To answer the first rhetorical question: a trial.
The rest is completely you trying to put words in someone else’s mouth.
Nope. The law between the UK and US (and indeed many other first world countries such as Canada, which also happens to have a 14 year maximum) is actually remarkably similar.
In the US, if you cause a death by dangerous or negligent driving then that’s called vehicular homicide and carries a 1 year minimum sentence, this is the same as the UK’s minimum sentence for ‘death by dangerous driving’, the equivalent crime.
If someone is found guilty of death by dangerous driving in the UK and they are found guilty of maximum serious culpability, the maximum penalty is indeed 14 years (minimum 7 years).
However it’s extremely unlikely that a case like this would be considered “maximum serious”, as that’s the highest of four tiers of vehicular homicide and would be reserved for offenses such as a repeat offender racing someone while intoxicated in a pedestrianized area, say. The equivalent in US law carries 10 years to life.
What state are you using as a reference for “America”?
In Kansas, for example, vehicular homicide is defined as “the killing of a human being committed by the operation of an automobile, airplane, motor boat or other motor vehicle in a manner which creates an unreasonable risk of injury to the person or property of another and which constitutes a material deviation from the standard of care which a reasonable person would observe under the same circumstances.” It’s a misdemeanor carrying up to a year in jail. (statute)
Missouri doesn’t have a separate vehicular homicide statute; there, unknowingly acting in a reckless or criminally negligent manner as to cause the death of another person falls under the second degree involuntary manslaughter statute, which is a felony worth up to four years as a guest of the state.
Up in Nebraska, unintentionally causing a death while violating their traffic laws is motor vehicle homicide, a misdemeanor worth up to a year in jail.
In Colorado, it’s a felony, usually charged as either criminally negligent homicide or vehicular homicide depending on the exact conduct, with sentences of up to six years in state prison.
I don’t know of a state in which the sentence can be up to fourteen years, but jail or prison time IS on the table in most states if somebody causes a death in a traffic accident by negligent driving. .
Just to recap then, no you have no cite to support your claim the bereaved family are “wishing Sacoolas to go to prison for 14 years”. Glad we settled that.
As for your belief that a 14 year jail sentence (it’s the UK, we do not have separate jail and prison facilities) is disproportionate for the offence…that’s why we have a court system with well documented sentencing guidelines. “Causing death by dangerous driving” is rightly viewed as a serious crime in the UK. There’s quite a high bar that has to be passed to prove someone guilty of it in the first place, but to get 14 years you would have to be found guilty of:
“Level 1
The most serious offences encompassing driving that involved a deliberate decision to ignore (or a flagrant disregard for) the rules of the road and an apparent disregard for the great danger being caused to others”*
In addition, you would have to be guilty of aggravating factors such as previous convictions, killing more than one person, or other offences. In short, your claim that she faces 14 years is clearly completely wrong. She doesn’t even face 7 years, as no prosecutor is seriously going to claim that a person, becoming distracted on foreign roads, accidentally moving to the right hand side, did so deliberately or showed disregard for the risk to others.
In stead, you’re looking at a 2 year sentence as a starting point: “Driving that created a significant risk of danger”…and that’s before you start looking at the mitigating factors, one of which specifically is “The offender’s lack of driving experience contributed to the commission of the offence”. In addition, the odds of a custodial sentence are slim. Suspended sentences are preferred when there is a “Realistic prospect of rehabilitation” and “Strong personal mitigation”.
In short, please stop making silly claims that have no basis in fact. Death by dangerous driving is a serious crime (someone died) that covers a huge range of scenarios. Low end sentencing is usually a 1-2 year suspended sentence (i.e. you don’t go to jail unless you re-offend or commit another offence) which is entirely reasonable for cases where the offence was unintentional but still could have been avoided if the driver had exercised reasonable care. High end sentencing reflects when someone chose to do something seriously dangerous, without any care for the risk to others, resulting in the deaths of one or more people. Trying to claim that this is a “barbarous and completely insane system” is just nonsense. It is an entirely fair and just system, and it is disgraceful that the US would try to pervert such a system just on the basis of looking out for their own.
*“Causing death by dangerous driving – Sentencing”
This case just highlights the need for the UK to forge its own more independent path, I’d be quite happy with a disposition along the lines of what the French adopted towards the US, the US does not respect even its closest allies and a case like this just magnifies that fact. FTR, this woman was not a diplomat, and I’d have been happy with her serving a term in a US jail, per some agreement, but they didn’t even do that or countenance that.
Under the US-UK extradition treaty, either country can decline to extradite someone charged with a capital offence unless the requesting country agreed not to impose the death penalty. The US routinely agrees not to impose the death penalty as a condition of extradition, and the UK routinely extradites to the US under that condition.
And, the U& does not always seek that condition from the US, as shown a few years ago in the case of two people extradited in relation to alleged ISIS activities:
So no, it’s not the case that the UK refuses extradition to the US.
And, in what world does state-sanctioned killing seem equivalent to imprisonment for 14 years?
For the umpteenth time, wilfulness or intent are not the point (if they were, we’d be talking about manslaughter), and the fact that it was an accident is not proof of innocence - that is an explanation, not an excuse.
As for diplomatic immunity, it is open to the US authorities to waive it, which is not without precedent. All anyone is asking is for the same process to apply as would if the driver had been British. It does matter.
You also appear to think that"accident" is an absolute defence. This is also not the case, for similarly obvious reasons.
Finally, you seem to believe that a family that wants the woman who caused the death of their son to be tried in court could only be after revenge. This is also patently untrue.
It’s worth mentioning that we don’t have “Road Traffic Accidents” here in the UK. They are always referred to as “collisions” for reasons that would be clear to anyone reading the previous few posts. My dictionary defines “accident” as an unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury.
A “collision” can be nobody’s fault, or fault can be shared between all parties concerned. Determining blame can be difficult but in the case of a fatality, many experts will be involved, before a case comes to court for a judge or a jury to apportion blame.
Legally, there are accidents as a result of circumstances beyond someone’s control, and then there are accidents due to negligence. Driving on the wrong side of the road is negligent conduct. Driving on the wrong side of the road and killing someone is manslaughter, which is a criminal act. It’s no different here. Some states might call it something different, like vehicular homicide, but it’s essentially the same.
The family is seeking justice, not vengeance. They’re seeking punishment for negligent behavior, not equal retribution in kind, for if they were they’d be seeking a far worse punishment than 14 years in prison. And undoubtedly the only reason they’re asking for maximum incarceration has everything to do with the fact that this criminal has deliberately fled justice.
Whatever the Dunn family might consider justice, or might want to be the outcome of a trial, is neither here nor there. Neither they, nor you nor I, have any say on any punishment. The point is that guilt or innocence, and any punishment, depend on due legal process after all the evidence has been heard** in court**, and it’s getting the case into the proper court that is the issue.
So, you say it’s about justice. But i just don’t understand the demand that she stand trial.
I see no allegation that she intended to kill anyone.
I see no allegation that she’s innocent of dangerous driving.
She apparently fled to the US on the advice of her embassy, not because she chose to be sneaky or something.
She’s already been “sentenced” to a lifetime exile from the UK. She’ll never do it again.
I feel like that’s the function of funerals, not trials. But yes, I can see how the family might want their son’s killer to suffer. Or might want their son’s killer to express remorse directly to them.
You know, what I see here is a form of judicial colonialism, some US posters seem to think they should be free to interpret law and that UK law is somehow not up to the standards of US law, and on that basis this case should not go to court.
So we see the gross distortion of a possible 14 years, when the reality is almost exactly the same as US law - in that sentencing would depend upon circumstances, intentions and mitigation. This certainly means that any sentence, if at all, would likely be less than incarceration - and even that would require a specific standard of proof.
These are really really dumb statements, there is no allegation whatsoever at the moment, she has not been charged with any offence and this is because she has not been interviewed, and no decision has been made on what - if any - charges the evidence will support. It is somewhat idiotic for anyone to believe that all the evidence will be published prior to any charge being laid, so just because you don’t see how the ‘allegations’ stack up. just means you do not have all the evidence because our prosecution service will not reveal that until and unless those charges are laid and then it will only be to the defence council - do you seriously believe that possible case investigation and prosecution works any other way?
If you actually do believe that all the evidence should be made public prior to any possible prosecution, then you have to think why you should be entitled to that evidence at all - you are not connected to this case except by nationality - and it seems to me that the entire basis of your post is nothing more than common citizenship and your personal sense of entitlement - which is something you probably need to address.
Our legal system is perfectly robust and at least as trustworthy as those in the US - this is not some podunk third world country that locks people up on public sympathy driven criminal cases - perhaps you are judging our legal system by your expectation of your own system, either that or, as I stated earlier, its just Judicial Imperialism
I actually believe the UK legal system is superior to the US system, having seen both in some detail. That has nothing to do with my confusion. I honestly have no idea what benefit society gains by trying a woman who has already been expelled from that society.