Dangerous drivers who kill are set to face life in prison

StuInNorway wrote:

Time to get universal acceptance from Police forces to accept video evidence from dash cams and bikecams. Doesn't need to automatically mean charges for those captured in film. 1st time (assuming not a hit and run or extreme case) phonecall from local officer and logged. 2nd time your number comes up, called into police station to review footage with a traffic officer, fines as required as insurance company database updated to reflect the case. 3rd and subsequent cases, come in and drop off your driving licence for a while.

 

Just the West Midlands example who confirmed it is fine with dash and bike cams etc. No surprise the more resistant police forces are the likes of Lincs and Hampshire is it ?

ianrobo wrote:

StuInNorway wrote:

Time to get universal acceptance from Police forces to accept video evidence from dash cams and bikecams. Doesn't need to automatically mean charges for those captured in film. 1st time (assuming not a hit and run or extreme case) phonecall from local officer and logged. 2nd time your number comes up, called into police station to review footage with a traffic officer, fines as required as insurance company database updated to reflect the case. 3rd and subsequent cases, come in and drop off your driving licence for a while.

 

 

Just the West Midlands example who confirmed it is fine with dash and bike cams etc. No surprise the more resistant police forces are the likes of Lincs and Hampshire is it ?

arrrh yes, fucking Hampshire, the mobile phone killer capital of the country, but it's ok, Hampshire police are focusing on giving cyclists advice on hi viz so its all fine 

mike the bike wrote:

 

A step in the right direction; all we need now is an end to the ridiculous practice of giving a 50% discount to everyone who doesn't actually set fire to the prison.

It's a fair point. In each category, there is a presumption that the recommended reduction will be given unless there are good reasons for a lower amount.  So you go 1/3 first reasonable opportunity, 1/4 after trial date set and 1/10 on day of trial. So on a guilty plea it's generally 33%. 

There are good reasons for it. It avoids a trial, witnesses being put through hell etc. 

Of course, we could do away with it entirely and add a percentage if you were convicted. The thing about that is that it would put pressure on people to plead when they've not 'done it' and sentencing will no doubt be readjusted to take it into account, i.e. sentences would be lowered and you'd be penalised for pleading not guilty. But if you pleaded guilty your 'lower sentence' would likely be the same as the sentence now minus discount.

bendertherobot wrote:

mike the bike wrote:

 

A step in the right direction; all we need now is an end to the ridiculous practice of giving a 50% discount to everyone who doesn't actually set fire to the prison.

It's a fair point. In each category, there is a presumption that the recommended reduction will be given unless there are good reasons for a lower amount.  So you go 1/3 first reasonable opportunity, 1/4 after trial date set and 1/10 on day of trial. So on a guilty plea it's generally 33%. 

There are good reasons for it. It avoids a trial, witnesses being put through hell etc. 

Of course, we could do away with it entirely and add a percentage if you were convicted. The thing about that is that it would put pressure on people to plead when they've not 'done it' and sentencing will no doubt be readjusted to take it into account, i.e. sentences would be lowered and you'd be penalised for pleading not guilty. But if you pleaded guilty your 'lower sentence' would likely be the same as the sentence now minus discount.

So why don't you worry that the current system puts pressure on people to plead "when they've not done it"?

But whatever, this still misses the point that what really matters is stopping these people driving, ideally before they kill someone. Regular, frequent retesting and lower thresholds for long bans would help. Not clear that locking up people who (generally) wouldn't be killers without the car will help.

bendertherobot wrote:

mike the bike wrote:

 

A step in the right direction; all we need now is an end to the ridiculous practice of giving a 50% discount to everyone who doesn't actually set fire to the prison.

It's a fair point. In each category, there is a presumption that the recommended reduction will be given unless there are good reasons for a lower amount.  So you go 1/3 first reasonable opportunity, 1/4 after trial date set and 1/10 on day of trial. So on a guilty plea it's generally 33%. 

There are good reasons for it. It avoids a trial, witnesses being put through hell etc. 

Of course, we could do away with it entirely and add a percentage if you were convicted. The thing about that is that it would put pressure on people to plead when they've not 'done it' and sentencing will no doubt be readjusted to take it into account, i.e. sentences would be lowered and you'd be penalised for pleading not guilty. But if you pleaded guilty your 'lower sentence' would likely be the same as the sentence now minus discount.

Is there not a confusion here between the reduction for pleading guilty and the 'early release on licence for good-behaviour' rule? Aren't those two different things?

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

mike the bike wrote:

 

A step in the right direction; all we need now is an end to the ridiculous practice of giving a 50% discount to everyone who doesn't actually set fire to the prison.

It's a fair point. In each category, there is a presumption that the recommended reduction will be given unless there are good reasons for a lower amount.  So you go 1/3 first reasonable opportunity, 1/4 after trial date set and 1/10 on day of trial. So on a guilty plea it's generally 33%. 

There are good reasons for it. It avoids a trial, witnesses being put through hell etc. 

Of course, we could do away with it entirely and add a percentage if you were convicted. The thing about that is that it would put pressure on people to plead when they've not 'done it' and sentencing will no doubt be readjusted to take it into account, i.e. sentences would be lowered and you'd be penalised for pleading not guilty. But if you pleaded guilty your 'lower sentence' would likely be the same as the sentence now minus discount.

Is there not a confusion here between the reduction for pleading guilty and the 'early release on licence for good-behaviour' rule? Aren't those two different things?

Not from me, no.

bendertherobot wrote:

Because in those cases where there is evidence that leads to a conviction there's now a greater sentencing power. 

And because it may lead to a realignment in relation to the sentencing powers below this level of offence.

+1