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

RobL's argument hinges on the idea that prison (and the justice system in general) should focus on [b]rehabilitation to change intent[/b] as opposed to [b]punishment for outcomes.[/b] If you don't agree with that, there's no point in arguing with RobL about any of this other shit. For the record RobL I agree 100% with you

Prison should only be utilized as a system to keep violent, absentee and/or repeat offenders off the streets as a matter of public interest. In this case, a permanent ban from driving, seizure of involved property and a significant fine/reparations would be more appropriate. A criminal record and inability to conduct your own transport is life destroying enough in most cases, no need to needlessly fill up prisons and cost the taxpayer money.

[QUOTE=Fr3ddi3;51476532]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. 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] If we're going case by case with it then what about if someone's wife goes into labor and they're hurrying to the hospital and they get a text that they feel a strong need to look at to know what's happening? He's obviously not in a clear state of mind at that point, is that somehow also not diminished responsibility?

[QUOTE=gk99;51482009]If we're going case by case with it then what about if someone's wife goes into labor and they're hurrying to the hospital and they get a text that they feel a strong need to look at to know what's happening? He's obviously not in a clear state of mind at that point, is that somehow also not diminished responsibility?[/QUOTE] The point is not weither you can argue it, it's wither the judge and or jury believe it. So theoretically speaking yes it could be argued, might even get somewhere with it. But how about this hyopthetical case thats more inline with my second example. Man phones wife to ask whats for dinner. He could argue diminished responsibility, maybe he was that hungry that he couldnt think straight. But I highly doubt it'd work.

[QUOTE=RobL;51480267]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] Oh, don't get me wrong, if I were to choose, people who text and drive without killing someone in the process would face prison too. But something like this wouldn't be well received at all. You have to be realistic about it. To bring up the example of industrial accidents again, you can't punish people and companies for every breach of safety based on the worst case scenario those breaches could induce, but you're not going to simply give a slap on the wrist of a company who, through negligence, caused a nuclear meltdown or a massive oil spill. In the real world, compromises have to be made, and so intent isn't the sole factor that is considered, the severity of the outcome also plays a large part.

[QUOTE=RobL;51481740]-things-[/QUOTE] mate, it really, really doesn't matter if you meant to kill someone or not. just don't fucking do it and you won't have to worry about [del]killing someone[/del] going to prison. also your example is just .. the worst. if you're approaching any pedestrian crossing, you should be checking for pedestrians anyway WELL before you get there, again, breaking more laws, flaunting more rules and my ability to empathise plummets.

[QUOTE=Duck M.;51474054]thats a bit confusing[/QUOTE] A life sentence in the US (mainly) isnt an actual life sentence either.

[QUOTE=EXPLOOOSIONS!;51482268]mate, it really, really doesn't matter if you meant to kill someone or not. just don't fucking do it and you won't have to worry about [del]killing someone[/del] going to prison. also your example is just .. the worst. if you're approaching any pedestrian crossing, you should be checking for pedestrians anyway WELL before you get there, again, breaking more laws, flaunting more rules and my ability to empathise plummets.[/QUOTE] You've missed the point of everything I said. I give up mate ;)

the justifications on this thread remind me of that episode of star trek where a government made every crime punishable by death in order to make their planet a peaceful utopia where no one did any wrong This is honestly a stupid fucking way of going about things, there'll be a lot of common idiots rotting in jail for life for this but I have a gut feeling that the famous/wealthy/powerful will get off with a slap on the wrist. Texting while driving should be punished but this is just ridiculous. And honestly, anyone that wishes suffering on someone is an should really reconsider their priorities, no matter how awful or stupid the driver is.

[QUOTE=cdr248;51482494]the justifications on this thread remind me of that episode of star trek where a government made every crime punishable by death in order to make their planet a peaceful utopia where no one did any wrong This is honestly a stupid fucking way of going about things, there'll be a lot of common idiots rotting in jail for life for this but I have a gut feeling that the famous/wealthy/powerful will get off with a slap on the wrist. Texting while driving should be punished but this is just ridiculous. And honestly, anyone that wishes suffering on someone is an should really reconsider their priorities, no matter how awful or stupid the driver is.[/QUOTE] Where to begin. read the article for starters because the headline is bullshit and you've made assumptions based of it, you are then wrongly assuming a UK life sentance is the same as a US life sentance and that they get handed out like candy, numberous people including myself have pointed this out, they want to increse the MAX penality to life and to get that you'll have to have really fucked up badly and really not give a shit and show no remorse at all, it will not be introduced as the standard sentance (1 punch kills on average get 4 years, and thats where violence is intended). And then for the tri fector, it's not just about mobile phones, it's about dangerous driving, phones are but 1 aspect of it. In fact the only i feel you got right is that rich and powerfull will get off lightly, because they do anyway.

[QUOTE=RobL;51482441]You've missed the point of everything I said. I give up mate ;)[/QUOTE] oh i get it alright i just think it's pointless to argue intent over a crime/action/whatever where intent does not factor into it

[QUOTE=Fr3ddi3;51482615]Where to begin. read the article for starters because the headline is bullshit and you've made assumptions based of it, you are then wrongly assuming a UK life sentance is the same as a US life sentance and that they get handed out like candy, numberous people including myself have pointed this out, they want to increse the MAX penality to life and to get that you'll have to have really fucked up badly and really not give a shit and show no remorse at all, it will not be introduced as the standard sentance (1 punch kills on average get 4 years, and thats where violence is intended). And then for the tri fector, it's not just about mobile phones, it's about dangerous driving, phones are but 1 aspect of it. In fact the only i feel you got right is that rich and powerfull will get off lightly, because they do anyway.[/QUOTE] "It's [b]just[/b] 15 years guys" Yeah we get that life sentences aren't actually for life but that's still a fucking absurd amount of time

[QUOTE=EXPLOOOSIONS!;51482734]where intent does not factor into it[/QUOTE] I'm criticising the law duh

[QUOTE=geel9;51482875]"It's [b]just[/b] 15 years guys" Yeah we get that life sentences aren't actually for life but that's still a fucking absurd amount of time[/QUOTE] For killing someone/several people? Not really.

[QUOTE=Fr3ddi3;51476956][B]Someone up on manslaughter charges won't be given a "whole life sentance"[/B], thats reserved for murderers and worse [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prisoners_with_whole-life_tariffs[/url][/QUOTE] But I didn't say they could receive whole-life orders dude, I said what they can receive [I]could[/I] end up being [I]functionally identical[/I] to one. Doesn't matter how unlikely that is 'cause I'm talking about an absolute worst-case scenario, not the average.

[QUOTE=Superkilll307;51473879]Whats the point of that? Bad drivers aren't hardened criminals, sending them to a prison has no point, revoking there licence would be more fitting. We need to remember justice is not about revenge.[/QUOTE] Im sure the knowledge of having killed through willful negligence someone is nearly punishment enough. A permanent ban from driving and 5 years is more reasonable.

[QUOTE=geel9;51482875]"It's [b]just[/b] 15 years guys" Yeah we get that life sentences aren't actually for life but that's still a fucking absurd amount of time[/QUOTE] You know what lasts an absurd amount of time? Dying. But obviously the fact that it's totally avoidable and EVERYONE understands texting and driving is inherently bad and regularly kills regardless of your skill driving means nothing to you, 15 years is too much!

[QUOTE=Instant Mix;51473860]Completely agree. It's willful negligence, by using a mobile phone whilst driving you are conciously breaking the law, and consciously knowing you are putting others at danger by doing this. No incident or death caused by that is an "accident", it's completely willful.[/QUOTE] Wow. No, it's not. Using a cellphone = actively looking to kill? The hell is wrong with you? [editline]7th December 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=hexpunK;51474023]You're currently liable to a somewhat hefty fine and points on your license if caught with your phone in your hands when driving as is. Even when at a standstill such as traffic lights I believe. But the potential loss of your license isn't stopping people from doing it. A life sentence might be more extreme than necessary, but this is a reactionary measure to a problem we've had for a while now. Just in my county alone we've seen a huge drop in usage behind the wheel just from the awareness campaigns run by the police and more consistent enforcement of the current punishments; [url]http://www.edp24.co.uk/motoring/number_of_drivers_caught_using_mobile_phone_in_norfolk_collapses_by_65pc_1_4546202[/url] Anyone who is still violating this set of laws despite all these renewed awareness campaigns and harsher punishments is genuinely fucking dangerous to be on the road. So I can see where the extreme measures are coming from, even if it's heavy handed.[/QUOTE] Got pulled over for cell phone use a month ago. Its like 70 bucks. The real deterrent is this might affect my insurance rates. You need to get pulled over for it like 10 times in the span of a few years to lose your lisence for it.

[QUOTE=Nebukadnezzer;51489026]Wow. No, it's not. Using a cellphone = actively looking to kill? The hell is wrong with you? [editline]7th December 2016[/editline] [/QUOTE] So you're saying you're 100% unaware of the mortality rate caused by cell phones while driving and that you think it's safe to do? Because if you aren't saying that, then you're wholly understanding of the fact that you've got a ridiculously higher rate of killing someone for a senseless reason, and yet you still make the active choice to pursue that course of action. That's willful negligence, and yes it is totally viable intent in this case.