You would think so, wouldn't you?

Yet in states that have re-introduced the death penalty, there is evidence that murder rates have [irisen[/i rather than declined, which perhaps suggests that all is not as rational as we would like and/or expect.

I know that this is an unfashionable view in the modern era with its compensation culture and ranting tabloids, but sometimes people have accidents. Sometimes it rains and rivers flood their banks. Sometimes cars crash into other cars. Sometimes cars run other pedestrians. Of course these events are tragedies when they occur but serves no useful purpose to turn the emotions into a witch-hunt to find somebody to blame for what has happened.

This chap had no insurance certainly. But perhaps that was because he couldn't afford the fees charged by these state-backed monopoly fraudsters. Or maybe it had expired and he was unaware. Driving without insurance may be illegal and something that people shouldn't do, but it doesn't mean that such drivers are evil, any more likely to kill people or should be subject to disproportionate punishments such as 42 years.

Similarly driving off after hitting the pedestrian was clearly the wrong thing to do. However unless you have been in that situation you are unlikely to comprehend the high level of guilty and panic that must set in and inhibit their capacity to think clearly. Often when there is a fire or other disaster people panic and run around in a mindless manner that exacerbates the situation, rather than remaining calm and acting in an orderly manner that would actually ensure a better outcome.

All in all I don't think it is possible to judge this person to be a monster. I don't think that a series of mistakes, even if they led to this tragedy, should result in a life in prison or even the paltry 42 years that have been banded around.

Oh Dally: you're giving yourself away with posts like this!

Well, that is bollox, as the car was his wife's, and while I am the last person to speak for basstard insurers, the plain and unvarnished truth is if (for whatever reason) you cannot pay the premium then simply: DON'T FUKKIN DRIVE. It couldn't be simpler.

From the newspaper article I read I don't think the driver was actually at fault for the accident. I think if he was an insured driver he wouldn't have been blamed at all for the accident. The cause of the accident would have probably been placed at the pedestrian for attempting to cross a busy road when it was unsafe to do so.

The guy got blamed because he was driving uninsured and he did a runner. He deserves strong punishment for that. I think he's received that.

I think this thread was a misguided rant from the start. It says nothing whatsoever about the justice system but quite a lot about the uninformed opinions of most people.