Police use 999 call from drunk driver who left cyclist to die and claimed her car was stolen in anti-drink driving campaign

ktache wrote:

Lead story on tonights Meridian news.

No mention of the disgusting victim blaming petition, but they did show a picture of the scum.

Mr Agreeable wrote:

There's some magical thinking on display here. Do you think that your average driver is so well-versed in the details of road traffic offences that increasing a maximum sentence by a few years will have a serious effect on their behaviour? I get the impression this is more about ritualised vengeance than any real desire to improve the safety or the experience of vulnerable road users. The criminal justice system doesn't address this, it merely picks up the pieces.

She perverted the course of justice.

Surely lying to the authorities, delaying someone getting medical treatment for his serious  injuries and then blaming him for the injuries she caused deserves a longer sentence than 16 months?

I've been told by solicitors that English and Welsh courts take such behaviour seriously - well clearly they don't otherwise they would have given her a longer sentence for that part. 

Bluebug wrote:

Surely lying to the authorities, delaying someone getting medical treatment for his serious  injuries and then blaming him for the injuries she caused deserves a longer sentence than 16 months?

She could have got three consecutive life sentences, it would make sod all difference to the behaviour of your average driver.  I guarantee it.

Mr Agreeable wrote:

Bluebug wrote:

Surely lying to the authorities, delaying someone getting medical treatment for his serious  injuries and then blaming him for the injuries she caused deserves a longer sentence than 16 months?

She could have got three consecutive life sentences, it would make sod all difference to the behaviour of your average driver.  I guarantee it.

You seem to be assuming that the only purpose of sentencing is as a deterrent.

They also have to be punitive/reformative and ensure that society is protected from vindictive sociopaths, no? And in that respect, you know what penalty is really useless? Banning a self-centred louse who doesn't care about driving law from driving.

One thing is clear: want to guarantee Sutton doesn't drive for n years? Lock her up for that time.

davel wrote:

You seem to be assuming that the only purpose of sentencing is as a deterrent.

They also have to be punitive/reformative and ensure that society is protected from vindictive sociopaths, no? And in that respect, you know what penalty is really useless? Banning a self-centred louse who doesn't care about driving law from driving.

One thing is clear: want to guarantee Sutton doesn't drive for n years? Lock her up for that time.

You can bandy about terms like "sociopath", but we're talking about someone who is a mother of three and who has attempted suicide twice since the incident. The evidence for the reformative effect of prison is mixed at best. It's also a massively expensive way of dealing with society's problems.

As I'm sure you know, there is actually sentencing reform on the way for driving offences. It's taken three or four years of debates and parliamentary foot-dragging, and when (if) the reforms finally go through, there's no guarantee that the sentencing guidelines will change, or that the automatic 50% discount will be ended. By way of contrast, look at what London has achieved for cycling over that time period.

If you want safer roads, reforms to the justice system are a crap way to get them.

Mr Agreeable wrote:

davel wrote:

You seem to be assuming that the only purpose of sentencing is as a deterrent.

They also have to be punitive/reformative and ensure that society is protected from vindictive sociopaths, no? And in that respect, you know what penalty is really useless? Banning a self-centred louse who doesn't care about driving law from driving.

One thing is clear: want to guarantee Sutton doesn't drive for n years? Lock her up for that time.

You can bandy about terms like "sociopath", but we're talking about someone who is a mother of three and who has attempted suicide twice since the incident. The evidence for the reformative effect of prison is mixed at best. It's also a massively expensive way of dealing with society's problems.

As I'm sure you know, there is actually sentencing reform on the way for driving offences. It's taken three or four years of debates and parliamentary foot-dragging, and when (if) the reforms finally go through, there's no guarantee that the sentencing guidelines will change, or that the automatic 50% discount will be ended. By way of contrast, look at what London has achieved for cycling over that time period.

If you want safer roads, reforms to the justice system are a crap way to get them.

It doesn't have to be one or the other. I agree with what I think your central point is: get more people cycling, safely - critical mass. But showing (even if it is only showing) that the justice system takes offences against cyclists can play a part in a safer culture, or highlight it as socially unacceptable.

And I've zero sympathy for Sutton. Drove off instead of seeing how the victim was. Pretended her car was stolen to cover her tracks. Launched and publicised a victim-blaming petition when it was obvious what she'd done. Pleaded guilty only when she'd realised that the game was up. Attempts suicide when shit of her own making bites her on the arse - DESPITE being a mother.

Seems pretty sociopathic to me.

davel wrote:

It doesn't have to be one or the other. I agree with what I think your central point is: get more people cycling, safely - critical mass. But showing (even if it is only showing) that the justice system takes offences against cyclists can play a part in a safer culture, or highlight it as socially unacceptable.

Sadly it often is. Focusing on the penalties in extreme cases like this takes attention away from the bigger problems with our transport system. It gives politicians the perfect opportunity to look like they're doing something, without having to change the environment that creates these tragedies.

I blogged about a local case where, again, a lot of people felt the sentence didn't reflect the offence. It looked like the killer driver in that instance ran a couple on a tandem down while trying to escape the police. He knew he was in trouble but it did nothing to stop him driving recklessly.

http://stolenbristolbikes.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/2014-slow-year-for-just...

Mr Agreeable wrote:

davel wrote:

It doesn't have to be one or the other. I agree with what I think your central point is: get more people cycling, safely - critical mass. But showing (even if it is only showing) that the justice system takes offences against cyclists can play a part in a safer culture, or highlight it as socially unacceptable.

Sadly it often is. Focusing on the penalties in extreme cases like this takes attention away from the bigger problems with our transport system. It gives politicians the perfect opportunity to look like they're doing something, without having to change the environment that creates these tragedies. I blogged about a local case where, again, a lot of people felt the sentence didn't reflect the offence. It looked like the killer driver in that instance ran a couple on a tandem down while trying to escape the police. He knew he was in trouble but it did nothing to stop him driving recklessly. http://stolenbristolbikes.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/2014-slow-year-for-just...

And the gentleman in the tandem case was at that time banned from driving, had been banned many times before, had no insurance and was also "under the influence".

Mr Agreeable wrote:

davel wrote:

You seem to be assuming that the only purpose of sentencing is as a deterrent. They also have to be punitive/reformative and ensure that society is protected from vindictive sociopaths, no? And in that respect, you know what penalty is really useless? Banning a self-centred louse who doesn't care about driving law from driving. One thing is clear: want to guarantee Sutton doesn't drive for n years? Lock her up for that time.

You can bandy about terms like "sociopath", but we're talking about someone who is a mother of three and who has attempted suicide twice since the incident. The evidence for the reformative effect of prison is mixed at best. It's also a massively expensive way of dealing with society's problems. As I'm sure you know, there is actually sentencing reform on the way for driving offences. It's taken three or four years of debates and parliamentary foot-dragging, and when (if) the reforms finally go through, there's no guarantee that the sentencing guidelines will change, or that the automatic 50% discount will be ended. By way of contrast, look at what London has achieved for cycling over that time period. If you want safer roads, reforms to the justice system are a crap way to get them.

I sick of hearing about criminals kids, did she consider the family of the deceased before drink driving? and as to her attempting suicide, sorry but I am of the opinion that these were attention seeking attempts to get her impending sentence reduced & it looks like they worked. I know from personal experience that people who really want to commit suicide achieve their objective and the effects are truely harrowing to their families.

Gus T wrote:

I sick of hearing about criminals kids, did she consider the family of the deceased before drink driving? and as to her attempting suicide, sorry but I am of the opinion that these were attention seeking attempts to get her impending sentence reduced & it looks like they worked. I know from personal experience that people who really want to commit suicide achieve their objective and the effects are truely harrowing to their families.

I agree with you on that one Gus, the fact that criminals have children should have no bearing on sentencing, why should Ms Flora Spreadseasy with 6 children get a different sentence from single woman with no kids?  

Just in the same way that the old "I drive for a living" excuse should be disregarded from sentencing in cases of repeat offenders etc  IMHO that fact alone should mean that the sentencing is harsher than it would be for someone else.

Can you Imagine a doctor guilty of medical negligence getting a lesser sentence because it is his livelyhood?  Or an accountant guilty of fraud getting a lesser sentence because it is his livelyhood?  Or a sloicitor guilty of perverting the course of justice using the same excuse?  Nope, any judge would throw the book at them because they should know better.

craigstitt wrote:

Gus T wrote:

I sick of hearing about criminals kids, did she consider the family of the deceased before drink driving? and as to her attempting suicide, sorry but I am of the opinion that these were attention seeking attempts to get her impending sentence reduced & it looks like they worked. I know from personal experience that people who really want to commit suicide achieve their objective and the effects are truely harrowing to their families.

I agree with you on that one Gus, the fact that criminals have children should have no bearing on sentencing, why should Ms Flora Spreadseasy with 6 children get a different sentence from single woman with no kids? 

I think I am going to go the other way and suggest that it should have a bearing but a negative one. This woman not only destroyed the childhood of the victims children but also her own so she should get a harsher sentance as the suffering has been multiplied.

Bobbinogs wrote:

mm, my thoughts too.  This is hardly a chilling reminder not to drink and drive, more a case of re-enforcing the fact that killing someone means feck all as long as they were on a bike at the time.

Not sure about that last bit. Though only in one respect.

I think the leniency is more to do with the fact that she did it with a car, than with the nature of the victim. I suspect she'd have gotten just as short a sentence had she killed a pedestrian. May have been the same even if she'd killed a motorist.

It would be very interesting to know if which of us is right, statistically-speaking, though.

(I tried googling 'drunk driver convicted killing pedestrian' but the results were so horrible and anger-inducing that I didn't look at more than a couple).

handlebarcam wrote:

Quote:

Maria Sutton, aged 27, was sentenced to four years and one month in prison

Was that four years for perverting the course of justice and one month for killing someone?

road.cc has got the sentence wrong (again). The total is 4 years and three months and according to the Oxford Times

Sutton, of Ottery Way, Didcot, was handed a 35-month prison sentence for causing death by careless driving while over the prescribed limit and 16 months for perverting the course of justice. She was also banned from driving for eight years.

Oh and the maximum sentence for death by careless driving is 14 years and for perverting the course of justice is life imprisonment.