British Expatriate Network

man gets 18 months for taking a life and running away

Things have changed since i lived there i got 18 months ban for a dwi and i NEVER even hit anything wonder if race has anything to do with it ???





LONDON (Reuters) - A mother whose daughter was killed by a hit-and-run driver described the 18-month jail sentence handed down to him on Monday as an insult.

Susan Craen said Jaswinder Singh should have been jailed for longer and banned from driving for life after knocking down 20-year-old Abigail Craen in Birmingham in October last year.

"Abigail was a wonderful talented beautiful girl whose

life was full of light and laughter," her mother said. "This sentence is an insult to her. She's dead and our lives have been desolated.

"The man who killed her has a small interruption to his own life. How many more deaths will it take before hit-and-runs are taken seriously by the courts in England?

"This is no deterrent and no punishment."

Singh knocked down Abigail Craen on a pelican crossing in the Edgbaston area of the city. The impact threw her body 30 metres down the road and she died of her injuries the next day.

In court, Singh said he did not stop because he had no insurance. He handed himself in to police only after Abigail's mother allowed newspapers to publish photos of her daughter lying on her death bed.

Only months before the incident, Singh was given back his licence after serving a 12-month-ban for drink driving.

He has already served five months of his jail term and police said he could be out within another four months.


COURTESY YAHOO UK

3 april 2006

I agree that the sentence is poor but then so was that one in Ohio where Judge O'Connor gave the child rapist a year's house arrest and five years probation.

Legal is not necessarily fair.

from what i hear they are trying to remove judge o'conner he alledgedly has a drinking problem .

John, their is a significant difference between a driving ban and a prison sentence. No doubt this gut go a driving ban on top of the sentence.
Frankly, unless he is a continuing threat to society (and there is no indication he is) I wouldn't have jailed him at all. I would have found something more productive and less financially burdensom on the tax payer.
Make him spend his weekends for next few years doing something of benefit to the community and take his license off him until at least that period is completed.

I would suggest that someone who drives without insurance, kills someone and leaves the scene and has a history of drink driving is a continuing threat to society.

And there's no guarantee that taking his license off him would stop him driving.

I could go along with you on this Rob, but with a suspended sentence only if he promised to stop drinking for the length of the sentence and was subject to random tests for that period, sentence to be performed if he fails.

I have this nagging problem with finding a logical difference between driving drunk and driving drunk and injuring someone. The crime is driving drunk, the accident is a statistical probability, resulting from it, unless the driver set out to injure or kill.

I agree .

if the bleeding hearts think killing somebody* accidentaly i agree but then running away* and no insurace (3 offences right there ) is not a threat to society then what is ??
givin a first time offended a change is a desirable attitude in this day and age but where does GIVEN A SECOND CHANCE STOP ??? what about the victims family to much thought is given to the perpetrator ,how about justice for the VICTIM /family ??

I agree. I'm not soft of this, I just think that jail is a collossal waste of money and is shown to be ineffective in terms reoffending and offers no restitution to the family of the victim.
I'd have no problem banning him from driving for life and making him get the bus - but at least if he is able to work he has the means to pay some form of restitution and the tax payers don't foot the bill for his keep.

I agree there to find alternative forms of * punishment * than jail would certianly be a step forward ( we have a very good community service programe here )and it makes sence that the convicted person is able to earn to suport hmself and his family .
prisons are overgrowded something has to be done where we differ is what


the point a disagree with in THIS INSTANCE your statement that he is not a danger to the public i think he is ...a record of driving without insurance ,under the influence makes him a danger on the road and i cant see how banning him would stop him driving common sence would imply that as he has been caught driving without insurance ( presumable cus he has a dvi conviction and cant afford the premiuns ) it would appear he would have no conpunction about driving without either a licence /or insurance .

To keep filling jials with convicted persons and continually building more jails does seem conterconstuctive ,my only disgreement with you is which crine constitutes being incasarated and which doesnt .

I f we take your premise that he and those like him are not a danger ( cus they wont do it again ) then those most likely to not repeat cus the opportunity would not be there would be =those convicted of white collar crime such as lay ( if convicted) and a holes like jack abramoff ( sp ) .

so are you saying ANY convicted felon who it would seem would not be a danger ( physical ) and there is very little chance they would repeat should be sentenced to a punishment / punishments NOT involving jial time ???


it seems you and other socialist would object strongly if he (abramoff )got of with no jial time //

if we are going to realize from jial those who dont represent a danger to society then lests start with white color crime .

and leavein prison those who by there past actions ( child abusers . rapist . drug dealers, those convicted of violence . those convicted of death by auto . bank robbers etc)
prove that they could be a menace to society .

I think the main idea of incasaration is to keep the convicted person from hurting any other citizen and * punishment * by loss of liberty is a secondary reason .

it seems you and other socialist would object strongly if he (abramoff )got of with no jial time //


At what point did the socialist infiltrators enter this thread.....


Comrades declare yourselves

That would be me, although Libertarian Marxist would be a more accurate description. :grin:

For what it is worth, depending on what he is conveicted of, I probably wouldn't jail Abramoff. I wouldn't have jailed Martha Stewart either. These are classic examples of where we need more imagination in sentencing.

However you can't have a blanket policy for all white collar crime. Some so called white collar crime is actually very dangerous and I'm told by my better informed wife that so called white collar crime is responsible for more deaths and injuries than any other type of crime. Example include fraud that leads to unsafe products, buildings and policies. (Think tobacco, Ford Explorer role overs, firestone tires, Bhopal and Union Carbide, buildings that collapse because the builders skimp on the concrete etc).

Not me, I would best describe myself as Rockefeller Republican, a social liberal and an fiscal conservative. I would make Abramoff do community service for the tribes that he ripped off.

Er... Libertarian Anarchist? I guess that's me.

/would put Abramoff in prison
//with Kenny-boy and a cellmate called Bubba

Tsk.

Definition of a socialist = Any Poster Not Named JohnA or Horatio Underpants.

The rest of the right wing ilk ran off when they found out they were wrong.

oh thats a broad statement isnt it??? hehehe


looking over my shoulder to see if i have a wing on my right side :-)