Cobalt wrote:
Sorry, guys, but unless I missed something, all the “he should be prosecuted” guys want is revenge/retribution, on behalf of society
I think you are right. I also think there are others who were involved who could be subject to the the long arm of the law.
JasonC wrote:
I think you are probably right.
To a degree maybe. But for me, and I guess many other as well, it is also about justice being the same for everybody. How can it be that the very existence of a BA captain gets terminated for doing a low go-around with no damage to anybody or anything, while this pilot gets away with what he did?
Cobalt wrote:
Deterrence (both in general, or of the individual “don’t do that again” kind). Clearly not required here.
I think it is indeed required. If this accident has no consequences for anybody (pilot, airshow organisers, overseeing authority, …) than we will be either back to the same low standards as before with the next accident programmed to happen or otherwise the plug gets pulled completely like in Germany after Ramstein.
I also wondered why deterrence was dismissed so lightly.
Speaking from a fairly long involvement (20 years) in the Criminal Justice System, I would say that deterrence is generally not a very valuable sentencing aim, because most criminals have chaotic lifestyles, do not consider the likelihood of being caught, or are performing so poorly mentally (for whatever reason, alcohol, mental illness, depression, lack of cognitive ability) that they are beyond reason.
However, that is not true of the generally law abiding intelligent professional who has no intention of doing wrong, or is negligent, or is carefully planning how to get away with something. Their attention will be focussed by the prospect of repetitive anal probing in the Scrubs, and may well be deterred.
So a prosecution would clearly do nothing for the victims of Shoreham and their families (and I am one of the ones mentioned earlier who has a friend who lost a son), and it would be a disaster for the pilot and possibly the airshow organisers, but may well help it not happen next time.
I would hope our process of law enforcement is above retribution. Ultimately it is a matter for the Court and also for the Court then to decide the appropriate punishment.
We might not always agree, but that is our sytem and it is difficult to come up with a better system. If their is sufficient evidence to suggest a prosecution might result then I think it is incumbent that the case is heard. At least when the case is brought by the State then it is far less likely emotions will be a factor, in contrast with a case brought by a member of the public.
Timothy wrote:
So a prosecution would clearly do nothing for the victims of Shoreham and their families (and I am one of the ones mentioned earlier who has a friend who lost a son), and it would be a disaster for the pilot and possibly the airshow organisers, but may well help it not happen next time.
Interesting. You speak with far more experience but I have often wondered. I knew a dentist that was jailed for fraudulent claims. I still wonder what point it served. For most it seems to me the embarassment is punishment enough especially in high profile cases such as this. He has lost his career, and I cant imagine his life will ever be the same. I would have thought it is either the serial offender, or the person who has clearly and deliberately set out to offend where society should rightly make a statement that the consequences will be even more severe. In the case of the dentist the number and frequency were not great and even the prosecution accepted that it was more likely pressure of work than a deliberate attempt to defraud the State.
However, that is not true of the generally law abiding intelligent professional who has no intention of doing wrong
Presumably in this case, the (presumably) generally law-abiding intelligent professional was well aware that mistakes were fairly likely to lead to a death sentence for him – and statistically speaking this was much more likely than the deaths of spectators that actually resulted. I’m not sure that knowing that he might also be subjected to a few months in Wormwood scrubs would have done much more to focus his mind.
Fraud is committed in cold blood. I see the sense in prosecuting that. Somebody who is being knowingly reckless – that too. What of people who are unknowingly reckless? I suppose these are the cases in which we should be probing the regulatory regime.
I’m speaking only in general terms. I don’t know enough about the case/people involved here to have an opinion on it specifically.
Cobalt wrote:
Sorry, guys, but unless I missed something, all the “he should be prosecuted” guys want is revenge/retribution, on behalf of society
You forgot the main thing, justice. In cases like this, prosecution may be the only way to be sure that justice is served. But to prosecute an airshow pilot would be like prosecuting an F1 driver if he lost control and his car killed some bystanders. Or like prosecuting a down hill skier in a championship, if he lost control and killed a few people in his fall. That is not justice, you don’t prosecute the monkey. However, someone is responsible for the show, and someone is responsible for the rules and regulations.
LeSving wrote:
That is not justice, you don’t prosecute the monkey. However, someone is responsible for the show, and someone is responsible for the rules and regulations.
That is an interesting assessment. If those responsible have been grossly negligent in their organisation then that would seem reasonable, but potentially only if the driver (in the example you give of of a race track) has deliberately ignored the track regulations.
LeSving wrote:
But to prosecute an airshow pilot would be like prosecuting an F1 driver if he lost control and his car killed some bystanders.
If a formula one driver busts the speed limit in the pit lane (where that limit is the only viable safety measure to protect the pit crews) and hurts or kills a mechanic because of that he will face criminal charges in any country which holds F1 races. 100% certain.
Yes, but the pit crew are not bystanders, and the infringement was in clear breach of the regulations, and there would not be a prosecution if the throttle was at fault or the speedo was indicating the incorrect speed – or at least it might go to court but the prosecution would fail. It seems to me the test is quite clear, at least in the UK, and there is a reasonable amount of case law. Those are the terms of reference and all that really matters.
