Argue that it's more serious than Murder", No they're not, they're trying to make it level with manslaughter, which is below murder, and ergo, not as serious as murder.[/QUOTE] Well, it's equally as serious but obviously intent is a consideration you've got to make. I get your point though, just drawing a line in the sand

[QUOTE=No Party Hats;51476794]Well, it's equally as serious but obviously intent is a consideration you've got to make. I get your point though, just drawing a line in the sand[/QUOTE] The thing is though it really is case by case, someone truely remorsefull who looked down for a split second doing the speed limit, first ever crime, won't get Life. Someone who doesnt give a shit, caught on their phone nubmerous times before, was having a full on coversation with the wife about what's for dinner while doing 120 on the motorway. Yeah that person might. Still likely won't.