PDA

View Full Version : Hang on, they want to make it LONGER?



d000hg
26th February 2014, 14:15
BBC News - Lewis Gill: Attorney general may review Bournemouth death punch sentence (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-26354079)

I saw this in passing and initially thought "that's good, they've realised a 4 year prison sentence is too bad for punching someone in the face". Then I read it and found everyone's outraged it's such a short sentence?!

Shouldn't you be tried on the basis of your actions, not random factors outside your control? If the guy fell differently and just had a black eye, the offender would have done exactly the same thing.

Isn't this like throwing a rock off a bridge without looking - whether it hits someone is down to chance and you're equally to blame in either case?



Should be a fun discussion :)

oracleslave
26th February 2014, 14:23
Just because he was unlucky in his choice of victim, I think this or a form of it still applies.

Eggshell skull - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eggshell_skull)

So, you bear the consequences of your actions irrespective of the condition of the victim. It's still involuntary manslaughter at the end of the day regardless of the weak genetic make-up or exaggerated misfortune of the victim.

doodab
26th February 2014, 14:29
I must admit I thought 4 years seemed a bit harsh for a punch at first, but then he did kill someone, even if unintentionally.

I suppose it's kind of like drink driving. What would you get if you mowed someone down while pissed?

Bellona
26th February 2014, 14:32
Involuntary manslaughter arises where the accused did not intend to cause death or serious injury

Unlawful act manslaughter arises when he or she intends an unlawful act that is likely to do harm to the person, and death results which was neither foreseen nor intended

There is no mandatory sentence for either.

The guidelines suggest 0-4 years imprisonment for Involuntary manslaughter, but actual sentence depends on circumstance, and previous character of the defendant.

Since there can be do doubt that he didn't “ accidentally” punch the poor bloke, I personally think he should have got more than 4 years, but I don’t think it warrants the cost of a return to court – with parole he may still end up getting out in the same amount of time.

BrilloPad
26th February 2014, 14:40
How would you feel if it was a member of your family that had died?

d000hg
26th February 2014, 14:41
How would you feel if it was a member of your family that had died?My emotions shouldn't come into it.

eek
26th February 2014, 14:44
I must admit I thought 4 years seemed a bit harsh for a punch at first, but then he did kill someone, even if unintentionally.

I suppose it's kind of like drink driving. What would you get if you mowed someone down while pissed?

14 years, starting point is anything between 18months to 8 years depending on how careless and drunk you are...

BrilloPad
26th February 2014, 14:45
BBC News - Lee Rigby murder: Adebolajo and Adebowale face sentence (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-26357007)

I hope the judge is lenient - it was only 1 stab wound after all.

suityou01
26th February 2014, 14:50
BBC News - Lee Rigby murder: Adebolajo and Adebowale face sentence (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-26357007)

I hope the judge is lenient - it was only 1 stab wound after all.

And a decapitation. Don't forget that.

vetran
26th February 2014, 14:53
you watched the video ? it was completely unprovoked and intended to cause serious harm, animals like that should be locked away for a very long time.

If he hadn't of killed him though he would probably have got off with a caution.


Gill was also sentenced to two three-month terms to run consecutively with the manslaughter sentence.

This was for committing the crime while on a suspended sentence for the robbery and handling offences. In mitigation, Steven Perian said: ‘He wishes he could turn back the clock and not react in the way he did.’

Mr Young, a former grammar school pupil, regular church-goer and speaker of several languages, was said to have the social skills of a 14-year-old due to his Asperger’s.

NickFitz
26th February 2014, 14:58
BBC News - Lee Rigby murder: Adebolajo and Adebowale face sentence (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-26357007)

I hope the judge is lenient - it was only 1 stab wound after all.

Don't be silly. In that case, there was a clear intent to murder, which is completely different from accidentally killing somebody.

vwdan
26th February 2014, 14:58
Isn't this like throwing a rock off a bridge without looking - whether it hits someone is down to chance and you're equally to blame in either case?


I don't see how it's like this at all. The incident in question was already going the way of being a serious criminal offence whether the victim died or not. Sentencing in crimes like this is always a balance between the intended and unintended consequences. There's a legal precedent, but I can't recall the name of it.


Don't be silly. In that case, there was a clear intent to murder, which is completely different from accidentally killing somebody.

But there's also a HUGE difference between killing somebody through a genuine accident or negligence and killing someone while you were intending to harm them.

VectraMan
26th February 2014, 14:59
you watched the video ? it was completely unprovoked and intended to cause serious harm, animals like that should be locked away for a very long time.

Indeed. More of these should come down to intent IMO, and if you intend to do someone harm, even if not kill them, then that's still pretty serious. And different from say a drunk driver killing someone, which is a case of being reckless.

vwdan
26th February 2014, 15:03
I think R v Creamer was the case I was thinking of, but Wikipedia (as ever) has some nice info on this sort of crime and some more recent examples:

Manslaughter in English law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter_in_English_law#Unlawful_act_manslaugh ter)

Here's the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImbXXVbuzwI

Unprovoked and unacceptable violence with a clear intent to harm the victim.

mudskipper
26th February 2014, 15:10
From that pic, it looks like he's taking a hell of a swing at him.

Two blokes aggressively arguing, one punches the other who dies, you have some sympathy with the puncher. But in this case it looks like he did it for the hell of it. You hit someone who's not trying to defend themselves that hard, and serious injury is a likely outcome.

OwlHoot
26th February 2014, 15:10
Shouldn't you be tried on the basis of your actions, not random factors outside your control? If the guy fell differently and just had a black eye, the offender would have done exactly the same thing. ...

No - In English law you take your victim as you find them.

If you thump someone, and they drop down dead as a result for no apparent reason, that's just your hard luck and in times past you could and would have been hanged for it.

mudskipper
26th February 2014, 15:12
Video of it on the mirror website

Lewis Gill killed Andrew Young with single punch outside Bournemouth branch of Tesco - Mirror Online (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/lewis-gill-killed-andrew-young-3181527)

Notice that the bloke on the bike does stop - wonder if he goes back to see if the guy's OK?

d000hg
26th February 2014, 15:21
But there's also a HUGE difference between killing somebody through a genuine accident or negligence and killing someone while you were intending to harm them.Indeed, but there is also a huge difference between intending to kill someone, and punching them. It is unreasonable to expect that punching someone would kill them.

Anyway my question is - if the victim had not been killed or seriously injured, what should have happened? For instance:
animals like that should be locked away for a very long time.
If he hadn't of killed him though he would probably have got off with a caution.Are you arguing that the same sentence would be appropriate if things turned out differently?




No - In English law you take your victim as you find them.

If you thump someone, and they drop down dead as a result for no apparent reason, that's just your hard luck and in times past you could and would have been hanged for it.But I didn't ask what the law said, I asked what it should say, as a topic for discussion.

mudskipper
26th February 2014, 15:25
But I didn't ask what the law said, I asked what it should say, as a topic for discussion.

IMO, it's the crime that should be punished, not the consequences.

In this case, looking at that video, if you take a swing at someone who is standing on a kerb and who is not expecting it or defending themselves, there is a reasonable expectation that they will be seriously injured.

vwdan
26th February 2014, 15:26
Indeed, but there is also a huge difference between intending to kill someone, and punching them. It is unreasonable to expect that punching someone would kill them.


I think this is the fundamental point we (and you and the law) disagree with. It IS reasonable to assume that violently assaulting someone could lead to serious injury or death. I was always told clearly that even a single punch can kill someone - and it's demonstrably true. People going down hit the ground HARD and it's not difficult to see how they may never get back up again.

darmstadt
26th February 2014, 15:26
Video of it on the mirror website

Lewis Gill killed Andrew Young with single punch outside Bournemouth branch of Tesco - Mirror Online (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/lewis-gill-killed-andrew-young-3181527)

Notice that the bloke on the bike does stop - wonder if he goes back to see if the guy's OK?

If I recall the bloke who got punched was remonstrating with the bloke on the bike for riding on the pavement. The bloke who pnched was a mate of the bloke on the bike and after the altercation they both went off however the puncher went back and punched the poor chap just for the hell of it. Hopefully his bottom is going to be black and blue after being firmly punched now...

d000hg
26th February 2014, 15:30
I think this is the fundamental point we (and you and the law) disagree with. It IS reasonable to assume that violently assaulting someone could lead to serious injury or death. I was always told clearly that even a single punch can kill someone - and it's demonstrably true. People going down hit the ground HARD and it's not difficult to see how they may never get back up again.So if you violently assault someone and they are seriously injured rather than killed, what should happen? What if they are not injured at all?

Saying it's likely they could die isn't resolving the debate... should you be punished based on what could be reasonably expected to happen, or what did happen?

OwlHoot
26th February 2014, 15:31
But I didn't ask what the law said, I asked what it should say, as a topic for discussion ....

It should say and do exactly that. Otherwise you could go around thumping anyone, from 5 year olds to 95 year olds, and if they died, which they very likely would, just shrug it off as an unfortunate accident resulting from a mere assault.

Someone who strays seriously outside the law opens themselves to all kinds of risks, and that's as it should be and society has no obligation to make allowances or excuse them.

vwdan
26th February 2014, 15:33
So if you violently assault someone and they are seriously injured rather than killed, what should happen? What if they are not injured at all?

Saying it's likely they could die isn't resolving the debate... should you be punished based on what could be reasonably expected to happen, or what did happen?

You're punished on BOTH - it's not either or.

If I push someone out of the way and nothing happens, then I'm not going to go prison.
If I push someone out of the way and they fall down the stairs, breaking their neck, then I'm going to be answering to a court.
If I accidentally trip someone up and they crack their skull open, then I'm probably not going to get arrested.

(Let's assume all of the above are on HD CCTV with lots of honest witnesses)

Did you read the links I posted or Google the cases? These principles aren't new to law - it's all about looking at the intent AND the end result.

With regards to your exact question - a violent assault is still a criminal offence, despite injury. This is why we have a variety of offences ranging from common assault, gbh, abh, attempted murder etc.

vetran
26th February 2014, 15:39
Indeed, but there is also a huge difference between intending to kill someone, and punching them. It is unreasonable to expect that punching someone would kill them.

Anyway my question is - if the victim had not been killed or seriously injured, what should have happened? For instance:Are you arguing that the same sentence would be appropriate if things turned out differently?



But I didn't ask what the law said, I asked what it should say, as a topic for discussion.


with a punch like that it is unlikely he would have got away without serious injury,
Wounding or Inflicting Grievous Bodily Harm - maximum sentence 5 years.

Factors indicating greater harm :
Injury (which includes disease transmission and/or psychological harm) which is serious in the context of the offence (must normally be present)
Victim is particularly vulnerable because of personal circumstances
Sustained or repeated assault on the same victim

entirely conjecture but if the victim had got up I suspect the perpetrator would have hit him again.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/wounding_or_inflicting_grievous_bodily_harm/

So he got the same as GBH.

Manslaughter - Provocation max sentence Life.

Low degree of provocation: Sentence Range: 10 years - life
A low degree of provocation occurring over a short period Starting Point - 12 years custody

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/manslaughter_provocation/

so no a different sentence is required if he survived. Say 5 years.

you have to have scary consequences for dangerous activities. This wasn't a bar fight, or some one stabbing an abuser, it was broad daylight, they were already in the wrong and there was no indication the victim was any threat. Not sure how you can say this is anything other than one of the worst cases you are likely to see.

northernladuk
26th February 2014, 16:09
Death of the victim aside I still think 4 years (remember he will be out in 2 and less with good behaviour) isn't really enough for what he did. Taking a suckerpunch at someone when you are not involved with the ferocity he did should have serious ramifications regardless of the outcome of the punch. The sentence is supposed to be a deterrent, punishment and in theory rehabilitation of the offender. If people think they can punch others that hard I would say the offender is a problem and needs a tough sentence. You just can't go round thinking you can do that. IMO 4 years wouldn't have been enough even if the guy hadn't died.

In the US you can be tried for assault with a deadly weapon for punching and stamping on people. A gun can injure as well as kill and conversely a punch/stamp can kill as well as injure. Looking at the ferocity of that punch it's likely he would have been tried under that which would have got him more than 4 years.

mudskipper
26th February 2014, 16:24
Edit: Off-topic post removed. :smokin

SpontaneousOrder
26th February 2014, 16:31
The guy took a full on swing at a unexpecting guy who wasn't even looking at him. Perhaps you've never been decked in a fight, but that scenario is just a whisker shy of attempted murder in my judgement.

Longer.

vwdan
26th February 2014, 16:35
The guy took a full on swing at a unexpecting guy who wasn't even looking at him. Perhaps you've never been decked in a fight, but that scenario is just a whisker shy of attempted murder in my judgement.

Longer.

I think the Hollywood Effect sometimes has a lot to answer for here. Getting punched properly hurts (a lot), and if you've ever seen someone crack their head off the pavement (For any reason) you really get a feel for the forces involved.

There was a similar, and equally tragic, case near me where a man punched his best friend for having an affair with this wife (Or something along those lines).

mudskipper
26th February 2014, 16:39
Jailing Gill, from Sutton, Surrey, judge Keith Cutler said that Young did not represent a threat to him, adding: "You are a powerfully built young man.

"You must have known that it was going to cause a significant injury and, very sadly, it did."

That sums it up.

BoredBloke
26th February 2014, 16:46
Indeed, but there is also a huge difference between intending to kill someone, and punching them. It is unreasonable to expect that punching someone would kill them.

The fact that he may not have intended the end result has no bearing on things - all it means is that he doesn't get done for murder orr attempted murder.


Anyway my question is - if the victim had not been killed or seriously injured, what should have happened? For instance:Are you arguing that the same sentence would be appropriate if things turned out differently?.

If he hadn't killed the bloke then he wouldn't have been facing the charge he was - probably GBH/ABH. I thought GBH carried a longer max tarrif than 4 years.




But I didn't ask what the law said, I asked what it should say, as a topic for discussion.

What it should have said was that the guy probably didn't mean to kill him, but his actions led directly to his death and as such the penalty should equate to this. Effectively what English law does say.

expat
26th February 2014, 16:52
Death of the victim aside I still think 4 years (remember he will be out in 2 and less with good behaviour) isn't really enough for what he did. Taking a suckerpunch at someone when you are not involved with the ferocity he did should have serious ramifications regardless of the outcome of the punch. The sentence is supposed to be a deterrent, punishment and in theory rehabilitation of the offender. If people think they can punch others that hard I would say the offender is a problem and needs a tough sentence. You just can't go round thinking you can do that. IMO 4 years wouldn't have been enough even if the guy hadn't died.

In the US you can be tried for assault with a deadly weapon for punching and stamping on people. A gun can injure as well as kill and conversely a punch/stamp can kill as well as injure. Looking at the ferocity of that punch it's likely he would have been tried under that which would have got him more than 4 years.Indeed. Death of the victim may not have been the intended consequence, and might not even be the most probable consequence, but it is a foreseeable consequence of a punch like that, which is why the crime is one involving death. And why you shouldn't punch people like that.

SpontaneousOrder
26th February 2014, 16:53
The fact that he may not have intended the end result has no bearing on things - all it means is that he doesn't get done for murder orr attempted murder.



Just as a drink-driver doesn't intend to kill anyone. 4 years for a DUI death would seem lenient to most - this guy had intent to harm.

vetran
26th February 2014, 17:47
I thought GBH carried a longer max tarrif than 4 years.



The judge used the lesser penalty because he believed there was provocation. (not quite sure what he thought it was but I didn't hear all the evidence) and the suspect plead guilty.

OwlHoot
26th February 2014, 17:47
I used to think Sasguru was a bit harsh on d000hg, but after reading this thread I'm not so sure now.

socialworker
26th February 2014, 20:05
No - In English law you take your victim as you find them.

If you thump someone, and they drop down dead as a result for no apparent reason, that's just your hard luck and in times past you could and would have been hanged for it.
I think you might be conflating civil and criminal law. The eggshell skull principle is civil, for murder you must have intent to kill, for manslaughter it is more complicated but basically it is recklessness. Fwiw I think this bloke needs locking up for avery long time, it was a vicious unprovoked blow, he is a very dangerous individual.

oscarose
26th February 2014, 21:17
this violence is very poor form. however, when society glorifies violence who can be surprised? all actions have consequences.

:(