Do these sentences seem right to you?

samsemtex

Case 1: Man causes death on his friend while racing at 120mph and flips his car hitting the roof of the house he crashed into and landing on the legs of a child who was playing in his garden. He would have wiped out everybody present if there were people in the garden at the time. He had drank two pints of beer that morning and also had 2 children in the car.

He gets put off the road for 12 years and jailed for two for causing death.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0224/1224265092005.html

Case 2: Man suffering from chronic depression after seperating gets caught drink driving 7 times in the space of six months. He was over the limit considerably once and slightly over the other times. Idiotic behaviour no doubt, but at the end of the day he drove everywhere at about 30mph and did not have an accident and certainly didnt kill anyone.

He gets jailed for 2 years and put off the road for 90 years.

While both deserved bans does this sentencing make any sense whatsoever to you?

Being legally drunk and tootling along at 30mph but having no accident deserves an equal jail sentence and a driving ban 8 times longer than someone racing a car with kids in the back, flipping it, hitting the roof of the house he crashed into, landing on a child and killing another man?

Now excuse me but how the fook does that make sense? Is it just that you are automatically criminal of the century when you have taken alcohol and drank regardless of the consequences?

OldmanMondeo

repeat offending. Didn't learn lesson first, second, third, etc times therefore sent to jail. Hopefully he will received treatment in jail for his condition. I am unable to open the link, work blocked, but I would guess the first guy was totaly stupid driving at 120mph, in waht seems to be a built up area.

Both sound right.

Matt Simis

Anyone know the road in question? Trying to visualise 190kph in an 80kph "rural road" for 3km. Potholes would have written you off well before 3km on the similar sound roads round here.

samsemtex

OldmanMondeo wrote: »

repeat offending. Didn't learn lesson first, second, third, etc times therefore sent to jail. Hopefully he will received treatment in jail for his condition. I am unable to open the link, work blocked, but I would guess the first guy was totaly stupid driving at 120mph, in waht seems to be a built up area.

Both sound right.

How does putting a man off the road for 90 years for causing no accident sound right? Being aware of the facts of this case there was never a danger that he would have caused an accident of this magnitude as even the guards admitted that he would drive very very slowly. Yet a man who ACTUALLY killed someone and could have taken out 5 other peoples lives only gets banned for 12 years?

samsemtex

Matt Simis wrote: »

Anyone know the road in question? Trying to visualise 190kph in an 80kph "rural road" for 3km. Potholes would have written you off well before 3km on the similar sound roads round here.

Yes I know that road very well. It is lethal and the notion that someone would do 120 mph on it is ludicrous. Another girl was killed near there recently after crashing avoiding a pothole.

I also know the road of the man who got 90 years off the road as I live on it. Its the old N8 between chair and Mitchelstown. ie. probably the smoothest, widest and now probably the quietest road in the country. I just dont see the logic of this sentencing at all.

langdang

For the benefit of those who can't see it at work:

By Conor Kane
Wednesday February 24 2010
TWO men raced each other in sports cars at speeds of over 190kmh along a rural road, which led to a collision killing one of them, a court heard yesterday.

Joe O'Leary (38), of Lurgoe, Killenaule, Co Tipperary, caused the fatal crash that left Raymond Cunningham (24) dead and injured three children -- including his own son -- when he overtook Mr Cunningham while speeding.

O'Leary's car ploughed into the gable end of a house shortly after the two-car collision, seriously injuring a nine-year-old boy who was playing hide-and-seek at the time.

O'Leary was jailed for two years after he admitted dangerous driving causing the death of Mr Cunningham and two counts of dangerous driving causing serious bodily harm to Jack Costello (9) and David McGeer (13).

The tragedy was the culmination of a series of events on the night of July 12, 2008, which started when O'Leary was driving his black Audi A5 towards Cashel, with his son and his son's friend as passengers.

When they saw Mr Cunningham -- who the accused didn't know well -- driving a red Audi TT in the opposite direction, O'Leary's son passed a comment about the other car being "cool", a garda said.

O'Leary then turned around and followed Mr Cunningham for 3km, before attempting an overtaking manoeuvre that led to the fatal collision.

He was travelling at between 190 and 240kmh at the moment of impact at about 9.47pm.

The two high-performance cars hit each other close to where Jack Costello's extended family were having a gathering at the house of Bridget Costello near Rosegreen, Cashel.

The children were playing hide-and-seek in the garden when O'Leary's car flew through the air, crashed into the house's gable end and landed on top of Jack.

A victim impact statement read out on behalf of the Costello family told how Jack's father, John, had to get a forklift truck to lift the car from his son and was initially convinced he was dead. "Stay with us Jack, don't leave us," he cried as attempts were made to revive him.

Scandalous

O'Leary, a stud farm worker, apologised in court for his "scandalous" behaviour on the night and said he deserved whatever he got.

O'Leary's son, who was travelling in the front passenger seat, was also injured while his friend, back-seat passenger David McGeer, suffered serious injuries and now has the use of just one kidney as a result.

Judge Thomas Teehan imposed a two-year sentence for dangerous driving causing death, along with two 18-month sentences for the causing bodily harm offences, all to run concurrently. He also banned O'Leary from driving for 12 years.

- Conor Kane

Irish Independent

samsemtex

langdang wrote: »

For the benefit of those who can't see it at work:

Thanks.

pdiddy

so what your trying to say is its ok to drink drive repeately as long as you only go 30mph,think he was lucky not to have caused an accident and as for the other case he shud never be allowed kids in a car again and def shud have got a larger prison sentence

samsemtex

pdiddy wrote: »

so what your trying to say is its ok to drink drive repeately as long as you only go 30mph

And where do I say that? Please quote me and highlight the place I say that.

What im saying is 90 years off the road for when no accident occurred is ridiculous. And yes I do think that someone who drives at 30 mph while over the limit is considerably less dangerous than someone who drives dangerously pretending the alcohol has had no effect on them. Not saying that it excuses him but yes there are degrees of every crime so why is it any different for drink driving?

Im pretty sure 2-3 years off the road and treatment for alcohol addiction/depression would also teach him his lesson. at the end of the day no one is dead or harmed in any way, shape or for because of him.

And lets forget completely about the time off the road. A man who killed someone and seriously injured 3 others has been jailed for the same lenght of time for someone who didnt cause an accident. Where is the logic?

Cookie_Monster

samsemtex wrote: »

Case 1: Man causes death on his friend while racing at 120mph and flips his car hitting the roof of the house he crashed into and landing on the legs of a child who was playing in his garden. He would have wiped out everybody present if there were people in the garden at the time. He had drank two pints of beer that morning and also had 2 children in the car.

that sentance doesn't make sense anyway :pac:

TheColl

Whatever about the jail sentences, people who show this incredible level of disregard for the rules of the road and the safety of themselves, their passengers and other road users should be banned from driving for life. They don't deserve to share the roads with the rest of us, ever.

cadaliac

The guy that was caught over and over needs help and it seems that the court also thought this. Hence the 90 year ban. If he did or did not kill anyone is neither here nor there in the eyes of the law. He is a repeat offender and unfortunately this is the punishment for same, even though it could well be the best possible thing for him.
How many times would you let him continue until there was a serious accident? If there was a case where he did have a serious accident, and he had repeat offences, can you imagine the questions being asked then?

As for the other guy, all I have to say is that he must have been high himself to think that speeding and showing off to the kids was cool.
It seems like a horrific accident, that could have been avoided. However, it was an accident all the same.
I don't know really, it is an awful mess for the familys involved.
As stupid as this driver was and as bad as the accident was, the sentence was justified in both cases (IMO)- I'm not defending either case btw.

samsemtex

It seems like a horrific accident, that could have been avoided. However, it was an accident all the same.
I don't know really, it is an awful mess for the familys involved.
As stupid as this driver was and as bad as the accident was, the sentence was justified in both cases

So knowingly going well over twice the speed limit on a road where you should barely be doing the actual speed limit is an accident?

robbie99

samsemtex wrote: »

So knowingly going well over twice the speed limit on a road where you should barely be doing the actual speed limit is an accident?

It was the crashing (and the subsequent death) that was the accident. The speeding was deliberate and dangerous and the sentence justified.

biko

langdang wrote: »

When they saw Mr Cunningham -- who the accused didn't know well -- driving a red Audi TT in the opposite direction, O'Leary's son passed a comment about the other car being "cool", a garda said.

O'Leary then turned around and followed Mr Cunningham for 3km, before attempting an overtaking manoeuvre that led to the fatal collision.

"Dad, please don't be a douche"
"Too late, son"

Atomic Pineapple

anybody that drinks and drives should be banned from the roads for life for a single offense let alone 90 years for 7 offense's. Depression is no excuse.

cml387

In the light of the previous incidents, is this an accident, or dangerous driving?



Irish Times

BARRY ROCHE, Southern Correspondent
A 71-year-old part-time undertaker was today jailed for two years and banned from driving for 10 years after he pleaded guilty to dangerous driving causing the death of a teenager on the main Cork-Dublin Road over two years ago.
Senan Waters of Dublin Road, Fermoy had pleaded guilty last October at Cork Circuit Criminal Court to dangerous driving causing the death of 19-year-old Sian Roberts on the N8 at Dunkettle, Glanmire, on January 21st 2008.
Sgt Bill Daly of Glanmire Garda station told the court how Ms Roberts was driving in her Ford Ka to her home in Fermoy from Cork city where she was working as a trainee hairdresser when she pulled in on the hard shoulder and put on her hazard lights.
Waters was travelling in the same direction and had a good sight distance to Ms Roberts's car and although it was dark, should have seen the vehicle but failed to do so and crashed into the Ford Ka, causing it to go further into the hard shoulder where it hit a crash barrier.
The Ford Ka then spun around some 180 degrees and shot back out into the main carriageway of the roadway where it ended up facing south in the wrong direction where it was hit by another car resulting in fatal injuries to Ms Roberts who was pronounced dead at the scene.
Gardai were satisfied that Waters's driving and failure to see Ms Roberts's car was the cause of the accident and while he told gardai that his car had been hit in the rear by another car, gardai examined his rear fender of his Nissan Almeira but could find no evidence to support this contention, said Sgt Daly.
Sgt Daly agreed with defence counsel, Tom Creed SC that there were no aggravating factors such as drink or speed but simply that Waters failed to properly utilise the sight distance available to him to avoid Ms Roberts's car.
Ms Roberts' family submitted a victim impact statement which wasn't read out in court but defence counsel, Tom Creed sought to address the issue of the timing of his guilty plea which came some 10 months after he was first charged.
"I understand that they were under terrible strain while awaiting finality," said Mr Creed, adding that his client had been awaiting the completion of an engineer's report and that only became available in October 2009 and he then entered a plea of guilty.
Mr Creed said that his client had refrained from contacting the family to express remorse and sorrow because he didn't wish to aggravate a sensitive situation but he was now expressing his remorse and condolences of his client's behalf.
Judge Con Murphy accepted that drink and speed were not factors in the case and Waters had no previous convictions but taking all factors into account, he said he felt he had no option but to jail Waters and he sentenced him to two years and banned him from driving for 10 years.
Speaking afterwards, Ms Robert's parents, Jeff and Michelle said they were pleased the court case had clarified that their daughter had done nothing wrong in her driving but said that nothing would bring their daughter back and they were still hurting hugely from her death.

bladebrew

draffodx wrote: »

anybody that drinks and drives should be banned from the roads for life for a single offense let alone 90 years for 7 offense's. Depression is no excuse.

+1
i sure he was warned the first time he was caught not to do it again,but 7 times is taking the piss,he really should not be on the road,

PeakOutput

samsemtex wrote: »

How does putting a man off the road for 90 years for causing no accident sound right?

he broke the law...and got caught..... 7 times in 6 months

the other person did something alot more serious but it was his first offense and im sure 'out of character'

you should be comparing the second mans first conviction with that of the first man not his seventh i would say the sentence of the 2nd guy is a bit harsh and the sentence of the first guy might....might be a bit lenient(not knowing all the facts of that case as its patently more complicated than i just read)

edit; by the way im only talking about the jail sentences they should both be off the road for life

Pique

I'm sorry, but the git driving the A5 deserved a lot more than 2 years in the clink.
I remember ads saying dangerous driving causing death = 7 years. Maybe that was UTV but it's more applicable than 2 years plus 18 months to run 'concurrently'.
Concurrently ffs....you may as well get hung for a sheep as a lamb in this country as you'll only ever do half the max sentence ! He'll be out in 12-14 months.

The bans may be accurate as the previous posters said about repeat offences etc, but 2 years for killing a child while racing = 2 years for being unlucky/stupid enough to get caught 7 times is not right.

Racer didn't get nearly enough, and I don't care if it was 'out of character'.

A kid in the car says the TT was 'cool' and he tried to show how his car was 'more cool' and seriously injured one child and killed another.

7 years would be too little for him IMO!

samsemtex

you should be comparing the second mans first conviction with that of the first man not his seventh

The first man had no previous convictions either. All 7 charges were being tried at the same time and happened over a period of 6 months. I really dont know you can say he deserved a longer jail term than someone who killed someone with reckless driving.

Pique wrote: »

The bans may be accurate as the previous posters said about repeat offences etc, but 2 years for killing a child while racing = 2 years for being unlucky/stupid enough to get caught 7 times is not right

Personally I think the 90 year ban is too harsh as its obviously the result of personal circumstances. He had no previous convictions either so he was just stupid enough to think the guards would let him off. Complete idiocy. But yes i do think that he definitely deserved to be put off the road for a a few years anyway.

Its the equal jail term that i think is completely ridiculous.