http://uk.news.yahoo.com/4/200 ... ng-family-of-dba1618.html

absolutely shockingly short sentence:jawdrop:

which highlights exactly what is wrong with the justice system in this country. Death by dangerous driving, as a charge, should be scrapped and should be reclassified as murder

but killing someone in car is basically causing death with a very large weapon, so it's a moot point. 3 years is just a completely pathetic sentence - he wiped out an entire family and will be released in 18 months

Who said life is fair? The fact it was involuntary is very important...

(@ mookie) No it isn't. It's more like Manslaughter if you want to make a comparison, involuntary if you want to be more specific.

I agree the sentence is very leniant considering the scale of the tragedy, but they obviously felt it was a genuine accident as a result of carelessness. How "careless" driving differs from "dangerous" driving when the vehicle in question is a 40 ton truck is anybody's guess though. I guess he wasn't speeding.......because it's a truck.

Careless in this instance most likely means following the car ahead too closely.
The incident was in a queue, and the car in which the people died was between 2 lorries.

Quote from mookie427 :

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/4/200 ... ng-family-of-dba1618.html

absolutely shockingly short sentence:jawdrop:

which highlights exactly what is wrong with the justice system in this country. Death by dangerous driving, as a charge, should be scrapped and should be reclassified as murder

Maybe you should start off by getting your facts right:

"Da Silva, 46, was convicted of six counts of causing death by careless driving at Chester Crown Court."

Careless driving is what you get charged with if you're involved in any accident that the poilce decide to charge you over. So as far as this case goes it is clear that the police etc believe it was essentially an accident that had horrendous consequences. Obviously he wasn't completely blameless but equally obviously from the charge he wasn't completely to blame for their deaths either. Seems like a pretty severe punishment to me for what could have been just a momentary loss of concentration. On the other hand he may have been speeding excessively, (not going to say he deserved it just if he was speeding, that would be hypocritical as practically everybody speeds), and that's why he couldn't stop in time so maybe the punishment was just. Who knows, we weren't there and didn't hear all the evidence. Trial by media is almost certainly unjust.

Sounds about right really.

I was watching Motorway Cops a few months ago, where a British truck driver had a lapse of concentration, and hit stationary traffic at 56mph, took out 3 people in 2 cars, he got a 4 year prison sentence and a 6 year ban on top of that. Granted these are lenient sentences, but the deaths they caused will stick with them forever.

Only 3 friggin years.

I don't know enough about the situation and how it all happened, so I can't judge it well.

I did notice this though: "Da Silva, who lives in Murcia, Spain, claimed the family may already have been dead as a result of Mrs Statham driving her Toyota into the Volvo moments before it was struck by his Daf lorry."

Does that mean that the driver of the people carrier crashed into the Volvo lorry before it was hit by the DAF driven by Da Silva? If that's true, Da Silva is not the only one to blame for their deaths.

In Mexico, 1 day for killing anyone, or just nothing

Perhaps he lagged?

But seriously, i dont think 3 years is enough.
Is only half a year per person really right? Should be at least 6 years.

May i also mention that not all of us Portoguese drivers are that bad, before anyone blames it on him being portoguese lol.

.. This is why I have no faith in the 'Justice' system in our country.

For example, if I get caught doing 35mph (easily done if you're late for work) in a 30mph zone, 4 times, that's a 2 year ban for me. (or is it 1 year, either way).

Now, that means I'd lose my job, my livelyhood, my wife would leave me and my kids would turn to sniffing glue. Now, if I killed someone, if I had a 'reason', for example he attacked me first or he stole something/attacked someone I know etc etc, I'd most likely get 5 years, 2 of which in jail and the rest on Probation.

If you kill anyone, it should should be life for you, whatever the reason, but this would depend on a case by case with allowances for extreme reasons, such as them killing your wife, mother, brother, or whatever.

The genuinly good people that make mistakes are often punished the most, where as the repeat offenders that have nothing better to do than annoy the general population tend to get away with stuff, time after time, after time.

IIRC, such accident here in Holland would be judged as a traffic violation. Because the death was caused by a car accident. So in theory, shooting 6 people and hitting them with a car, hitting them with a car would get you a lesser punishment.

Quote from gezmoor :

Seems like a pretty severe punishment to me for what could have been just a momentary loss of concentration.

Huh? "Just" a momentary loss of concentration? Failing to spot slowing and stopped traffic ahead whilst in control of an HGV and ploughing into it due to excessive speed/being too close is "just" a momentary loss of concentration?

Nah.

Negligence on a serious scale, and I'd go so far as to say that 3 years is a joke.

6 counts of causing death due to careless? Over here that would be dangerous (or if i'm correct, higher, Negligent driving, and probably 6 counts of manslaughter)

3 years is pretty light, unless he was able to prove, as he said, that their Van did drive into the back of the other truck first (i wasn't there, i can't prove it didn't) Or if there was a mechanical fault with his truck, but i'm not sure, only the people who were there truly know what went down.

Quote from hrtburnout :

I don't know enough about the situation and how it all happened, so I can't judge it well.

Neither did the judge or the jury, there wasn't enough evidence.

But you try explaining that to the average stupid Brit.

bunch of pussies... live with it, life is unfair, you live in an advance country where laws do work. I cant imagine all of you Uk citizens living in a country where the laws do not work, and they are just there to say "we have laws".

Quote from chanoman315 :

bunch of pussies... live with it, life is unfair, you live in an advance country where laws do work. I cant imagine all of you Uk citizens living in a country where the laws do not work, and they are just there to say "we have laws".

Our justice system is pretty broken.

Quote from speedway :

Without knowing the circumstances i would be REALLY careful to say his sentence isnt long enough.

And comparing an accident with homocide is just plain BS.

so.....6 months per life is too long? He'll be out in a year!

what he did, although it may not have been murder, was 6 counts of manslaughter due to gross negligence (or whatever charge that would be in the courts).

Quote from thisnameistaken :

Neither did the judge or the jury, there wasn't enough evidence.

But you try explaining that to the average stupid Brit.

Exactly. No one will ever know. At the end of the day he was convicted on weak evidence that he "caused" the deaths. At least from what the media are saying there was no direct evidence that he wasnt observing the road and his truck just failed to stop in time. They claim he wasn't looking for at least a minute. Based on what? a lap top in the cab beside him that just happend to be turned towards him. After a crash? they can know which way it was facing before?? I think not. Best you can do with that is theorise that he may have been looking at it, but you can't prove that he was. Also they make a claim that the road was straight and visibilty was clear as proof that he wasn't looking. Well actually it was dark, and distance and speed is much harder to judge in the dark, when you only have lights to go on. It's entirely possible that he was looking ahead saw the lights but just misjudged his speed and braking and so hit the car. Also, given that it was a 5 car pile up means that three other vehicles had already collided ahead means there is a chance the car had already rammed itself in to the back of the lorry ahead before he hit it and they were already dead. That and the weak evidence against him says to me that he probably shouldn't have been convicted IMO. But the jury are human after all and they are obviously swayed by the human tragedy involved, there is no way they couldn't be. I'm betting that if no one had died, (or if only one person had suffered a minor injury), he almost certainly would have not been convicted, (probably may have never been charged).

This is where the law really falls down, it's not about objective evidence and cause and effect, it's emotional and irrational and depends very much on the severity of the consequences when it should be a black or white answer to the question. Did he cause their deaths through irresponsible behaviour? Given the evidence I've seen in the media, (ignoring all the emotive chaff about how wonderfull the dead were), i'd say it's an open verdict. Can't be proven beyond reasonable doubt, which leads me to conclude he shouldn't have been convicted as the law requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

All deaths should be life ?? Where do you draw the line? How do you prove culpability? Say someone jumps out to mug you with a knife and you turn and run away, crossing the road in your panic and get killed by a car. Are they to blame? What if you run away down the street, round a corner thinking your being chased (when you're not), in to a building site and fall in to an excavation and break your neck. Are they still to blame? and so on.

Quote from chanoman315 :

bunch of pussies... live with it, life is unfair, you live in an advance country where laws do work. I cant imagine all of you Uk citizens living in a country where the laws do not work, and they are just there to say "we have laws".

Well when you live in a country that has erradicated major injustices, this is the level of "injustice" that ordinary people get indignant about.
You're right, we have lost our perspective in comparison with the lives that people in the world in general have to live. We whine and bitch about a couple of pennies on our beer or cigarettes when others don't even have safe water to drink.

Edit: Thought twice. I just say bring back capital punishment, sod going into detail !

sure its sad that the whole family is dead, but it was an accident.
as few people already sad, life is unfair and i think to know that you are the "murder" of 6 people is in that case more punishment then 3 years of jail..



imo if this would happen in germany the guy wouldn´t get more then 3 years, too.

feck my english sucks i hope you guys understand what i mean

Quote from speedway :

where did you get this information?

from the article linked in the first post? The article gives almost no information at all about the accident itsself, instead it concentrates on stirring up anger by describing of severity of the consequences...with great succes as you can see by people's replies in this thread.

Note: So far i havent even commented on the sentence, all i did was doubting responses that were purely driven by emotion rather than rational thinking.

But who needs thinking anyway if media already gives you your opinion.

I didn't get that from anywhere - that is purely my personal opinion. He was guilty of something far more serious than 'death by careless driving'

If you want more detail about the accident, try this for size - he plowed into the back of a family of 6's stationary car, pushing it underneath another truck. It then caught fire. Although he tried to put out the fire, the family was already dead. He later claimed in interviewing that the car may have already crashed into the back of the truck in front of them, and when he smashed into it they were already dead. Some reports state he was looking at a laptop to get route directions just before the crash. And on top of all that, he either failed to notice, or ignored, numerous warning signs informing motorists of a traffic jam ahead.

Quote from mookie427 :

I didn't get that from anywhere - that is purely my personal opinion.

Fortunately sentencing in British courts isn't based on the opinions of Mail readers. If it was, you'd get the death penalty for killing anyone under the age of 16, life for killing anyone who'd ever been a member of the armed forces, a minimum of 20 years for killing anybody with nice tits, and £100,000 for killing a muslim, a paedophile or Labour minister.