Why don’t you google up these legal concepts you’re trying to talk about rather than muddle through it here?
Death is a simple legal concept. I might be able to handle it. This man is dead, no? Due to some actions from the woman. No?
If the above two are true then perhaps his right to life was denied to him. No?
Yes, “causing death” is usually either part of the statute or sentencing guidelines to reflect just that. Why are you trying to drill any deeper?
Well, if this woman caused the death of this man then perhaps a crime has been committed. This best way to resolve criminal matters is through the justice system. That’s one of the points to a justice system. Resolution. No?
I don’t think it’s at all controversial that it’s wrong to kill someone by hitting them with a car. Maybe we cal all accept that and move to the next part?
Sweet lord. Do you think anyone is denying that a functioning justice system is a good thing? All puzzlegal was saying was that in this particular case, a trial won’t do much real world good.
You say it’s "wrong " but is it **criminal **to kill someone with your car? Is this case a criminal matter? These are questions that a judicial process can resolve (and do so DAILY). Remove the process, remove the resolution. No?
Bonus question: Can you not see how no judicial process could be harmful for the victim, or the victim’s family, or even for society as a whole?
I don’t really think the family’s resolution is something to worry about overmuch because it comes from within, not from a trial. People lose loved ones to accidents all the time and they don’t all get trials or someone to blame. Why does anyone think the family will “move on” any better if this woman got 12 month sentence (probably suspended) and a ban from driving in the UK?
There have been two more incidents of cars driving on the wrong side of the road near the same US base, since the Harry Dunn accident.
In October a police car was hit by a car driving on the wrong side of the road (with no injuries), and just over a week ago, on 18 Jan, another incident was filmed by a dashcam.
Harry Dunn: police demand urgent meeting with military base commander
Thank you. Yes, of course I am in favor of a functioning justice system.
it depends, it can be criminal, civil, or unavoidable bad luck, depending on the circumstances.
Probably. I’m not certain of the line (if there even is one) between civil and criminal manslaughter in the UK.
Sure. And that’s how it usually works. This case is unusual because it was the wife of a diplomat who was recalled to the US, which claimed diplomatic immunity on her part. So in this particular case, it would be highly unusual to involve the judicial process. And this case just doesn’t strike me as so extraordinarily horrific that it’s worth violating the normal diplomatic process, which routinely (even DAILY) supercedes the normal judicial process.
I don’t really see what needs to be resolved, frankly. So no.
That’s 3 questions.
- The victim is dead, and whether or not there’s a judicial process is completely irrelevant to him.
- Is it harmful to the family to not be able to watch the perp be sentenced to a one year suspected sentence and the loss of her UK driving license? (or whatever might ultimately come of a trial) I dunno, I suppose that depends on them. But there are lots of bad things that happen to lots of people, and they can’t all be fixed.
- No, I can’t see how this hurts society as a whole even a little bit.
That sounds like something to address. I wonder how common it is in general. A friend of a friend was killed on their first night in London because they made that mistake as a pedestrian (they looked the wrong way before heading into the street, no doubt planning to look the other way before reaching the halfway point. It’s hard to change established reflexes.)
I wonder if there should be some sort of required waiting period for people moving from places where roads work the other way before they can legally drive in the UK?
One obvious resolution to the family might well be that recommendations will be made from the trial about ensuring US drivers are given an accredited training course prior to driving in the UK - to try ensure something similar does not reoccur, then his death might not be completely in vain.
Another point is that we may as well talk about filthy lucre - because if there is no trial or there is outstanding legal case then who will be liable for any insurance claim? The trial would very likely determine who was at fault and to what extent, and that would have an impact upon whose insurance company is liable.
None of us know what sorts of insurance policies were in place, but if the teenager was on third party insurance then they may well not accept liability.
No, there’s no need to address it. If there’s any problem, they can just leave country can’t they? Donald Trump has their back.
Huh?
Whether the woman is prosecuted and whether the UK takes stronger measures to protect their citizens from cognitive errors that lead to vehicular deaths are separable problems.
Do you think that prosecuting her will reduce the incidence of this happening in the future? I don’t. Witness the anecdote about the friend of my friend. They were KILLED. If they’d stopped to think, they would have known they risked DEATH. Not some legal proceeding later, but immediate death. Yet they still walked in front of a car.
Changing the rules about who can drive might very well reduce the incidence of pedestrian deaths going forward. Something that I don’t believe a trial can do.
I don’t see a display of arrogance in that article.
Has something changed recently? This base has been under American control for 70 years.
If the Driver had been a British Diplomat in America, the same process would have occurred.
And in that case i would also be arguing that such a diplomat should stand trial and that the system is unjust otherwise.
Sent from my Redmi 5A using Tapatalk
Sometimes, the point of punishing an offender is to send a strong signal to others to deter them from making the same error.
I gather that Newly arrived US troops are now to be given some advice and instruction before they drive on our roads. If the possibility that they might cause someone’s death doesn’t make them more careful. maybe the threat of a heavy fine, a driving ban, and possible incarceration might.
I would be extremely shocked if troops weren’t already advised about which side of the road to drive on.
The possibility of dying horribly didn’t stop my friend’s friend. I think it’s extremely unlikely that the threat of a fine will make a difference. Proactive rule changes (like discouraging or forbidding newly arrived staff from driving) are far more likely to be helpful.