Are some "Manslaughter" defendants getting away with murder?

[happie chappie]

Hmmm, I'm not sure it's life ... no doubt someone will be along in a bit to tell us ...

I think you'll find it is life:

1. Imprisonment is the most severe penalty ordinarily available to the courts . . . The maximum penalty reflects the gravity of the worst possible case and is thus high for the most serious offences, eg: life imprisonment for rape, robbery or manslaughter . . .

Source:

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/prisnotes.html

 

[detective-boy]

a friend of mine got cross with another of our friends, took out a huge kitchen knife and stabbed him fatally. she got covicted of manslaughter and sentanced to 2yrs of which she'd served 1 on remand, she walked out of court free.

I suspect that that mansalughter was based on an alternative basis (which I didn't go into because it was irrelevant to the circumstances under discussion). If someone is found to be suffering from diminished responsibility then they effectively are found to be incapable of forming the relevant intent for murder and manslaughter is the appropriiate conviction. It is frequently used when someone who has been bullied / abused over a period of time eventually snaps.

 

[detective-boy]

I'm pretty sure that murder does not have to be premeditated. Isn't that only first degree muder?

You may be right. I don't pretend to know USA criminal law. All I do know is that premeditation is not an important factor in UK criminal law.

 

[ViolentPanda]

These people are worthless scum and I think that they should be removed from the gene pool to ensure that they don't breed.

Giles..

Don't be an idiot. We know where that kind of stupidity leads.

If I had my way anyone expressing sentiments like yours would be whipped until their backs were laid open.

Dickhead.

 

[detective-boy]

The maximum penalty for manslaughter is life imprisonment, regardless of the age of the defendant (but for juveniles the phrase "Detained at Her Majesty's Pleasure" is used).

If the prosecution believe the sentences are too lenient they can now appeal (this right only applies to the most serious charges but this would be one).

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

Happie Chappie

The police had to intervene as one drew his finger across this throat, implying that they too would be murdered.

I agree with your sentiments. This is clearly threatening behaviour and contempt of court. Open and shut, I hope there are charges but I expect there wont be. The police are probably too busy filling out forms and filming activists on demos. If I were the offended relative I would make a complaint to the highest authority if there were not charges.

A similar problem is that of witness intimidation, all too common these days. This crime is rarely prosecuted and not viewed nearly seriously enough. Im not in favour of mandatory minimum sentencing in most cases, but I think 5 years real time in clink is reasonable as an average for scum who think they can threaten peoples justice.

 

[Giles]

I'm sorry, I know from what I've read that the teenagers who kicked that poor bloke to death came from bad backgrounds (the girls parents were both on heroin, at least some of them were in care some or all of their childhoods, etc etc), but:

They went out, deliberately, on more than one occasion, with the pre-meditated intent of beating and kicking fuck out of completely innocent people, presumably for sadistic pleasure.

They are evil, and they should not be out in 6 years, by which time they will only early 20s, and will then probably proceed to have unnecessary babies, further adding to Britain's ever-growing pikey scum heap. Unlike the poor fucker whose head they kicked in for fun, who is dead.

Giles..

 

[happie chappie]

I'm sorry, I know from what I've read that the teenagers who kicked that poor bloke to death came from bad backgrounds (the girls parents were both on heroin, at least some of them were in care some or all of their childhoods, etc etc), but:

They went out, deliberately, on more than one occasion, with the pre-meditated intent of beating and kicking fuck out of completely innocent people, presumably for sadistic pleasure.

They are evil, and they should not be out in 6 years, by which time they will only early 20s, and will then probably proceed to have unnecessary babies, further adding to Britain's ever-growing pikey scum heap. Unlike the poor fucker whose head they kicked in for fun, who is dead.

Giles..

Fuck me - and I thought I was hard-line!

There is a serious point here though. If they had jumped up and down on the head of the family dog, and kicked it around like a football, in addition to any custodial sentence they would, in all probability, have been banned from keeping animals for a set period.

Kick a human being to death, and you're still free to have as many kids as you like.

Happie Chappie

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

pikey scum heap.Giles..

The term "pikey" is often a term of extreme abuse (esp. irish travellers). It is thus both irrelevant to this case and offensive, though I wont be running to the mods about it. The essential core of your post is one thing, the way you put it is alienating and damaging to your cause.

 

[Giles]

Don't be an idiot. We know where that kind of stupidity leads.

If I had my way anyone expressing sentiments like yours would be whipped until their backs were laid open.

Dickhead.

No need for insults.

And I stand by my earlier post completely.

Giles..

 

[Isambard]

proceed to have unnecessary babies, further adding to Britain's ever-growing pikey scum heap.

Untermenschen eh? You have a Solution?

 

[Giles]

Untermenschen eh? You have a Solution?

Hmmmm, now let me see.....

Giles..

 

[cathal marcs]

I agree too many folk feel sorry for folk that carry out such sickening attacks. A good friend of mine was stabbed to death on Hogmanny after an argument broke out at a house party. He was 20 years old and had the whole world at his feet.

I for the life of me can't understand why anyone would carry a knife on the normally never mind on New Years eve. A night when you are eant to be out celebrating and having fun you decide 'ohh I better bring a knife out with me'.

I couldunderstand if it was an incident that went horribly wrong saya fight and it broke out at the top of the stairs and he ended up falling and banging his head I suppose that is manslaughter but to leave the house with a knife shows insights to one personality and shows the were out for trouble before they left the house. No doubt though when it goes to court they will claim they were out their heads on drink and drugs and the 4 men that commited this murder will each blame each other.

 

[ViolentPanda]

No need for insults.

And I stand by my earlier post completely.

Giles..

I didn't insult you, Giles. I called you what, by expressing such disgusting views, you've shown yourself to be. An idiot, a dickhead and much more.

The views you expressed are the same as those of the people who liquidated most of my great-grandmother's extended family in Ukraine (for the heinous crime of "being different", being Jews), and those people started off their programme the same way, sterilising "undesirables".

You stand by your post, I stand by my analysis of you. You're a sack of shit who has expressed support for eugenics.

Oh, and feel free to report my post if it offends your delicate sensibilities.

 

[Giles]

I didn't insult you, Giles. I called you what, by expressing such disgusting views, you've shown yourself to be. An idiot, a dickhead and much more.

The views you expressed are the same as those of the people who liquidated most of my great-grandmother's extended family in Ukraine (for the heinous crime of "being different", being Jews), and those people started off their programme the same way, sterilising "undesirables".

You stand by your post, I stand by my analysis of you. You're a sack of shit who has expressed support for eugenics.

Oh, and feel free to report my post if it offends your delicate sensibilities.

I was just expressing my opinion as to what should be done with a bunch of sadistic murderers, not supporting the Holocaust.

Don't you think that you are over-reacting a bit here?

You don't have to agree with my opinion over this, but there is still no need to resort to personal insults. I don't, even when I disagree with someone.

Giles..

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

cathal marcs

Very sorry for what happened to you. Hope your mate is at peace and you find some too.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

Giles

As I say, your points were lost in the exagerated hyperbole of how they were presented.

As it happens the idea of killing killers for killing is a thorough contradiction.
If killing is so bad then the last thing we should allow is the state to do it.

These arguments have been tossed back and forth ad nauseum for generations. Lets not get into it too much now. It's way off topic for one thing.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I was just expressing my opinion as to what should be done with a bunch of sadistic murderers, not supporting the Holocaust.

Read it again, I haven't claimed you support or have supported the Holocaust.

Have a bit of self-respect and try harder.

Don't you think that you are over-reacting a bit here?

Over-reacting? Nope.

You expressed the view that "These people are worthless scum and I think that they should be removed from the gene pool to ensure that they don't breed.".
Now, as I actually said (rather than you fondly believe that I said) in my last post in reply to you, your views are the same as those whose programme ended in the mass murder of European Jewry, a programme that started with the euthanising of "undesirables"., you then, in a reply to someone else, showed your hand with your contemptible comment "and will then probably proceed to have unnecessary babies, further adding to Britain's ever-growing pikey scum heap.".
Way to go, tiger. You support eugenics and have a thoroughly disgusting line in prejudice.

You don't have to agree with my opinion over this, but there is still no need to resort to personal insults. I don't, even when I disagree with someone.

What part of "I didn't insult you, Giles. I called you what, by expressing such disgusting views, you've shown yourself to be. An idiot, a dickhead and much more." don't you understand?
Believe me, if I'd insulted you, you would know about it.

 

[Giles]

Read it again, I haven't claimed you support or have supported the Holocaust.

Have a bit of self-respect and try harder.


Over-reacting? Nope.

You expressed the view that "These people are worthless scum and I think that they should be removed from the gene pool to ensure that they don't breed.".
Now, as I actually said (rather than you fondly believe that I said) in my last post in reply to you, your views are the same as those whose programme ended in the mass murder of European Jewry, a programme that started with the euthanising of "undesirables"., you then, in a reply to someone else, showed your hand with your contemptible comment "and will then probably proceed to have unnecessary babies, further adding to Britain's ever-growing pikey scum heap.".
Way to go, tiger. You support eugenics and have a thoroughly disgusting line in prejudice.

What part of "I didn't insult you, Giles. I called you what, by expressing such disgusting views, you've shown yourself to be. An idiot, a dickhead and much more." don't you understand?
Believe me, if I'd insulted you, you would know about it.

Well, I'm sorry, but that's what I think of these individuals, honestly. If that is "prejudice" then so be it. I'm prejudiced against murdering scumbag wasters. I'm sure that I am not the only one.

If you don't like it, then that's your right. But I'm not saying to you "because I don't agree with your view on something, therefore you are a dickhead" am I?

And re your last comment, sticks and stones.....

Giles..

 

[Isambard]

Giles, you ever visited a concentration camp memorial site?

 

[Giles]

Giles, you ever visited a concentration camp memorial site?

Yes.

Giles..

 

[Isambard]

I'm surprised you view other human beings the way you do then.

 

[TAE]

you are aren't you - you're reading my pists before I post

</paranoia>

 

[Giles]

I'm surprised you view other human beings the way you do then.

Not human beings in general.

Just this lot of sadistic murderers.

And those members of their families, who had to be restrained by the police after the trial from threatening and attacking the father of their poor victim.

Giles..

 

[ViolentPanda]

Not human beings in general.

Just this lot of sadistic murderers.

And those members of their families, who had to be restrained by the police after the trial from threatening and attacking the father of their poor victim.

Giles..

To paraphrase Pastor Niemoller;

"First they came for the sadistic murderers..."

Once you legislate to euthanise or sterilise one group of people, do you really think it'll stop there?
How long before it's sex offenders, thieves or people who just piss you off?

FFS.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,1700492,00.html

They beat and strangled their granny. Manslaughter. 9 years, probably out in 5. Great.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

First question: How can strangling someone not be an intent to cause GBH or murder?

2nd question: Why were they given a 7 1/2 year basic sentence for robbery and 9 for killing someone? Is it because property is almost as important as life in the eyes of the (essentially capitalist) law?

3rd question: This case again features the nonsense of concurrent sentences.
In essence this concept is saying "If you do 2 bad things you will only be punished for one of them". Perhaps there is a case for this practice, I just wish there was more honesty about how slack and useless the law is.

 

[detective-boy]

First question: How can strangling someone not be an intent to cause GBH or murder?

2nd question: Why were they given a 7 1/2 year basic sentence for robbery and 9 for killing someone? Is it because property is almost as important as life in the eyes of the (essentially capitalist) law?

3rd question: This case again features the nonsense of concurrent sentences.
In essence this concept is saying "If you do 2 bad things you will only be punished for one of them". Perhaps there is a case for this practice, I just wish there was more honesty about how slack and useless the law is.

1. I don't know how it was argued in this case but I have heard defendants say they strangled someone just to render them unconscious (which is not GBH per se) in other cases. They may also have argued the diminished responsibility route to a manslaughter conviction in which case their mental state would be of central relevance.

2. Robbery is an offence involving violence. As such it is primarily an assault with a theft attached. The maximum penalty is life. So I think your suggestion is probably wrong.

3. Concurrent sentences have existed for many, many years. In effect when there are several charges involved in the same incident, the judges decide on what the overall sentence should be and use concurrent and/or consecutive sentences to achieve that. Where there are several incidents giving rise to the different charges it is far more common for consecutive sentences to be used (e.g. strings of burglaries or robberies on different occasions). There is a deliberate attempt to avoid the US of A system where people are sentenced to 327 years or whatever (despite the increasing efforts of our tabloid media to report sentences in that format).

I haven't got your problem with the sentencing system, but I do think the sentences are too short, being in mind the nature of the offence and the comments made by the judge (despicable, etc.)