Because Karl Phillipson's dangerous driving resulted in a death, he has been sentenced to 4 years imprisonment, but because the Solicitor General's dangerous driving did not, she will presumably get away with a fine that won't even sting her. Where is the justice and the sense in this?

There is no justice, because Karl Phillipson's crime was no worse than Harriet Harman's. In fact, I would say that Harriet Harman's crime was worse, since I expect someone in her position to set a good example, not a bad one. She was fortunate that her dangerous driving did not result in an accident or death. Karl Phillipson was unfortunate that his dangerous driving did.

Is justice done by punishing bad fortune?

There is no sense in it either, since such misconceived justice does not serve as a deterrent. It is too late dishing out harsh punishment only after someone has been killed. No speeding driver wants or expects to kill someone. They assume they will get away with it, and usually do. Thus they continue to do it. It is only the unlucky ones who actually kill someone and then have to go to prison for it.

If drivers are to be deterred from driving dangerously, which is the only real sense that punishment has, severe penalties must apply to dangerous driving itself, and not only when it results in a serious or fatal accident.

The "severe penalties" I have in mind should not involve imprisonment or fines, but simply banning offenders from driving. Either you keep to the rules or you leave the roads. Only when a driving ban is ignored should a prison term be imposed.

Driver jailed for killing unborn boy, 8 January 2003

Harriet Harman stopped for speeding at 99mph, 9 January 2003

Harriet Harman gets week's ban for 99mph drive, 12 February 2003