1. How the punishment for not having insurance can be lower than the cost of insurance 2. How sentences can run concurrently.
1 - is not always the case at all 2. - no tax no insurance no mot no seat belt no working rear left light no working rear right light etc For one vehicle do you want someone banned for (potentially) 20 years or more? Plus if it's serious how can you sentence for more than life? Consecutive life sentences?
And how can a life sentence not mean a life sentence? It should be years to serve as opposed to meaningless jargon like life,
1. If you are fined, you still need to have insurance. You could be prosecuted again the day after your fine if you drive without insurance again. So continue doing it, and it isn't cheaper to drive without, despite the popular misconception on this. The second thing is that a No Insurance is 6 points minimum. That means that two and you're off the road. The penalty for driving whilst disqualified includes potential imprisonment. So there is a gradual increase in the consequences. 2. In sentencing, there is something called the 'totality' principle. This means that courts will generally take the most serious offence and assess seriousness in the light of the surrounding circumstances, including other (less serious) offences that might have been committed. The main offence will attract the heaviest penalty, with the less serious ones attracting concurrent sentences. If every offence was punished as though it was committed in isolation, then the total penalty might be greater than the most serious would attract. Regarding life sentences, the prevailing rationale is that in most cases, 'life' should not mean that the person is written off, but that they can be rehabilitated, even though they may have committed the most horrendous crime. You can argue about whether this should be so, but any other stance creates horrendous (to say nothing of expensive) problems for the system to deal with. If a lifer has no prospect of rehabilitation or parole, then they have no incentive to behave. It also sends out a bad message about reform for those immersed in a life of crime. There are still a not inconsiderable number of people in this country who will never be released (Brady, Huntley, Sutcliffe, etc) but for the less extreme examples, the system presupposes a prospect of reform/rehabilitation. A 'throw the key away' outlook is unrealistic and unmanageable.
I understand that if sentenced to life imprisonment, you can only be released 'under licence' which means you can be returned to prison and continue your sentence if you breach the terms of that licence.
Applies to all prison sentences, PP. The conditions are more onerous the lengthier the sentence, in general terms.
But surely life should mean life if not for the magnitude of the offence or for the injustice they have caused the victims families then for the possibility they could strike again and the danger to the general public. As for incentives to behave surely these should be in house incentives, television etc we should not be held to ransom by people who have committed horrendous and brutal crimes.we already have indescetions on the types of certain murders i:e manslaughter, self defence etc. Seems the status quo just gives the capital punishment brigade an excuse to raise their voices imo
Understand the logic, M, and if fairness was the criteria then no-one could disagree. But like it or not, the system seems to build in an assumption that people are redeemable. The 'risk of harm' factor still determines that some are not released, as I said above.
