I don't normally comment on crime and justice stories, they get too emotive, and impossible to debate reasonably. However having read the above story about the hit and run, apart from the obvious stuff, one thing stood out for me as odd -
The extenuating circumstances for a lesser sentence reportedly centred somewhat on the accused having 'come from a difficult background, and leading a relatively settled life, employed, relationship, not alcoholic etc.
I would have thought the fact that if the person clearly had their wits about them, and still did such a wreckless, and careless, and then callous thing, it would indicate that they made a clear choice in behaving that way, where somebody who's life was a basket case could be said to have acted in a way with diminished responsibility(not that that would equate to it being ok to be at liberty but we're talking the world of law here).
So are we then also saying if an accused has a much less settled life, and coming from a similar background to this person, that they should get a greater sentence for a first time serous offence? That's what it seems to infer.
Wreckless driving, especially when not intoxicated, and not with unsound mind, is akin to wreckless use of any lethal weapon. If you had a gun, and fired it randomly in a place with alot of people, and killed someone, what would the sentence be?