Unusual murder sentence

[Hooli]

Jim1556 said:

TurboHatchback said:

In a normal war between civilised nations certainly. In this war arguably the only way to 'win' is to exterminate every last one of them until there are none left to spread their disease.

Here here!

+ more

[photosnob]

Actus Reus said:

A murder rap is life, but manslaughter can be far lower, in this case 3.5 years (because of her status as a single mother). The reason it was deemed to be manslaughter as opposed to murder was by way of 'loss of control'. She successfully convinced the Court that she took a blade along because she was scared of him, not because she had the intent to kill him, and then lost control of herself when he pushed her (by denying it all etc. etc.) and thus the mens rea for murder (the intent to cause serious harm or kill) was not present even though the actus reus (the actual act of killing him) was.

EFA

Edited by Actus Reus on Wednesday 30th September 13:22

Which demonstrates the disparity in justice in our society.

A young black man from a horrendous part of London carries a knife because he is scared of his environment, and stabs someone because he gets into a confrontation and he is sentenced to a long long time in prison.

A white women goes around to a 77 year olds mans house carrying a knife and stabs him repeatedly to death because she didn't like what he said and she is to serve less than two years.

How can someone being a single mother have a bearing on this case. Would social services let her have the kids after she killed someone because she lost her temper?

I actually don't mind the sentence. I think all/most prison sentences should be lower. I don't think prison does a scrap of good. However I do not understand how we can have a "justice" system that is so unjust.

[Foliage]

Hooli said:

Jim1556 said:

TurboHatchback said:

In a normal war between civilised nations certainly. In this war arguably the only way to 'win' is to exterminate every last one of them until there are none left to spread their disease.

Here here!

+ more

This leaves a very bad taste in my mouth that their are members of my society that think genocide is an option.

[Mill Wheel]

Jim1556 said:

TurboHatchback said:

In a normal war between civilised nations certainly. In this war arguably the only way to 'win' is to exterminate every last one of them until there are none left to spread their disease.

Here here!

But DON'T use a mobile phone to record what you have done. The resulting publicity harms the propaganda war that the allies are fighting.

[Mill Wheel]

What is more alarming about this story, is that the "victim" had multiple convictions, and yet at the time of his death was on bail for further offences, after being released back into the community once more.
Those who think that is OK, should have him live with their families, not others!

[Actus Reus]

photosnob said:

Which demonstrates the disparity in justice in our society.

A young black man from a horrendous part of London carries a knife because he is scared of his environment, and stabs someone because he gets into a confrontation and he is sentenced to a long long time in prison.

A white women goes around to a 77 year olds mans house carrying a knife and stabs him repeatedly to death because she didn't like what he said and she is to serve less than two years.

How can someone being a single mother have a bearing on this case. Would social services let her have the kids after she killed someone because she lost her temper?

I actually don't mind the sentence. I think all/most prison sentences should be lower. I don't think prison does a scrap of good. However I do not understand how we can have a "justice" system that is so unjust.

It's partly a product of how the law has evolved - in this case the differences there are about proof of one's intent - and I don't think this is a racial thing (though there are problems, I just don't think this is one of them) - carrying a knife is not necessarily proof of one's intent to commit murder. You might infer one's intent from something like that, but it's not conclusive on its own.

In this case she relied on a specific provision of loss of control - whereas in your hypothetical situation I can't really say what the defences might or might not be.

[anonymous-user]

Mill Wheel said:

Jim1556 said:

TurboHatchback said:

In a normal war between civilised nations certainly. In this war arguably the only way to 'win' is to exterminate every last one of them until there are none left to spread their disease.

Here here!

But DON'T use a mobile phone to record what you have done. The resulting publicity harms the propaganda war that the allies are fighting.

Mobile? The planning and execution of the murder by the marine was captured on a head camera issued by the military. Including the parts where they were hiding the incapacitated victim away from the helicopter so they wouldn't be filmed and acknowledging they were breaching the Geneva Convention.

[BoRED S2upid]

It does seem quite a short sentence no matter what the circumstances when you compare it to some other crimes like the lad who got life for plotting an act of terrorism or that guy who hacked American files what happened to him? He had aspergers didn't he?

[Vizsla]

Hooli said:

Jim1556 said:

TurboHatchback said:

In a normal war between civilised nations certainly. In this war arguably the only way to 'win' is to exterminate every last one of them until there are none left to spread their disease.

Here here!

+ more

Didn't work for the US in Vietnam, ditto for the Russians in Afghanistan

[TurboHatchback]

Mill Wheel said:

What is more alarming about this story, is that the "victim" had multiple convictions, and yet at the time of his death was on bail for further offences, after being released back into the community once more.
Those who think that is OK, should have him live with their families, not others!

I doubt you'll find many who think the chap was 'ok' but allowing members of the public to murder those accused of certain crimes is not the way forward for a just society. Everyone should be innocent until proven guilty and it's up to those more qualified than us to judge whether he is safe to release between charging and trial.

Foliage said:

Hooli said:

Jim1556 said:

TurboHatchback said:

In a normal war between civilised nations certainly. In this war arguably the only way to 'win' is to exterminate every last one of them until there are none left to spread their disease.

Here here!

+ more

This leaves a very bad taste in my mouth that their are members of my society that think genocide is an option.

It's not advocating genocide to say that Islamic extremists are unlike other historic adversaries, there can never be any surrender, truce, bargain or outcome other than death or total fundamentalist Islamic domination for them. The collective failure of the West to accept this and our continued attempts to impose democracy, freedom of thought/expression and 21st century values on those who are incapable of accepting them has gone a long way towards creating the giant clusterfk that is the sandier parts of the world today. We will never 'win' this fight because it can only be 'won' using methods contrary to the values we are fighting to uphold, the best we can do is to make sure we never lose.

[otolith]

I seem to remember that at the time of the sentencing of the soldier, a large number of PH's forces members popped up to say he got what was coming to him.

I agree with the suggestion that this woman's sentence looks like less than a man would have got, but that's entirely normal for our justice system.

[Brigand]

La Liga said:

Brigand][CYNIC MODE ON said:

She got a lenient sentence because she's a woman, if it had been a man doing that I'd say there was a much higher, nay, guaranteed chance he would have been facing premeditated murder charges.[CYNIC MODE OFF]

She was charged with murder.

Pretty sure the reports are saying manslaughter, not murder...

[anonymous-user]

If you're not familiar with the process / terminology I can see where you're mixing the two up.

If you are charged with an offence it is not necessarily what you are convicted for. She was charged with murder. If murder cannot be proven then the jury may convict someone of the lesser offence of manslaughter.

So in this case, she was charged with murder, but convicted of manslaughter.

[Bluebarge]

Mill Wheel said:

What is more alarming about this story, is that the "victim" had multiple convictions, and yet at the time of his death was on bail for further offences, after being released back into the community once more.
Those who think that is OK, should have him live with their families, not others!

He'd served his sentence for the previous convictions. He had not been tried for the latest allegations which were under investigation. If there had been a significant risk of harm to the community he would be unlikely to get bail. You can't lock up kiddy-fiddlers for ever and a day once they've served their sentences - the prisons would explode and the courts would grind to a halt under HRA/Habeas Corpus actions. Sorry, but them's the facts if you live in the real world and not Daily Wail fantasyland.

[marting]

Brigand said:

La Liga said:

Brigand][CYNIC MODE ON said:

She got a lenient sentence because she's a woman, if it had been a man doing that I'd say there was a much higher, nay, guaranteed chance he would have been facing premeditated murder charges.[CYNIC MODE OFF]

She was charged with murder.

Pretty sure the reports are saying manslaughter, not murder...

La Liga said:

If you're not familiar with the process / terminology I can see where you're mixing the two up.

If you are charged with an offence it is not necessarily what you are convicted for. She was charged with murder. If murder cannot be proven then the jury may convict someone of the lesser offence of manslaughter.

So in this case, she was charged with murder, but convicted of manslaughter.

Semantics, you know he meant a male would be convicted of murder.

[anonymous-user]

I didn't, actually. Although I may have not thought he meant that since it would amount to baseless speculation because none of us were at the trial or exposed to the evidence and information in which the decisions were made.

[Devil2575]

TurboHatchback said:

In a normal war between civilised nations certainly. In this war arguably the only way to 'win' is to exterminate every last one of them until there are none left to spread their disease.

No. This is wrong.

The way to win is to convince people not to join in the first place, unless you plan to try and kill every last potential recruit including those that are not born yet.

In a war with a nation state where the boundaries are clearly set out and the pool of potential recruits very easy to identify you can effectively fight a war of attition. In a war where you are fighting against an idea where the opposition are recruited from any number of nation states and you can't easily identify who will join up you cannot fight a war of attrition.

[AJS-]

I really would like to see the law changed around manslaughter, and possibly the introduction of second degree murder as many US states have.

I think most people would see manslaughter as accidentally causing death through negligence or stupidity - throwing something out of a window and killing someone below, setting an animal trap and catching a hiker or whatever. To my mind when you set out to intentionally cause someone significant harm, whether by stabbing them, beating them or whatever, and it results in death, then it is a murder. True that it's a different murder than actually plotting to kill someone in cold blood for financial gain or some other rivalry, but it's also a very different crime from the sort of accidental death that I would call manslaughter.

Shame I don't write the laws.

[anonymous-user]

TurboHatchback said:

It's not advocating genocide to say that Islamic extremists are unlike other historic adversaries, there can never be any surrender, truce, bargain or outcome other than death or total fundamentalist Islamic domination for them. The collective failure of the West to accept this and our continued attempts to impose democracy, freedom of thought/expression and 21st century values on those who are incapable of accepting them has gone a long way towards creating the giant clusterfk that is the sandier parts of the world today. We will never 'win' this fight because it can only be 'won' using methods contrary to the values we are fighting to uphold, the best we can do is to make sure we never lose.

This man talks sense https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxfnq8Yeex0

[ATG]

DaveH23 said:

Sentencing in this country makes no sense.

The young lad from Newcastle who was charged with plotting to kill people at his old college was given a life sentance.

He must serve 8 years..... Go figure.

I can see how it wouldn't make sense to someone who didn't know what a life sentence means. A clue; it doesn't mean you go to prison for the rest of your life.