Kill a cyclist, get community punishment

Posted on
Page
of 19
Prev
/ 19
Last Next
  • A depressing read, this thread, but some good points raised.

    If anyone on here wants to channel their feelings about the current justice system in to an organisation that campaigns to improve it, I'm certain RoadPeace would love to hear from you: http://www.roadpeace.org/rdr/

  • I think the jury aspect is critical. Does anyone think a jury would accept without quibble the excuse offered by a cyclist who killed a pedestrian that he was distracted by his or her computer?

  • A different question would be about being tried by a jury of your peers- and what that actually means.

    There is a good chance that every member of that jury drives a car, and also a good chance that none of them are what we would consider to be a cyclist.

    Did the dead cyclist get a fair verdict? No, they didn't.

    Should juries be selected so that they include members of the minority killed in the incident?

  • That is a huge question with implications for criminal justice more generally.

    Should an alcoholic accused of murder be entitled to fellow alcoholics on the jury? If the victim was a crackhead should crackheads be on the jury?

  • On the same point, the offence of causing death by dangerous driving was created by statute after juries refused to convict motorists of manslaughter.

  • I think that depends on where they are in terms of their addiction.

    It might also be important to factor in whether their addiction was part of their death- the chap on the bike was just that- a chap on a bike who got hit by a car.

  • On the same point, the offence of causing death by dangerous driving was created by statute after juries refused to convict motorists of manslaughter.

    Exactly the problem in "my" trial- the jury didn't want to convict someone who was plainly guilty as they didn't want to be responsible for whatever sentence was given to him.

  • I think that depends on where they are in terms of their addiction.

    It might also be important to factor in whether their addiction was part of their death- the chap on the bike was just that- a chap on a bike who got hit by a car.

    Or if the victim ran ice cream vans should jurors also do that?

    The point is that as soon as one starts to select juries other than randomly, huge issues an arise. The question is juries or no juries and currently the answer is juries.

  • Fair point.

    Although I would point out that ice-cream vanistes are not castigated in the national media on a weekly basis and widely hated by the normal folk of the UK as cyclists are.

  • Football supporter, banker or whatever.

    Tried by your peers? Other motorists not cyclists.

  • "That is a huge question with implications for criminal justice more generally. Should an alcoholic accused of murder be entitled to fellow alcoholics on the jury? If the victim was a crackhead should crackheads be on the jury?"

    Right or wrong, these aspects has no or very little affect on jury selection in the UK. In severe cases needless to say alcoholics, crackheads and anyone one else for that matter may be deemed unfit for jury service based on their physical and mental state. However, the selection is completely random and even alkies and druggies, let alone the odd village idiot serves on juries across the country on a regular basis.

  • However, the selection is completely random and even alkies and druggies, let alone the odd village idiot serves on juries across the country on a regular basis.

    are you a full time juror?

    sounds like i'd qualify pretty well too

  • Not exactly... Done jury service twice.

  • Me too. It was..unedifying.

  • In any event a jury should reflect a cross-section of society, druggies and idiots alike, even readers* of The Sun.

    *Please note that here I use the word "readers" in the broadest possible meaning of the word.

  • Majority of people are idiots though so a jury is just a cross-section of idiots.

  • Yes.

  • Like I said, I've done it twice :

  • Football supporter, banker or whatever.

    Tried by your peers? Other motorists not cyclists.

    very good examples both. i don't think it's a good idea to tailor the jury to the case beyond making sure they are all capable of understanding the situation.

    another good point made above is that as soon as you decide to text etc whilst driving, that is dangerous driving, even if you maintain a perfect lane position and speed. because you would be less likely to anticipate and react quickly to something you weren't expecting. surely anyone who's ever served on a jury can grasp that. it's very simple.

  • I think you are over-estimating the average jury.

  • Not I...

  • One of the key points that is being overlooked in this discussion is the jury.

    If one can obtain a trial by jury, one automatically has a better chance.

    They perceive drivers not as "criminals" but as people like them. They drive. They could make a "mistake". Juries are more likely to convict of a lesser offence which carries a lesser punishment.

    This is human nature and juries are an important aspect of our constitution.

    The answer is therefore to educate those who would be on juries, ie the general populace about driver safety. In so doing, one would hope, drivers would drive more safely and not condone those that do not.

    I'm all for juries and although I think educating the general populace on driver safety is necessary, what I don't understand is why the judge in this case, (who is I assume supposed to be in possession of the key knowledge in this area) did'nt direct the jury to concentrate on the points as noted by Spindrift, namely this:

    According to CPS charging and prosecution guidance 'driving whilst avoidably and dangerously distracted such as whilst reading a newspaper/map, talking to and looking at a passenger, selecting and lighting a cigarette or by adjusting the controls of electronic equipment' is considered dangerous driving.

    The Highway Code also states that 'there is a danger of driver distraction being caused by in-vehicle systems such as satellite navigation systems, congestion warning systems, PCs, multi-media, etc. You MUST exercise proper control of your vehicle at all times.'

    I'm not a legal bod as I'm sure you can tell but the judge can guide the jury can't he/she? I think the judge has got to take some of the flack for this, the law is there but is not being used. Should'nt the judge be getting them to focus on what Spindrift said? As having read that I could not as a juror consider this case as anything other than dangerous driving, and thats not because I am a cyclist but just from reading the above.

  • Re: magistrates: I don't think that fundamentally magistrates are the problem. The problem could be that it is magistrates who deal with these cases, but isn't it the sentencing framework that's the problem, not the magistrates?

    What's the source of that Google docs file? stripe?

  • The Google docs file is from:
    http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.co.uk/

  • Judges cannot influence juries and even when judges try to explain the law, those explainations are open to the interpretation of the juror.
    .. As has been said jurors have no legal experience but are expected to make massive decisions..

About

Kill a cyclist, get community punishment

Posted by Avatar for deleted @deleted

Actions