Reckless Motorists and the Law.

Press, Volume LIX, Issue 17863, 8 September 1923, Page 12

Reckless Motorists and the Law.

After a very careful trial a motorist named Doherty, whose reckless and negligent driving resulted in an accident in which a man was killed, was found guilty on Thursday, and was sentenced yesterday to fiix months' imprisonment with hard labour. Although a good many people may feci sorry for Doherty, it must be remembered that the offence with which he was charged was the killing of another man through criminal negligence, and git months' imprisonment is nob a very harsh punishment for such an offence as that,-especially as it was shown that Doherty was a notoriously reckless and inconsiderate driver. At tho same time, it must bo admitted that he is a victim of bad luck. If, as might easily have happened, tho smash had not caused anyone's death, and had resulted only in broken cars and bruises, Doherty would not have been in gaol. He would probably not even have been prosecuted. At the worst, he would have had to face only an action for damages. And only a tenth of a second lay between this and what actually happened. HU offence, his guilt, as a citizen and as a motorist, would have been exactly the same in either case. Luck was against him, the saving tenth of a second was wanting, and he is in gaol. Anyone can sep that there i 3 something defective in a law under which such an anomaly can be possible. Every day motorists drive recklessly, and are caved by luck —luck alone, and not skill at the last moment—from killing somebody. Every now and then there is a crash in which someone is more or less seriously injured. But the reckless driver remains secure from the risk of a spell in gaol so long as he does not happen to kill anyone outright. Is tho sentence of imprisonment passed upon Doherty likely to act as a deterrent to reckless drivers? We wish we could think so, and tho Judge, in his sdmrnjng up, was obviously doubtful whether it would so act. Tho law, as hitherto administered, seems to say, " You may drive as recklessly as you "pleaßO, but so long as your luck does "not desert you and leave you with "a killing at your account, you need " not fear anything worse than a fine " of a fow pounds or such damages as "may be recovered from you in re"spect of any car you may smash or " any limb you may break.* Wb are not, wo need hardly say, criticising the law relating to manslaughter, although there is much that might be said in criticism of it. Nor are wo suggesting that tho sentence passed on Doherty was too severe, because we think it was a very just one. But it is clearly not right that recklessness not loss great or reprehensible than Dohorty's should be treated leniently, when it does come before the Courts, merely because it has uot caused anyone's death.