High driver jailed for 10 years

She was hardley a Girl, she was a young married women with the world at
her feet, She also left behind a husband who absaluteley doted over her,
2 more in love people you would be hard pressed to find.

I hope her husband gets some satisfaction out of the punishment, but I
doubt it, he just wants his wife back so he can give her the love he had
been giving her from basically the first day they met.

For the record, he does not blame the police, he does not blame the
notorcycle, he blames the prick that did it.

slej

Remove teeth to reply

 

This quote is directly from Lawlink NSW. I couldn't find anything
similar for Victoria, but I imagine the definitions aren't too
different.

===
2.5 For murder (except in the case of .constructive murder.), the
prosecution must prove that the accused killed with:

* an intention to kill; or

* an intention to inflict grievous bodily harm, being bodily
harm of a really serious kind; or

* a reckless indifference to human life, meaning that the accused
foresaw the probability that death would result from his or her
act or failure to act.
===

http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lrc.nsf/pages/R82CHP2 is the URL for
reference, if you want to go find it.

Now, if getting smashed on drugs, stealing *two* cars, and driving in
total disregard for the road rules doesn;t quanlify as "reckless
indifference to human life", what the hell does it qualify as?

In fact, the NSW crimes act contains the following definition regarding
the distinction between murder & manslaughter

CRIMES ACT 1900 - SECT 18
Murder and manslaughter defined
18 Murder and manslaughter defined

(1)

(a) Murder shall be taken to have been committed where the
act of the accused, or thing by him or her omitted to be
done, causing the death charged, was done or omitted with
reckless indifference to human life, or with intent to kill
or inflict grievous bodily harm upon some person, or done in
an attempt to commit, or during or immediately after the
commission, by the accused, or some accomplice with him or
her, of a crime punishable by imprisonment for life or for
25 years.

(b) Every other punishable homicide shall be taken
to be manslaughter.

(2)

(a) No act or omission which was not
malicious, or for which the accused had
lawful cause or excuse, shall be within
this section.

(b) No punishment or forfeiture
shall be incurred by any person
who kills another by misfortune
only.



And, if you wanna get picky, check out the following definition of the
punishment for manslaughter, which you're proclaiming this guy performed

CRIMES ACT 1900 - SECT 24
Manslaughter.punishment
24 Manslaughter.punishment

Whosoever commits the crime of manslaughter shall be liable to
imprisonment for 25 years: Provided that, in any case, if the Judge is
of the opinion that, having regard to all the circumstances, a nominal
punishment would be sufficient, the Judge may discharge the jury from
giving any verdict, and such discharge shall operate as an acquittal.


Liable for punishment for 25 years.

I could post more, but you get the gist. This jerk got off far too easily.

DaZZa

 

If it were that easy, there would be no need for a judge. The police would
present their case to the jury, the defence would do likewise. Then,
depending on the jury's verdict, a sentence is applied and everyone goes
home (except the 'perp who rots in gaol). Bordering on a police state.

The Nothern Territory tried to implement a system called "mandatory
sentencing" along the lines you suggest; crime A results in punishment B
without any interpretation or allowance made for mitigating circumstances.
The Federal Government stepped in and the whole thing was turfed out
(apparently some limp-dick, left-wing, commie, minority group started
bitching about it being unfair and discriminatory - meh).

So we're stuck with a system where a judge can vary a sentence to take into
account various mitigating factors. Personally, I think if you commit a
crime that warrants a custodial sentence then they lock you up for a set
period based on the crime (no interpretation by the beak) and you can plead
your case with the parol board. But that system wouldn't work either - it
would make me happier though.

James
ZZR250->ZX9R

 

Nah - I vote we send his prison pimp a batton wrapped in barbed wire.

James
ZZR250->ZX9R

 

Missed the last bit, where it says, "The accused_foresaw_that death_would
(not 'could',_'would'_) result..."?

Presumably, these drugs he was on gave him clairvoyant powers, did they, and
he was able to see what he'd be doing in 36 hours' time?

Two counts of car theft and one count of break and enter with stealing don't
get you 25 years.

As he was driving down the emergency lane of the wrong side of the road,
and, as I haven't read any mention of the bike or any other vehicles coming
into contact with his car, let's presume, waited for a gap in traffic before
attempting his U-turn, it would appear he was at least trying not to hit
anything. That goes against reckless indifference.

....even if you demonstrably don't.

According to you, you get to be someones bitch in there. That can't be fun
if you have to keep it up for a decade straight.

 

So, you reckon that if you drive into oncoming traffic on a freeway
death will not result?

Like I said - I agree to disagree, and screw you if you don't agree.

DaZZa

 

It doesn't have to, and if the hysteria is toned down a notch and the
driving in question is recognised to have really been beside oncoming
traffic (in the emergency lane) and across oncoming traffic (during the
U-turn) instead of "into" oncoming traffic, we move even further from the
sort of inevitability your inflexible little mind has trouble letting go of.

Want your dummy back before you go?

 

....but he was driving the wrong way down the freeway in the emergency lane,
then did a u-turn where there was a gap in the cars (he didn't see the bike
coming, obviously). Not much evidence of "reckless indifference" there.

Nev..
'03 ZX12R

 

"Outside the court, the victim's father, Paul Smith,
expressed satisfaction with the judge's decision..."

That's good enough for me.


BTH

 

Please stop agreeing with me in that tone of voice.

Nev..
'03 ZX12R