Today I'm angry about.....

[thebish]

The attacker sounds like a serious thug, but there aren't many who get 4 years for throwing one punch.

Shirley it's the result of the action rather than the action itself and the apparent piss-poor sentencing that requires dragging under the light here, no?

emotionally that might be true - but it's not how the law works... intention is a key factor, like it or not...

[Bruce Rioja]

The attacker sounds like a serious thug, but there aren't many who get 4 years for throwing one punch.

Shirley it's the result of the action rather than the action itself and the apparent piss-poor sentencing that requires dragging under the light here, no?

emotionally that might be true - but it's not how the law works... intention is a key factor, like it or not...

But what is the intention of someone that walks up to a complete stranger, fists clenched, clocking them one as hard as they can and then running off? He may not have intended to kill him but he has done. Four years? The law's a fecking ass!

[thebish]

The attacker sounds like a serious thug, but there aren't many who get 4 years for throwing one punch.

Shirley it's the result of the action rather than the action itself and the apparent piss-poor sentencing that requires dragging under the light here, no?

emotionally that might be true - but it's not how the law works... intention is a key factor, like it or not...

But what is the intention of someone that walks up to a complete stranger, fists clenched, clocking them one as hard as they can and then running off? He may not have intended to kill him but he has done. Four years? The law's a fecking ass!

indeed - tragic - but hard to say his intention was to kill him... you might forget to have your brakes serviced and kill an entire family at a pedestrian crossing - I doubt you'd get 4 years in prison... it wouldn't have been your intention - but it might be the consequence...

[Bruce Rioja]

Not a great comparison if I might say so, Bish, though I take your point in terms of end result. However, if you walk up to someone and smack them one then the intention can hardly be compared with the that of someone that didn't intend any ill upon anyone in the first place.
I don't know if you heard about it but a guy from Hunger Hill was killed in the Town Hall Square a few weeks ago having also been punched once. Are you saying that if someone's stabs or shoots someone and unintentionally kills them that they too should receive a four year sentence?

[thebish]

Not a great comparison if I might say so, Bish, though I take your point in terms of end result. However, if you walk up to someone and smack them one then the intention can hardly be compared with the that of someone that didn't intend any ill upon anyone in the first place.
I don't know if you heard about it but a guy from Hunger Hill was killed in the Town Hall Square a few weeks ago having also been punched once. Are you saying that if someone's stabs or shoots someone and unintentionally kills them that they too should receive a four year sentence?

no - but I AM saying that it is far from easy to demonstrate that the intention was death following from a single punch.

it's no less tragic - but British Law takes intention into account at a high level in order to convict someone for murder... that's what is going on here. he has been convicted of a lesser crime than murder... each case is decided on its individual merits - so i couldn't possibly answer a generic question involving stabbing or shooting... (nor have I had any legal training!)

to convict this sickening thug a murderer would take a huge change in the way British justice is done and has been done for many years...

[Bruce Rioja]

And I'm saying that the law is wrong and requires changing regardless of how many years it's been done this way for. I'm sure that it wasn't the intention of the dealer to kill two young adults from Farnworth a few weeks ago with whatever 'recreational drugs' it was that he sold to them. In that case the two deceased entered into the deal of course, however, I'll be mightily surprised if the dealer get's anything like four years or less.
I just don't see punishment fitting the crime here. A guy, through no fault of his own has lost his life, and whereas I certainly done condone hanging or any of that barbarity, to think that the perpetrator will be out in a few years just doesn't stack up for me.

[Prufrock]

The end result is 'factored' in, not in terms of whether he is guilty of the crime he is charged with, but what crime it is that he is in fact charged with, if that makes sense. If he'd hit the guy and he'd got up, he wouldn't have got anywhere near four years.

I agree emotionally it seems off, but I think this is nearer the mark than the death by careless or dangerous driving cases that get months or a couple of years as the tariff, and parole very quickly.

I do think that the 'punishment' element of sentencing for violent crime is not given enough weight in a lot of cases.

[thebish]

And I'm saying that the law is wrong and requires changing regardless of how many years it's been done this way for. I'm sure that it wasn't the intention of the dealer to kill two young adults from Farnworth a few weeks ago with whatever 'recreational drugs' it was that he sold to them. In that case the two deceased entered into the deal of course, however, I'll be mightily surprised if the dealer get's anything like four years or less.
I just don't see punishment fitting the crime here. A guy, through no fault of his own has lost his life, and whereas I certainly done condone hanging or any of that barbarity, to think that the perpetrator will be out in a few years just doesn't stack up for me.

emotionally i agree - it seems off... but i also don't really see how in actual practical terms you could "justly" change the law to make it do what you want it to do...

[Il Pirate]

Assuming the guy was charged with Assault Ocassioning Actual Bodily Harm, (ABH); there are many factors involved which a sentencing judge has to take into account before sentencing. It is never a case of 'that's the crime, so the sentence is..' Unless the crime is murder of course, & the sentence is always life. Even then the Judge can and often does, set a tariff of x number of years. Factors include the seriousness of harm and culpability, any aggravating factors in the assault. Alternatively, factors which reduce seriousness are also taken into consideration prior to sentencing. There are also statutory limits a sentencer must take into account when sentencing. The statutory limit for the offence of AOABH is set at a maximum of 5 years. One could argue was it ABH or manslaughter? I don't know, I'm just trying to clear up any confusion re the sentence.
Although non of this is any comfort to the victims family, and never is.

Apologies, I've just seen the original post which says he pleaded guilty to manslaughter. (Involuntary manslaughter I would guess); however, the statutory limit for this is life imprisonment. It very rarely is though.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

The attacker sounds like a serious thug, but there aren't many who get 4 years for throwing one punch.

Or for killing someone?

Yes but he didn't intend to kill him.

I could lob a banana skin at you, only for you to slip, hit your head on a kerb and die, and you wouldn't think I was all that guilty in terms of the intentions I had formed.

People throwing random punches should be dealt with severely, but it's not obvious to me why one punch thrower should be treated differently from the next, in terms of the criminal law, because fortune produced a freakishly different outcome from the same actions.

By all means treat the 'lucky' punch thrower more severely, precisely because random violence can have horrendous consequences.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

The feckin BBC again

US factory aeriels show balls of flame

what he actually meant was:
Aerial shots of US factory show balls of flame.

So, the BBC are now employing nouns instead of adjectives, and adjectives are being incorrectly deployed giving readers the wrong sense that they are being used as nouns! Tosspots.

[mrkint]

It must be made to fit on one line!

[Lost Leopard Spot]

It must be made to fit on one line!

In that case

them: US factory ariels show balls of flame
me: Aerial shots show US factory balls of flame

to the BBC

[mrkint]

you've still used loads more characters though! you can't let proper grammar get in the way of a good headline, spotswood.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

but, but... *splutter*

[malcd1]

The attacker sounds like a serious thug, but there aren't many who get 4 years for throwing one punch.

Or for killing someone?

Yes but he didn't intend to kill him.

I could lob a banana skin at you, only for you to slip, hit your head on a kerb and die, and you wouldn't think I was all that guilty in terms of the intentions I had formed.

People throwing random punches should be dealt with severely, but it's not obvious to me why one punch thrower should be treated differently from the next, in terms of the criminal law, because fortune produced a freakishly different outcome from the same actions.

By all means treat the 'lucky' punch thrower more severely, precisely because random violence can have horrendous consequences.

I know what you are saying Mummy. I just don't agree with the sentence. There was real intent to seriously hurt this lad. He may not have intended to kill him but if you run up and smash someone in the face as hard as you can and he dies, you should be done for manslaughter. This was not a fight between two people. He just decided to punch a total stranger in the face.

Someone mentioned above about killing someone while dangerous or careless driving. I would prefer to compare this offence to causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink. You are better placed to tell me Mummy but I think the penalty is up to 14 years in prison. I think this is much more in line with this case and the courts (or law) should not be so lenient.

[thebish]

The feckin BBC again

US factory aeriels show balls of flame

what he actually meant was:
Aerial shots of US factory show balls of flame.

"Goodness, gracious, great balls of fire!" surely??

[Lost Leopard Spot]

The feckin BBC again

US factory aeriels show balls of flame

what he actually meant was:
Aerial shots of US factory show balls of flame.

"Goodness, gracious, great balls of fire!" surely??

That would be good...

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

I know what you are saying Mummy. I just don't agree with the sentence. There was real intent to seriously hurt this lad. He may not have intended to kill him but if you run up and smash someone in the face as hard as you can and he dies, you should be done for manslaughter. This was not a fight between two people. He just decided to punch a total stranger in the face.

Someone mentioned above about killing someone while dangerous or careless driving. I would prefer to compare this offence to causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink. You are better placed to tell me Mummy but I think the penalty is up to 14 years in prison. I think this is much more in line with this case and the courts (or law) should not be so lenient.

My basic premise is that whether or not the victim gets up doesn't actually change the culpability of the attacker.

I guess the difference between this and the driving offences is that handling a car dangerously is inherently likely to result in a death - I don't belive the same can be said of throwing a single punch, even in the odd circumstances here.

[Il Pirate]

He may not have intended to kill him but if you run up and smash someone in the face as hard as you can and he dies, you should be done for manslaughter.


He was................