HGV driver who killed cyclist spared jail after widow’s plea

I tend to agree but you've also got to factor in that prison time is meant for rehabilitation not punishment or deterrence.  What would they actually do in the prison to prevent this guy from doing it again?

I agree, I'm not saying that in this case it was necessarily wrong to spare him jail time, just that as a general principle sentencing should not take account of the victim's/victim's family's opinion, whether asking for leniency or severity. Whenever I hear those "victim impact" statements in court saying "X was a wonderful mother and wife who devoted herself to charity work" etc I'm afraid I always think oh, so if the victim had been a grumpy old loner whom nobody liked  it wouldn't matter as much?

Secret_squirrel wrote:

you've also got to factor in that prison time is meant for rehabilitation not punishment or deterrence

Whilst rehabilitation is part of the picture, incarceration plays a large part in punishment and deterrence.

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/prisons-reform-speech

HoarseMann wrote:

Whilst rehabilitation is part of the picture, incarceration plays a large part in punishment and deterrence.

Agree with "incarceration plays a large part in punishment" more or less - it may be more significant depending on the social effects it has on you e.g. after you get out.  Example: if you didn't have much of a job it won't bother you so much - for some it would be career-ending.

"incarceration plays a large part in ... deterrence" - debatable.  Surely "deterrence" is "the odds of you getting caught times the overall expected negative value of the various punishment options (negative value of each times odds of being awarded that)"?

Then there are also perverse incentives e.g. cases where it may be legally "logical" to "ensure there are no witnesses" after a crash rather than rendering aid - or as has happened in the UK to drive off and claim to police that you "had a few stiff ones to calm your nerves" when you got home.

Driving - being a normal "habitual" activity has another problem with "deterrence" here.  Many poor driving behaviours are simply not considered criminal (or "not real crime").  Since there is mostly no feedback when people break the law this is reinforced.  So many drivers set out on their journeys with confidence in a series of learned behaviours / habits which are not a good match with those expected by road law or the requirements of safety.

Except it doesn't work either as punishment or deterrent,recently attended a talk by a criminal justice barrister, who happens to run a brewery, Tap Social, that employs prisoners on work release programmes to help get them back into the community when they're released.

The stats they presented overwhelmingly showed prison doesn't work in the way we think it does, and actually creates far more problems, especially for reoffending, and is far more costly an option.

Whatever the views we hold of this case,actually sending this guy to prison wouldn't have achieved anything, but a cost to the state.

stonojnr wrote:

Except it doesn't work either as punishment or deterrent.

Bring back flogging!

Seriously though, nothing is perfect, doesn't mean nothing is the answer. The risk of incarceration will deter some people from committing crime - but it depends on other factors such as the risk of getting caught, the possibility for leniency in the court and the individual's circumstances (nowt to lose or lots to lose etc.).

The troubling thing about cases like this, is it sends out the message you will get off lightly if you kill someone when driving if you are not paying attention. The impact is broader than the circumstances of the particular case.

This also sets a precedent whereby the defendant's friends/family could pressure the victim's friends/family into calling for clemency

I do respect the widows wishes not to jail the driver

One function of the law is to look after the interests of the victim and other potential victims of driving like this. The latter is partially taken care of by the amputation, so his lorry driving days are over but he could conceivably drive a car in future, although that seems unlikely. Even so, a much longer driving ban would have been a rather weak signal that the law does not regard killing a cyclist because you didn't notice them as 'just one of those things'- one which doesn't even warrant a jail sentence. I think the wishes of the family should carry no more weight than they do when they think a sentence is too lenient- which is pretty much no weight at all. The suspicion is that the court has taken account of all this 'shock, PTSD, distress, remorse' bollocks

It's possible his son wasn't riding with him at the time. The collision report only mentions one cyclist:

https://www.cyclestreets.net/collisions/reports/2021991080086/

Looking at the street view from the collision report, this was on a fairly straight section of road, where the HGV would have had a 40mph speed limit. The visibility is good, yet it doesn't seem any attempt to overtake was made, the HGV just ran into the back of the cyclist. That can't be explained by a momentary lapse. 

Regarding the influence of victim statements, I do have experience of being injured whilst on the bike by a negligent driver.  The incident made it to court, where the driver pleaded guilty (having previously pleasded not guilty).   I found the ability for me to express my feelings about how the incident had affected me to the guilty party the most beneficial part of the whole prosecution process.  For the incident in question I was able to pass on to the prosecution lawyer (out of court) my feelings  - and I consider the magistrate probably made adjustment for that in sentencing, which helped me.  

For me, what matters is that the guilty party learns from their mistake and doesn't do it again to someone else.  The past can't be altered - the future can.