CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!

Unpaid Work: Pitch Invasion versus Killing a Cyclist

(10 posts)
  • Started 7 years ago by Wilmington's Cow
  • Latest reply from Nelly

No tags yet.


  1. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    Okay, so they are only two recent examples, but it just seems such a stark comparison.

    A teenage Hibs fan was done for his part in the cup final pitch invasion. He made 'offensive' gestures to the Rangers keeper, indulging in activity likely to incite trouble.

    240 hours unpaid work.
    Plus Hibs have banned him from their matches indefinitely.
    He has also lost his job.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-36607936

    Man kills cyclist after losing control of his car while overtaking a bus, going over a central reservation into the oncoming lane, and ending up on its side, giving no explanation as to how he lost control in 'unremarkable' conditions.

    225 hours unpaid work.
    3 year driving ban.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-36561871

    Posted 7 years ago #

  2. Big_Smoke
    Member

    Predictable.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  3. kaputnik
    Moderator

    When you put it like that, it's effectively the legal system equating the punishment required for defendant A giving the finger (or other rude gesture) at victim A and defendant B killing victim B.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  4. Charlethepar
    Member

    In some defence of the legal system, punishment has to be related in some way to intent. If recklessly overtaking a bus was a custodial offence, we'd need more gaols. The hibbie"s intent was all too clear, if mystifying to normal folk.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  5. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    Not strictly true. F'rinstance Causing Death by Dangerous Driving has heavier penalties than Dangerous Driving, but the intent (and (lack of) standard of driving) in both is the same.

    Or attempted murder carries a lower penalty than murder. Intent in both is the same, outcome determines the range of penalty.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  6. Ed1
    Member

    Its both intent and outcome (Culpability and harm).

    English but similar principles apply

    https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/MCSG_web_-_October_2014.pdf

    (Dangerous driving has some relation to intent)
    To determine if dangerous or careless may also consider culpability, as well harm etc.

    The dangerous or careless may have some relationship to intent, culpability, the death by, the outcome the harm.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  7. crowriver
    Member

    @Wilmington's Cow, not only that, the Hibs fan "must also stay in his home between 20:00 and 06:00 for two months."

    So home curfew. Is that an electronic tagging order?

    In any case, it would appear running on some turf and giving disrespect to a Sevco player in view of television cameras, the press or Sevco fans' mobile phones is a heinous crime before HM justice system. Whereas killing someone with a motor vehicle attracts lesser punishments.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  8. kaputnik
    Moderator

    Speaking of intent, how did the defending advocate communicate it in legalese that his client's intention was not to cause harm to the Rangers goalkeeper but merely to inform him in the vernacular to "get it right up himself" (or, girfieuxét as they say in France)

    Posted 7 years ago #

  9. Cyclingmollie
    Member

    In any case, it would appear running on some turf and giving disrespect to a Sevco player in view of television cameras, the press or Sevco fans' mobile phones is a heinous crime before HM justice system. Whereas killing someone with a motor vehicle attracts lesser punishments.

    A version of this gets played out on the roads: driver nearly lamps cyclist, cyclist swears at driver, driver threatens cyclist for swearing.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  10. Nelly
    Member

    First I must admit an interest - I am a season ticket holder at Easter Road and was at the cup final - I didn't go on the pitch !

    Fans know that it is illegal to enter the field of play. However to do so as a celebration is - to me - small beer.

    This guy did something stupid, he had no reason to confront Foderingham and has been hammered for it - in part because of his aggressive actions, and in part (in my opinion) because of the reaction of Sevco PR people in the immediate aftermath. Hibs banning order seems penal, but the club has to do all it can to dampen this down and limit further action / fines from the SFA.

    As to the comparison with the dangerous driving punishment, is it not the case that for different offences, there are parameters for punishments and its up to the individual Judge to decide?

    Is that not why some judges are deemed more severe than others?

    Posted 7 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin