I’m running around with a knife in my hand like some kind of drug fuelled nut job. In the excitement, I trip over my own feet and accidentally stab a child in the face, killing them instantly. I didn’t mean to kill the child, but my reckless behaviour led to their untimely death. I would probably be charged with murder or the lesser charge of manslaughter.
Now imagine this.
I’m driving along in my artic. I pick up my phone and start writing a dirty ■■■ threat to my girlfriend. I look up and realise the traffic in front of me has come to a standstill but it’s too late. I hit the queue at full speed and kill a child in one of the cars. I didn’t mean to kill the child, but my reckless behaviour led to their untimely death. I would probably be charged with causing death by dangerous driving or the lesser charge of causing death by careless driving.
Two different scenarios, two dead children.
People convicted of manslaughter can be sentenced to life whereas causing death by dangerous driving carries a maximum fourteen year sentence. Why is this? Why if I accidentally stab a child in the face whilst running around with a knife would I get a harsher punishment than if I drove over a child whilst using my phone?
Good morning, The law has always been an arse… there was something on the news yesterday about several judges and law lords seeking to make some changes to the penalties. and Kenneth Clarke…
How many of those who use knives actually get custodial sentences? the answer is very few. It is like most violent crimes, it is seen as the norm these days and maximum sentences are very rarely imposed.
Theoretically you could get a life sentence for manslaughter but nobody ever does since the whole point of manslaughter is that it is a lesser offence than murder.
You could kill someone accidentally by doing something reckless and possibly get a life sentence, unlikely I know. Or you could kill someone accidentally by doing something reckless behind the wheel and the most you could possibly get is fourteen years.
I know of someone who stole his friend’s car, ran him over with it and left him dead at the side of the road. He was also drunk and had no licence. He got the minimum two years for causing death by dangerous driving. What do you have to do to get the maximum? If he’d killed him another way, without the using a car, he probably would have got a longer sentence.
Causing death by whatever should be scrapped and replaced with manslaughter.
There is a distinction between causing death by dangerous driving and manslaughter, in that manslaughter involves an action whereby the accused did something in the full and certain knowledge that it would cause harm, just that he did not intend it to cause the degree of harm that it did. The defence of “manslaughter” came in as part of the Homicide Act 1957, because juries were acquitting defendants of murder when they clearly had done the killing, because at the time capital punishment was still in place and juries felt that the accused did not deserve to hang. (e.g. a man who comes home to find another man in bed with his wife)
Now, if I get drunk and take to the wheel of a car, then I am not doing something where it could be said with total certainty that this action would lead to serious injury. Ninety-nine times out of a hundred I would make it home without incident. That’s why there is a charge of causing death by dangerous driving, and drunken motorists involved in fatal collisions are not charged with manslaughter, and in a way it is the same as the example I gave above- juries would acquit a person charged with manslaughter, when they would have been prepared to convict them on a death by dangerous driving charge.
Good post Harry. To further elaborate, basically, if someone, “being of sound mind”, unlawfully kills another with only the intention of causing them GBH, then AIUI they have committed murder. And yet if someone has done this using a car this is not murder? - this must have happened a lot but you don’t often hear of “vehicular murder”. Isn’t this one of the reasons for bringing in the specific offence, to prevent people getting away with murder, or at least charging them with a “comparable” offence?
waddy640:
How many of those who use knives actually get custodial sentences? the answer is very few. It is like most violent crimes, it is seen as the norm these days and maximum sentences are very rarely imposed.
Where i come from run Boys from Age of 8 with Knife in pocket around and only little happens,wherever most Accidents happens in Household without knife involved.
Even the Death rate Knife related is much smaller then most others.
If you think that way then you need to ban first Vehicles from the Road.
Remember that the judge and jury make their decisions on what they hear and see in court, not on what the Stun newspaper or mymate says in the pub.
Even when we know for sure that someone did something, it’s not always possible to convince a jury or a judge, and they can be swayed by the convincing lies of any witness. The CPS will often go for a lesser charge (wrongly sometimes) to be sure of a conviction.
There are many systems of justice in the world but I for one believe that ours is one of the best, and if anyone starts on about cutting off someone’s hand for a trivial offence, just think how you would feel if it was your son or daughter who got caught up in something.