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

[QUOTE=Fr3ddi3;51476809]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 moterway. Yeah that person might. Still likely won't.[/QUOTE] Well uh given this new law, that second person probably will. That's kinda the point

As far as im concerned, that second person would deserve it. But while the law would allow life sentances to be given, it likely won't, one of the biggest reason why is we don't have the room for them, and it costs too much.

[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] I edited shortly after posting to clarify that I was referring to murder sentencing, since I agree rape isn't really comparable. But yeah, I included the caveat 'at very most' because a life sentence with repeated denial of parole that you could get from this change is functionally identical to a whole life order you could get for murder, unless I'm missing something.

[QUOTE=Fr3ddi3;51476632]You are wrong, because if there is intent, it's murder. If there isnt intent, it's manslaughter, willful or otherwise[/QUOTE] And I'm pointing out that it's illogical.

[QUOTE=PsiSoldier;51476900]I edited shortly after posting to clarify that I was referring to murder sentencing, since I agree rape isn't really comparable. But yeah, I included the caveat 'at very most' because a life sentence with repeated denial of parole that you could get from this change is functionally identical to a whole life order you could get for murder, unless I'm missing something.[/QUOTE] Someone up on manslaughter charges won't be given a "whole life sentance", thats reserved for murderers and worse [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prisoners_with_whole-life_tariffs[/url]. a Life sentance for manslaughter would most likely be in line with this, "Life, with a minimum tarrif of 5 years", after 5 years the prisoner can appeal for parole, and because manslaughter is lesser than murder they stand good odds of getting out sooner, maybe not dead on 5 years. But i cannot stress this enough, life is rarely given for anything outside of murder, take for example the One punch killers, they get charged for manslaughter, many are out in around 4 years. Sometimes, they don't even go to prison at all. [editline]5th December 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=RobL;51476939]And I'm pointing out that it's illogical.[/QUOTE] Lets agree to disagree.

[QUOTE=RobL;51476939]And I'm pointing out that it's illogical.[/QUOTE] That's just kinda how it works man, if you've got a better system please inform, or better yet become a legislator. Genuinely, the system could always be improved

I don't see what's so difficult to understand about it. Everyone knows that you shouldn't use your phone while driving, there are ads everywhere, there are signs saying it, there have been numerous accidents caused by it that pretty much always remind you "Don't use your phone while driving". Now, what the headline says it's that life sentence goes for people who kill someone in an accident caused by this. It doesn't say anything about "we're gonna throw you in jail forever if we see you using your phone", it means "We're gonna throw you in jail forever, if you have an accident, kill someone and turns out you were using your phone". I get most people use their phone while driving and well, to a certain extent, there isn't really a issue if you're an experienced driver and you're driving at a low speed or through an empty road. Your chances of having an accident are really low at that point. I wouldn't mind if someone did it, just for a few seconds, at low speed in a place with low traffic. Now, I feel like these things are aimed to people who do stupid things and kill people in the process. I remember an article about a girl who left a dude with brain damage after she was using snapchat to record herself driving at high speed. "She was just a teenager and teenagers do stupid shit". Yeah, but she was driving a car, and a car is a responsibility. Being a teenager doesn't make you too stupid or "wild" to understand the risks of driving while using your phone, especially at high speeds. It's something only a stupid person would do and that was the case with her. Now recently there was a guy who was driving at high speed and was streaming it to Facebook. The guy had a suspended license. Imagine if that guy killed your brother, or your sister, or your parents or a loved one. Would you feel sympathy for that person? I mean, it's not like you're gonna kill someone while driving slow as fuck in an empty road. It's possible but not THAT much of possible. Driving at high speeds and bringing up your phone does in fact sounds like it would be more likely for you to actually kill someone by colliding with them or skipping a red light. tl:dr by using your phone and driving you are aware that you know the risks of what you're doing. It doesn't really sound bad using it while you're driving at low speeds in a street or a place where there is rarely any traffic or people walking around. It's your decision but common sense tells you that there isn't really a lot of risk in there. I'm not saying it's right, but it's unlikely you'll have an accident this way. Now, if you're on the highway, where there are lots of cars and stuff around you, a place where a second can make the difference between killing someone or not. I don't think I need to explain why it's stupid to use your phone there. Only a reckless person or a stupid person would do it and that's exactly the kind of person you want out of the streets and probably not wanting to be behind a steering wheel ever again.

[QUOTE=GhillieBacca;51474960]Then use this, no need to actually hold a phone in your hand while driving. All the Uber drivers I know with entry level cars have one of these.[/QUOTE] I don't hold my phone, I use a cup holder. The person I was quoting was focused on "looking at". Not holding, not texting while driving, no just looking. My point (which I perhaps didn't convey very well) was mobile phones do a lot of different things, yet somehow looking at a phone is worse than looking at a GPS device, or looking at a car's touch screen interface, or even interacting with a car's touch screen interface. This seems like a stupid knee jerk reaction to recent events given they apparently are specifically targeting mobile phones, never mind the basically equivalent computers that so many cars come built in with now a days or GPS devices that have existed for however long. [editline]5th December 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Sgt. Nikolai;51477368]Now, what the headline says it's that life sentence goes for people who kill someone in an accident caused by this. It doesn't say anything about "we're gonna throw you in jail forever if we see you using your phone", it means "We're gonna throw you in jail forever, if you have an accident, kill someone and turns out you were using your phone". [/quote] But if you were using the car's radio, or looking at a piece of paper, or drunk, or using a GPS device that will result in a less severe punishment because at least it wasn't a phone! [quote]Now, I feel like these things are aimed to people who do stupid things and kill people in the process. I remember an article about a girl who left a dude with brain damage after she was using snapchat to record herself driving at high speed. Now recently there was a guy who was driving at high speed and was streaming it to Facebook. The guy had a suspended license. Imagine if that guy killed your brother, or your sister, or your parents or a loved one. [/quote] Why are you using examples of people doing excessively reckless shit that really has nothing to do with the involvement of a phone? Speeding, or general reckless driving in the sense of weaving through traffic, following too closely, etc... can be punished to a harsher degree without needing a special law regarding the involvement of a phone. [quote]Now, if you're on the highway, where there are lots of cars and stuff around you, a place where a second can make the difference between killing someone or not. I don't think I need to explain why it's stupid to use your phone there. Only a reckless person or a stupid person would do it and that's exactly the kind of person you want out of the streets and probably not wanting to be behind a steering wheel ever again.[/QUOTE] OK, but what is the difference between that second of distraction being something on the radio, changing the AC setting (on a touch screen), eating, etc..., and someone glancing at their mobile phone? All of those are willful actions that the person driving chose to do (don't have to have the radio on). Why does there need to be this special distinction? Or, more to the point, why are all of these other distraction allowed in vehicles but so much as glancing at your phone--if in that moment you cause an accident that kills someone--potentially equal to life in prison?

AEB should probably be mandatory on all new cars These people are kinda dumb. [video]https://youtu.be/xkDOX8mZp3Y[/video]

[QUOTE=Morgen;51478339]AEB should probably be mandatory on all new cars These people are kinda dumb. [video]https://youtu.be/xkDOX8mZp3Y[/video][/QUOTE] AEB (or any active safety technology as a matter of fact) won't save you from red light runners though.

[QUOTE=srobins;51474268]Oh really? That's a lot more reasonable, though the article says "14 years to a lifetime" so I don't know. Even then, I'd say something like 5 years seems more appropriate. I mean, you did kill somebody, but at the same time there's a point where it becomes less about teaching you a lesson (and acting as a deterrent) and more about symbolism imo.[/QUOTE] In Denmark life sentence usually means 25 years without parole in practice. However for really violent criminals we usually deem them criminally insane and lock them up forever in asylums for criminally insane, which are basically max security prisons.

[QUOTE=J!NX;51475539]Pretty amazing how you'd word it in such a way that makes it seem like I'm just being a dick. Read my fucking post lmao. I'm not saying that at all. But you can continue with that if you want, I'm sure you'll look intelligent. they have lives too you know. Maybe they're fuck ups but they still don't deserve life because of it. Make them pay for all the damage they did, even if its an immense amount, and ban them from driving forever. Giving them a bigger sentence than most actual intentional killers will see is just morally wrong. I know that 'max sentence' is only there to scare people, but life for this should never be considered. But no lets ruin someones life just because they're a giant fuck up. That'll show them![/QUOTE] They literally killed someone. Their completely avoidable mistake cost a life and devastated that persons loved ones. Try to imagine what it would be like to have an officer come to your door one day to tell you your family member, spouse, significant other won't be coming home ever again becuase someone was updating their Facebook status. They deserve to have their life ruined. They had a chance to not completely fuck up in life and they missed it. Why do they get another when that person they killed gets nothing? No second chances for the dead.

[QUOTE=TacticalBacon;51474149]If it's going to affect them that badly, maybe they shouldn't be negligent in the first place. Let's try a thought experiment for a moment: Swap the car for a gun. Have someone with a gun in one hand and their phone in the other, texting someone while firing without looking. If one of their shots hit someone, should they go to jail for it? If so, why is it suddenly ok when it's a car they're operating instead of a gun?[/QUOTE] Guns were made to harm. Cars were not. This is a very poor analogy in many ways.

[QUOTE=t h e;51479063]Guns were made to harm. Cars were not. This is a very poor analogy in many ways.[/QUOTE] while true, a car can be just as dangerous in the hands of an irresponsible driver hell, it's more dangerous than a gun in the UK because you're a lot more likely to encounter a dangerous driver than a person with a gun :v:

[QUOTE=RobL;51475454]The negligence is willful. The killing is not. Is that not simple enough to understand? It seems purposeless to sentence people based on what are essentially dicerolls outside of their will[/QUOTE] It is entirely purposeful to sentence people for fixing the dices to favor a harmful outcome ie negligence.

[QUOTE=_Axel;51479303]It is entirely purposeful to sentence people for fixing the dices to favor a harmful outcome ie negligence.[/QUOTE] "The negligence is willful"

[QUOTE=geel9;51475921]If the goal of justice is rehabilitation, then intent should play a [b]massive[/b] role in the sentencing.[/QUOTE] Negligence [B]is[/B] intent. Should an industrial manager who cuts corners and ignores safety regulations only to end up with a dead worker on their hands not be punished because he doesn't need rehabilitation? No shit he shouldn't receive a worse sentence than if he killed that worker in cold blood. That doesn't mean we should be lenient on him. Intent shouldn't play as massive a role in sentencing as you seem to imply. [editline]5th December 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=RobL;51479326]"The negligence is willful"[/QUOTE] And?

[QUOTE=_Axel;51479328][B]Negligence is intent.[/B] Should an industrial manager who cuts corners and ignores safety regulations only to end up with a dead worker on their hands not be punished because he doesn't need rehabilitation? No shit he shouldn't receive a worse sentence than if he killed that worker in cold blood. That doesn't mean we should be lenient on him. [b]Intent shouldn't play as massive a role in sentencing as you seem to imply.[/b] [/QUOTE] Contradicting yourself? [QUOTE]And?[/QUOTE] The point is I've not said anything against sentencing people for negligence, because as you say, negligence is intent.

[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;51476308]OHHHHHHHHHHHH, that makes it entirely different! [B]That's way worse than raping[/B] or intentionally murdering people! You're right![/QUOTE] Yes. [editline]5th December 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=RobL;51479339]Contradicting yourself?[/QUOTE] As in the specific nature of the intent ie cutting corners vs setting out to kill someone. If something happens beyond someone's control then he shouldn't be considered responsible, but if something is within someone's control and he could reasonably foresee that his actions would put people in danger then the consequences of those actions should play a massive part in assigning a sentence to that person. [QUOTE]The point is I've not said anything against sentencing people for negligence, because as you say, negligence is intent.[/QUOTE] Then why bring up intent if it doesn't change anything about this case?

Good, you are endangering other people, even using a mobile phone in a car should be mandatory prison time, you are endangering other people, especially if the car is bigger, what wins a people carrier going 50mph on the motorway with the driver not paying attention, or a bike going 30? The answer is the arsehole in the people carrier wrecks the biker's life.

[QUOTE=t h e;51479063]Guns were made to harm. Cars were not. This is a very poor analogy in many ways.[/QUOTE] Irresponsible gun owners are just as dangerous as irresponsible drivers, if not less so because the drivers are exposed to far more folks (usually) than a gun owner would be during the incident

[QUOTE=DaMastez;51478107] This seems like a stupid knee jerk reaction to recent events given they apparently are specifically targeting mobile phones, never mind the basically equivalent computers that so many cars come built in with now a days or GPS devices that have existed for however long.[/QUOTE] [URL]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38199720[/URL] [QUOTE][B]Drivers who cause [B]death by dangerous or careless driving[/B] could get life in prison under new government proposals.[/B][/QUOTE] Using a mobile is just 1 of MANY things that fall under dangerous driving. To reiterate for the umpteenth time. Despite the Telepgraph article talking bullshit in the OP, it is not just about mobile phone usage at the wheel. Furthermore in acordance to the rest of your post [URL]https://www.gov.uk/using-mobile-phones-when-driving-the-law[/URL] [QUOTE]It’s illegal to use a hand-held phone or similar device while driving, or riding a motorcycle...... This includes if you’re using devices like your sat nav or car radio.[/QUOTE] If you kill someone and it's proven you were fiddling with the radio or satnav. You can get fucked as if it were a mobile. The thing is, it's easier to prove you was using a mobile because of call and text records. Glancing at something is still illegal but the point is it cannot be proven, unless there is clear camera footage or a number of unaquainted witneses corroborating the same story. As for eating, drinking or smoking, if it's deemed to have been that much of an influence on the outcome of events. you can get done for dangerous driving and again, get fucked to the same extant as if it were a mobile phone. So to answer your question, UK law does not differentiate between them if the usage is proven. The overwhelming issue is, mobile phones are the far bigger killer. thats why it gets the headlines and not "kill someone and get life for eating at the wheel"

[QUOTE=_Axel;51479341]Yes. As in the specific nature of the intent ie cutting corners vs setting out to kill someone. If something happens beyond someone's control then he shouldn't be considered responsible, but if something is within someone's control and he could reasonably foresee that his actions would put people in danger then the consequences of those actions should play a massive part in assigning a sentence to that person. [/QUOTE] Something isn't in your control if it happens yet you didn't actually choose to do it. Choosing to be negligent =/= choosing to kill someone. What you say brings us to the problem I've been mentioning: the only difference between someone who phone-drives and causes a death and someone who phone drives and doesn't cause a death is that the former was in the wrong place at the wrong time- something out of their control. So why should they be sentenced more harshly than the latter? [QUOTE=_Axel;51479341] Then why bring up intent if it doesn't change anything about this case?[/QUOTE] Again, intent to be negligent on the road =/= intent to kill somone one the road. Why is no one understanding this?

[QUOTE=RobL;51480267]Something isn't in your control if it happens yet you didn't actually choose to do it. Choosing to be negligent =/= choosing to kill someone. What you say brings us to the problem I've been mentioning: the only difference between someone who phone-drives and causes a death and someone who phone drives and doesn't cause a death is that the former was in the wrong place at the wrong time- something out of their control. So why should they be sentenced more harshly than the latter? Again, intent to be negligent on the road =/= intent to kill somone one the road. Why is no one understanding this?[/QUOTE] Seeing as it's been dodged a few times now, why is it that your logic seems to hold up in your head as opposed to me saying "I didn't mean to kill anyone! I was just having a few drinks to have some fun!" [editline]5th December 2016[/editline] Like seriously, I'm waiting to see the hilarious contrived tunnel you try and dig around this because your argument is flaccid as fuck

[QUOTE=No Party Hats;51480357]Seeing as it's been dodged a few times now, why is it that your logic seems to hold up in your head as opposed to me saying "I didn't mean to kill anyone! I was just having a few drinks to have some fun!" [/QUOTE] What's your argument? I don't see any [editline]5th December 2016[/editline] Provide a counter to me and I'll provide a counter to you.

[QUOTE=RobL;51480411]What's your argument? I don't see any[/QUOTE] Driving instructors fucking drill it into your head that you must keep your attention on the road at all times. It's borderline fucking negligence and it deserves the harshest of punishments, what's so hard to understand here?

[QUOTE=GhillieBacca;51480425]Driving instructors fucking drill it into your head that you must keep your attention on the road at all times. It's borderline fucking negligence and it deserves the harshest of punishments, what's so hard to understand here?[/QUOTE] Where did I say negligence shouldn't be sentenced? Negligence is intentional.

[QUOTE=RobL;51480267]snop[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Something isn't in your control if it happens yet you didn't actually choose to do it.[/QUOTE] except it is in your control, you did choose to use your phone in blatant disregard of the law and all empirical evidence that it's a dangerous thing to do, so it's your responsibility. you could avoid this by, i dunno, not doing it. [QUOTE]the only difference between someone who phone-drives and causes a death and someone who phone drives and doesn't cause a death is that the former was in the wrong place at the wrong time[/QUOTE] the difference is that someone is dead as a result of a clear breach of the law. a breach the accused was aware of, knew they were doing, knew the consequences of, but failed to rectify. [QUOTE]something out of their control.[/QUOTE] see first point [QUOTE]So why should they be sentenced more harshly than the latter?[/QUOTE] the latter doesn't get sentenced because just using your phone isn't a crime you go to jail for. you get 6 points on your license. get 12, and you lose your license. or if you're a new driver, you lose your license straight away. [QUOTE] Again, intent to be negligent on the road =/= intent to kill somone one the road.[/QUOTE] here's the big thing; intent doesn't matter. if your negligence causes the death of someone, you're slammed with involuntary manslaughter. doesn't matter why, or how, it's about your actions, and your failure to act to prevent a crime of your own doing. a crime you were, of course, aware of.

[QUOTE=RobL;51480446]Where did I say negligence shouldn't be sentenced? Negligence is intentional.[/QUOTE] If you are WILLINGLY negligent and text and drive, you are actively putting yourself in a situation in which many more lives beyond yours are now threatened. Every single driver and soon to be driver in the western world has had this drilled into their head. There is no excuse for their actions. My argument I was trying to make earlier, which you so willfully ignored again, was that how is it that by your logic there's no genuine intent to kill someone when you text and drive and thus that ought to be considered, when that same exact logic can be applied to drinking and driving. Do you think there should be more lax laws on drinking and driving because I just wanted to have a few drinks with the boys, I wasn't -planning- on killing anyone?

[QUOTE=EXPLOOOSIONS!;51480631]except it is in your control, you did choose to use your phone in blatant disregard of the law and all empirical evidence that it's a dangerous thing to do, so it's your responsibility. you could avoid this by, i dunno, not doing it. [/QUOTE] Exactly, you chose to be negligent, not to kill anyone. That's something I've already stated a million times (it's getting frustrating now) [QUOTE]the difference is that someone is dead as a result of a clear breach of the law. [b]a breach the accused was aware of, knew they were doing, knew the consequences of, but failed to rectify[/b][/QUOTE] The exact same applies to someone who phone-drived but didn't kill anyone. So again, why should the case of phone-driving that results in a death be sentenced differently to the case of phone-driving that doesn't? Don't repeat "because it caused a death" because that's an empty explanation which is basically begging the question. [QUOTE]see first point[/QUOTE] Let me illustrate it for you. In our universe, a guy is driving along the road and gets momentarily distracted by sending a message on his phone, and as a result does not see a red light at a pedestrian crossing. There is a pedestrian crossing at this very moment. He gets hit and dies. In a parallel universe the same guy is driving along the road and gets momentarily distracted by sending a message on his phone, and as a result does not see a red light at a pedestrian crossing. However, there is no pedestrian crossing at this moment. No one dies. You advocate that our universe's version of the guy get's sentenced more harshly than the parallel universe version. Yet, both guys undertook the exact same actions, had the exact same thoughts, took identical paths through space and time, except that in the latter case, a pedestrian happened to be crossing at the moment of distraction. The driver did not place the pedestrian there, so was not in control of the pedestrian being there. The pedestrian being there is a necessary condition of the death occuring. Ergo, the driver was not in control of the death. On the basis of this, what reasons are there to justify the difference in sentencing? [QUOTE]the latter doesn't get sentenced because just using your phone isn't a crime you go to jail for. you get 6 points on your license. get 12, and you lose your license. or if you're a new driver, you lose your license straight away.[/QUOTE] You're merely reinstating the law here, rather than providing any argument to justify it. [QUOTE]here's the big thing; intent doesn't matter. if your negligence causes the death of someone, you're slammed with involuntary manslaughter. doesn't matter why, or how, it's about your actions, and your failure to act to prevent a crime of your own doing. a crime you were, of course, aware of.[/QUOTE] As I've said, why should negligence that causes death be sentenced differently to the same negligence that doesn't cause death? [editline]5th December 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=No Party Hats;51481177] My argument I was trying to make earlier, which you so willfully ignored again, was that how is it that by your logic there's no genuine intent to kill someone when you text and drive and thus that ought to be considered, when that same exact logic can be applied to drinking and driving. [/QUOTE] That's exactly what I'm advocating. Why do you take issue with this? [QUOTE]Do you think there should be more lax laws on drinking and driving because I just wanted to have a few drinks with the boys, I wasn't -planning- on killing anyone?[/QUOTE] That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying there's no logical reason there should be a discrepancy between the sentencing of negligence that causes ill outcome and negligence that doesn't.