Sentencing equality?

Tony Raven said:

A "cyclist" with learning difficulties hits and kills a man on a
pavement and gets a harsher sentence than people who kill a pedestrian
or cyclist with a car.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/england/cornwall/7098383.stm

TBH I agree it would have been wrong to send him to prison, but I don't
know what to make of the rest of the sentence.

From the CTC:

Quoted message said:

Cycling on pavements

A cyclist who killed a pedestrian on a pavement in Cornwall has been spared a jail term. Peter Messen pleaded guilty to 'causing bodily harm by wanton or furious cycling' was sentenced to one year in prison suspended for two years and 300 hours community service. This is only the second incident of a cyclist killing a pedestrian on the pavement since 1999 but the case has received a lot more national media attention than the 80 or so pedestrians on the pavement that are killed every year by motorists. CTC is calling for more widespread Bikeability training so that cyclists have the skills to use the road.

It seems ridiculous that anyone killing of injuring someone else with a
motor vehicle is treated so lightly, especially if the driver is acting
otherwise illegally and/or aggressively.

However the media (as usual) have a lot to answer for in this with some
of their cyclophobic reporting in comparison to the total deaths caused
by motorists.

Martin Dann said:

Tony Raven said:

A "cyclist" with learning difficulties hits and kills a man on a
pavement and gets a harsher sentence than people who kill a
pedestrian or cyclist with a car.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/england/cornwall/7098383.stm

TBH I agree it would have been wrong to send him to prison, but I
don't know what to make of the rest of the sentence.

From the CTC:

Quoted message said:

Cycling on pavements

A cyclist who killed a pedestrian on a pavement in Cornwall has been
spared a jail term. Peter Messen pleaded guilty to 'causing bodily
harm by wanton or furious cycling' was sentenced to one year in
prison suspended for two years and 300 hours community service. This
is only the second incident of a cyclist killing a pedestrian on the
pavement since 1999 but the case has received a lot more national
media attention than the 80 or so pedestrians on the pavement that
are killed every year by motorists. CTC is calling for more
widespread Bikeability training so that cyclists have the skills to
use the road.

It seems ridiculous that anyone killing of injuring someone else with
a motor vehicle is treated so lightly, especially if the driver is
acting otherwise illegally and/or aggressively.

However the media (as usual) have a lot to answer for in this with
some of their cyclophobic reporting in comparison to the total deaths
caused by motorists.

I think the media has made a fuss *because* of the rarity rather than in
spite of ....

Sadly, though, this will serve to reinforce predjudices.

I wouldn't defend cycling at 25mph on the pavement.

That's nuts.

Tony Raven said:

A "cyclist" with learning difficulties hits and kills a man on a
pavement and gets a harsher sentence than people who kill a pedestrian
or cyclist with a car.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/england/cornwall/7098383.stm

--
Tony

"The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has
taken place"
George Bernard Shaw

If he'd been driving a car this ng would be full of righteous
condemnation and calls for long prison sentences. Because he was
riding a bike and merely gets a slapped wrist, er, thats OK then.
Hypocrisy and double standards of the highest order, do you wonder why
everyone (in the words of the Honda ad) hates cyclists?

Sir Jeremy said:

Tony Raven said:

A "cyclist" with learning difficulties hits and kills a man on a
pavement and gets a harsher sentence than people who kill a pedestrian
or cyclist with a car.

Quoted message said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/england/cornwall/7098383.stm

Quoted message said:

--
Tony

Quoted message said:

"The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has
taken place"
George Bernard Shaw

If he'd been driving a car this ng would be full of righteous
condemnation and calls for long prison sentences.

If he'd been in a car the story would never have got in the papers in
the first place. Hitting and killing a pedestrian at "only" 25mph? How
many times do you think that happens in a typical week?

(Although frankly I suspect the speed estimate is rather exaggerated
anyway - it's hard to go so fast on any normal pavement, even with
assistance from gravity.)

James

In article <9003347e-2078-480d-9e96-
[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

I wouldn't defend cycling at 25mph on the pavement.

That's nuts.

I agree although its equivalent to being hit by a car doing 8mph on the
pavement. But then he is described as having learning difficulties
which, although it covers a load of different problems, may be part of
the explanation.

--
Tony

"Life is like a ten-speed bike. Most of us have gears we never use."
- Charles M. Schulz

in message <[email hidden]>, Tony Raven

(') said:

A "cyclist" with learning difficulties hits and kills a man on a
pavement and gets a harsher sentence than people who kill a pedestrian
or cyclist with a car.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/england/cornwall/7098383.stm

I'm sorry, this guy should not have been on the pavement, and should most
certainly not have been cycling fast on the pavement. He killed a man, and
that is culpable homicide (or manslaughter, to you English types). that's
what he should have been charged with, and that's what he should have been
sentenced for; just as car drivers who kill through reckless behaviour
should be convicted and sentenced for culpable homicide.

Whether it then makes sense to jail them is a completely separate issue.
Prison is incredibly expensive and does little good. It can only be
justified, in my opinion, if an individual poses a serious and ongoing
risk to others which can't be mitigated in any other way.

The fact that this person had 'learning difficulties' is also
irrelevant. 'Learning difficulties' do not reduce an individual's duty of
care to others; and if the person had such severe 'learning difficulties'
that he could not adequately assess the risk his behaviour posed to others
(which I doubt), then those responsible for his care had a duty of care
not to allow him to go out unaccompanied.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; Women are from Venus. Men are from Mars. Lusers are from Uranus.

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

The fact that this person had 'learning difficulties' is also
irrelevant. 'Learning difficulties' do not reduce an individual's duty of
care to others; and if the person had such severe 'learning difficulties'
that he could not adequately assess the risk his behaviour posed to others
(which I doubt), then those responsible for his care had a duty of care
not to allow him to go out unaccompanied.

That's a very complex debate you are wandering into there - should
people be pre-emptively incarcerated for what they might do but haven't
done?
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/article2062493.ece

It does depend on the severity of his difficulties which could be
anything from dyslexia upwards but we specifically do not make children
criminially responsible because they do not have the level of
understanding necessary and that may (or may not) be the case here.

--
Tony

"The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has
taken place"
George Bernard Shaw

Sir Jeremy said:

Tony Raven said:

A "cyclist" with learning difficulties hits and kills a man on a
pavement and gets a harsher sentence than people who kill a pedestrian
or cyclist with a car.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/england/cornwall/7098383.stm

Quoted message said:

If he'd been driving a car this ng would be full of righteous
condemnation and calls for long prison sentences.

Please provide evidence.

Quoted message said:

Because he was riding a bike and merely gets a slapped wrist, er, thats OK
then. Hypocrisy and double standards of the highest order, do you wonder
why everyone (in the words of the Honda ad) hates cyclists?

I know of no similar case involving a car. I have no idea whether the
chap's learning difficulties would have prevented him obtaining a
driving licence.

Cheers,
Luke

--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

Simon Brooke said:

The fact that this person had 'learning difficulties' is also
irrelevant. 'Learning difficulties' do not reduce an individual's duty of
care to others; and if the person had such severe 'learning difficulties'
that he could not adequately assess the risk his behaviour posed to others
(which I doubt), then those responsible for his care had a duty of care
not to allow him to go out unaccompanied.

Really? Have you heard of care in the community?

Cheers,
Luke

--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

"Ekul Namsob" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Sir Jeremy said:

Tony Raven said:

A "cyclist" with learning difficulties hits and kills a man on a
pavement and gets a harsher sentence than people who kill a pedestrian
or cyclist with a car.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/england/cornwall/7098383.stm

Quoted message said:

If he'd been driving a car this ng would be full of righteous
condemnation and calls for long prison sentences.

Please provide evidence.

You have to admit that that does happen on here whenever someone posts a
news item about a motorist killing someone. The Rhyl case is one example.

Adam Lea said:

"Ekul Namsob" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Sir Jeremy said:

On 16 Nov, 16:18, Tony Raven <[email hidden]> wrote:
> A "cyclist" with learning difficulties hits and kills a man on a
> pavement and gets a harsher sentence than people who kill a pedestrian
> or cyclist with a car.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/england/cornwall/7098383.stm

Quoted message said:

If he'd been driving a car this ng would be full of righteous
condemnation and calls for long prison sentences.

Please provide evidence.

Quoted message said:

You have to admit that that does happen on here whenever someone posts a
news item about a motorist killing someone. The Rhyl case is one example.

I don't recall the chap in the Rhyl case having learning difficulties. I
do recall that he had one or more bald tyres.

Cheers,
Luke

--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

in message <[email hidden]>, Tony Raven

(') said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

The fact that this person had 'learning difficulties' is also
irrelevant. 'Learning difficulties' do not reduce an individual's duty
of care to others; and if the person had such severe 'learning
difficulties' that he could not adequately assess the risk his behaviour
posed to others (which I doubt), then those responsible for his care had
a duty of care not to allow him to go out unaccompanied.

That's a very complex debate you are wandering into there - should
people be pre-emptively incarcerated for what they might do but haven't
done?
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/article2062493.ece

It does depend on the severity of his difficulties which could be
anything from dyslexia upwards but we specifically do not make children
criminially responsible because they do not have the level of
understanding necessary and that may (or may not) be the case here.

If someone doesn't have the intellectual capability to judge responsibly
whether or not what he's doing is lethally hazardous to others then I
stand by what I said. However, I think that applies to a very, very small
minority of people, and I suspect that most of them are not capable of
co-ordinated movement.

FWIW, by your standards I have 'learning difficulties'. I also have a first
class honours degree, and am certainly prepared to be held accountable for
my actions.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; have mercy on the slender grass

in message
<[email hidden]>, Ekul

Namsob (') said:

Adam Lea said:

"Ekul Namsob" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Sir Jeremy <[email hidden]> wrote:

> On 16 Nov, 16:18, Tony Raven <[email hidden]> wrote:
> > A "cyclist" with learning difficulties hits and kills a man on a
> > pavement and gets a harsher sentence than people who kill a
> > pedestrian or cyclist with a car.
> >
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/england/cornwall/7098383.stm

> If he'd been driving a car this ng would be full of righteous
> condemnation and calls for long prison sentences.

Please provide evidence.

Quoted message said:

You have to admit that that does happen on here whenever someone posts a
news item about a motorist killing someone. The Rhyl case is one
example.

I don't recall the chap in the Rhyl case having learning difficulties. I
do recall that he had one or more bald tyres.

Three, to be precise.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; Diplomacy, American: see Intelligence, Military

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

FWIW, by your standards I have 'learning difficulties'. I also have a first
class honours degree, and am certainly prepared to be held accountable for
my actions.

You are making the classic mistake of equating learning difficulties
with low intelligence. While that might be true for some it is not true
for all, including I would presume the one you claim. If he had
dyslexia it would be unlikely to have affected what he did but if it was
AD(H)D or a profound learning difficulty it very well might have.

Its not my standard by the way, it was proposed by the Warnock Committee
and used by many professional bodies.

--
Tony

"The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has
taken place"
George Bernard Shaw

Tony Raven said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

(which I doubt), then those responsible for his care had a duty of care
not to allow him to go out unaccompanied.

Quoted message said:

anything from dyslexia upwards but we specifically do not make children
criminially responsible because they do not have the level of
understanding necessary and that may (or may not) be the case here.

Are parents not held responsible for the actions of their children?

--
Don Whybrow

Sequi Bonum Non Time

People must not do things for fun. We are not here for fun. There is no
reference to fun in any Act of Parliament. [i]

[i] Other than: The Education (Curriculum Minimum Content) Order
(Northern Ireland) 2007 Schedule II Part 2

"Ekul Namsob" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Adam Lea said:

"Ekul Namsob" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Sir Jeremy <[email hidden]> wrote:

> On 16 Nov, 16:18, Tony Raven <[email hidden]> wrote:
> > A "cyclist" with learning difficulties hits and kills a man on a
> > pavement and gets a harsher sentence than people who kill a
> > pedestrian
> > or cyclist with a car.
> >
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/england/cornwall/7098383.stm

> If he'd been driving a car this ng would be full of righteous
> condemnation and calls for long prison sentences.

Please provide evidence.

Quoted message said:

You have to admit that that does happen on here whenever someone posts a
news item about a motorist killing someone. The Rhyl case is one example.

I don't recall the chap in the Rhyl case having learning difficulties. I
do recall that he had one or more bald tyres.

The point I was trying to make is that when a motorist kills someone through
reckless action there is widespread condemnation, but when a cyclist does
something similar someone complains that he got a harsher sentence than
someone else who did the same driving a car. Someone else states he should
not be sent to prison. I really don't understand the difference in attitudes
here. Just because some motorists get ridiculously light sentences doesn't
mean that it is right to give ridiculously light sentences to everyone who
kills someone.

I think Simons first response was spot on.

Don Whybrow said:

Tony Raven said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

(which I doubt), then those responsible for his care had a duty of care
not to allow him to go out unaccompanied.

Quoted message said:

anything from dyslexia upwards but we specifically do not make children
criminially responsible because they do not have the level of
understanding necessary and that may (or may not) be the case here.

Are parents not held responsible for the actions of their children?

In general, no.

Cheers,
Luke

--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

Tony Raven said:

A "cyclist" with learning difficulties hits and kills a man on a
pavement and gets a harsher sentence than people who kill a pedestrian
or cyclist with a car.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/england/cornwall/7098383.stm

Still, they are all less than the guy who just got three months for
refusing to tell the police how he got shot.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7102034.stm
BBC NEWS | England | London | Shooting victim jailed for lying