Discussion
I know there is a thread on the above somewhere but search wasn't being helpful.
There was a stabbing in Chippenham back in January where a 16yo lad was stabbed in the heart and the trial of the then 15yo has just ended...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1l162yy2ejo
If you want to send out the wrong message to knife carrying youths then this is surely the way
There was a stabbing in Chippenham back in January where a 16yo lad was stabbed in the heart and the trial of the then 15yo has just ended...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1l162yy2ejo
If you want to send out the wrong message to knife carrying youths then this is surely the way
t happens.I have to be honest the discussion around Jury Trial abolition worried me: the jury system is there for a good reason.
However this, and the example of the Manchester Airport attacks, makes me wonder as it now seems to be the case that juries are landing on utterly bizarre verdicts on what seem to be blatantly prejudiced principles.
The guy stabbed a drug dealer (no loss) and his plea was he didn’t think stabbing him would be life threatening. Which might reduce his culpability from murder to manslaughter but the jury exonerated him of that as well apparently.
????
However this, and the example of the Manchester Airport attacks, makes me wonder as it now seems to be the case that juries are landing on utterly bizarre verdicts on what seem to be blatantly prejudiced principles.
The guy stabbed a drug dealer (no loss) and his plea was he didn’t think stabbing him would be life threatening. Which might reduce his culpability from murder to manslaughter but the jury exonerated him of that as well apparently.
????
To some extent areas and communities get the crime they deserve. If jurys don't convict killers they get more killers.
I don't live anywhere nearby so their problem not mine.
I wonder if the system matters? In England a majority of 10-2 at least is required to convict so 3 jurors can prevent a conviction. In Scotland a simple 8-7 majority is enough for a conviction so perhaps a verdict like this is less likely.
I don't know the law in England but in Scotland an intent to kill is not required.
I can certainly recall a similar case in Glasow where a drug dealer stabbed a guy once in the buttock as a frightener for non payment. Hit an artery and his victim bled to death. Regardless of an intention to kill it was held that it was an act so reckless that it was murder. Convicted.
" murder happens when a person takes the life of another with intent or with reckless disregard for that person s life."
https://westcourts.co.uk/criminal-defence/murder-c...
I don't live anywhere nearby so their problem not mine.
I wonder if the system matters? In England a majority of 10-2 at least is required to convict so 3 jurors can prevent a conviction. In Scotland a simple 8-7 majority is enough for a conviction so perhaps a verdict like this is less likely.
I don't know the law in England but in Scotland an intent to kill is not required.
I can certainly recall a similar case in Glasow where a drug dealer stabbed a guy once in the buttock as a frightener for non payment. Hit an artery and his victim bled to death. Regardless of an intention to kill it was held that it was an act so reckless that it was murder. Convicted.
" murder happens when a person takes the life of another with intent or with reckless disregard for that person s life."
https://westcourts.co.uk/criminal-defence/murder-c...
Ridgemont said:
I have to be honest the discussion around Jury Trial abolition worried me: the jury system is there for a good reason.
However this, and the example of the Manchester Airport attacks, makes me wonder as it now seems to be the case that juries are landing on utterly bizarre verdicts on what seem to be blatantly prejudiced principles.
The guy stabbed a drug dealer (no loss) and his plea was he didn t think stabbing him would be life threatening. Which might reduce his culpability from murder to manslaughter but the jury exonerated him of that as well apparently.
????
It's a very strange one isn't it.However this, and the example of the Manchester Airport attacks, makes me wonder as it now seems to be the case that juries are landing on utterly bizarre verdicts on what seem to be blatantly prejudiced principles.
The guy stabbed a drug dealer (no loss) and his plea was he didn t think stabbing him would be life threatening. Which might reduce his culpability from murder to manslaughter but the jury exonerated him of that as well apparently.
????
Almost reads as if he's just got away with the whole episode.
tele_lover said:
Yes, the pattern. You either identify patterns, or you don't.
But that article only mentions one particular case/incident? For patterns to emerge you need several of a similar thing.So what is the pattern and what's so special about it that makes it 'interesting'? Surely knife crime is pretty generic. Is getting away with it the interesting pattern as that doesn't sound too common?
I don't think this sends any message at all. I doubt you'll find many 15 year olds who are at risk of getting involved in county lines drug dealing carefully reading court transcripts.
When judges and juries make decisions that seem odd when reported in the press it almost invariably means there is something specific in the case that is crucial to the decision that hasn't been reported clearly by the press. If you read the reporting carefully you can usually see past the journalist's obfuscation to the actual basis of the decisions and they are almost always entirely reasonable.
When you hear someone saying judges and juries are daft or out of touch with the real world, you can be pretty confident that you are listening to someone who is daft and divorced from reality.
When judges and juries make decisions that seem odd when reported in the press it almost invariably means there is something specific in the case that is crucial to the decision that hasn't been reported clearly by the press. If you read the reporting carefully you can usually see past the journalist's obfuscation to the actual basis of the decisions and they are almost always entirely reasonable.
When you hear someone saying judges and juries are daft or out of touch with the real world, you can be pretty confident that you are listening to someone who is daft and divorced from reality.
xx99xx said:
tele_lover said:
Yes, the pattern. You either identify patterns, or you don't.
But that article only mentions one particular case/incident? For patterns to emerge you need several of a similar thing.So what is the pattern and what's so special about it that makes it 'interesting'? Surely knife crime is pretty generic. Is getting away with it the interesting pattern as that doesn't sound too common?
I like how he says “identify”, as if it’s not well known.
Knife crime is disproportionately high among young black males. And that includes them being victims of it.
I don't think we should be afraid to discuss statistics and facts.
It's a problem and rather than avoiding it in the interests of "equality", or at the opposite end of the spectrum just shouting "usual suspects" on social media, I think more should be done to understand the root cause and what can be done to change it.
I don't think we should be afraid to discuss statistics and facts.
It's a problem and rather than avoiding it in the interests of "equality", or at the opposite end of the spectrum just shouting "usual suspects" on social media, I think more should be done to understand the root cause and what can be done to change it.
Ridgemont said:
I have to be honest the discussion around Jury Trial abolition worried me: the jury system is there for a good reason.
However this, and the example of the Manchester Airport attacks, makes me wonder as it now seems to be the case that juries are landing on utterly bizarre verdicts on what seem to be blatantly prejudiced principles.
The guy stabbed a drug dealer (no loss) and his plea was he didn t think stabbing him would be life threatening. Which might reduce his culpability from murder to manslaughter but the jury exonerated him of that as well apparently.
????
I've always found it hard to believe that someone can stab another person believing it won't be life threatening, especially if you move in circles where carrying a knife is routine.However this, and the example of the Manchester Airport attacks, makes me wonder as it now seems to be the case that juries are landing on utterly bizarre verdicts on what seem to be blatantly prejudiced principles.
The guy stabbed a drug dealer (no loss) and his plea was he didn t think stabbing him would be life threatening. Which might reduce his culpability from murder to manslaughter but the jury exonerated him of that as well apparently.
????
Seems like the worst possible outcome.
I can't agree that the dead lad was 'no loss'. He had decades ahead of him to change his ways and in any case he is obviously a loss to his family.
And the lad who killed him, by being found not guilty, has lost an opportunity to get out of the drug trade too - the paradox is that he will now be left to do what he likes just when guidance would have been useful.
System has failed both of them.
I can't agree that the dead lad was 'no loss'. He had decades ahead of him to change his ways and in any case he is obviously a loss to his family.
And the lad who killed him, by being found not guilty, has lost an opportunity to get out of the drug trade too - the paradox is that he will now be left to do what he likes just when guidance would have been useful.
System has failed both of them.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff