• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

RIP Lloyd Fouracre

Langeveldt

Soutie
Well just been to put some flowers down, its all pretty horrific, loads of teenagers crying their eyes out around town today..

Word has it that all four suspects were on ASBO's and were in the area specifically to beat someone up from that party, and Lloyd happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time..

Twelve and a half years is the likely figure being banded around.. Although its somewhat insensitive to be discussing it at the moment, isn't that just sick?
 

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
Langeveldt said:
Twelve and a half years is the likely figure being banded around.. Although its somewhat insensitive to be discussing it at the moment, isn't that just sick?
Why? 12 and a half years is really quite a lengthy sentence for what I assume (without knowing the specifics of the story of course) would be classed as an accidental death resulting from a fight.
 

Langeveldt

Soutie
FaaipDeOiad said:
Why? 12 and a half years is really quite a lengthy sentence for what I assume (without knowing the specifics of the story of course) would be classed as an accidental death resulting from a fight.
Oh, in my book its murder.. Having heard the details I can't see how its accidental..

I guess I'm no hotshot when it comes to legal terminology, but how can you "accidentaly" kill someone in a fight? Surely the only accidental route is manslaughter (which this obviously isn't)
 
Last edited:

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
Langeveldt said:
Oh, in my book its murder.. Having heard the details I can't see how its accidental..

I guess I'm no hotshot when it comes to legal terminology, but how can you "accidentaly" kill someone in a fight? Surely the only accidental route is manslaughter (which this obviously isn't)
Yeah, manslaughter would be what we're talking about, or negligence causing death. You accidentally kill someone in a fight like this...

I'm in a fight with you, punch you, and you fall down and hit your head on the ground and die. My intent was not to kill you, nor was it premeditated assuming the fight was a spontaneous thing, which pretty much fills out a textbook manslaughter case. The intent has to be put through the reasonable person test as well, which basically means that if a reasonable person in the same situation would have expected the victim to die, it might indeed be murder. So, if I pummelled you about the head with a crowbar for 15 minutes, I probably should have realised you might die, but if I just pushed you over I probably wouldn't have.

That's basically what it comes down to, and without knowing the specifics of the case it's impossible to say, but if it was indeed a spontaneous fight and the death couldn't have been reasonably expected by what the perpetrator did, manslaughter seems fair enough and 12 and a half years is quite a tough penalty. All sorts of things will come into it including the brutality of the attack, whether or not weapons were used, how many people were involved and so on. Even if it is counted as un-premeditated murder, 12 and a half years is a fairly significant penalty, and I'd be surprised if anyone got a longer sentence than that for a similar crime in the past. You have to remember that the legal system has a responsibility not just to punish offenders, but to ensure that all offenders who commit comparable offences get comparable punishments. You can't just give someone a really tough penalty to make an example of them when it's twice as harsh as what someone in the same situation would normally get, as Australia found out recently with a particularly notorious gang rape case in NSW where the offenders got massive sentences in excess of 50 years, which have of course been hugely reduced on appeal.
 
Last edited:

Craig

World Traveller
But how long would they get out via parole (if the parole board let them out that is)?

One thing though is that I hope they don't give them a clean state and send them somewhere else to live with new names and details? What is the point in that? You do the crime and the time, everybody should no about and can see who the cowards are.
 

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
Craig said:
But how long would they get out via parole (if the parole board let them out that is)?

One thing though is that I hope they don't give them a clean state and send them somewhere else to live with new names and details? What is the point in that? You do the crime and the time, everybody should no about and can see who the cowards are.
I'm actually not certain how parole works in England... I assume there would be a non-parole period after which it would depend on the circumstances, as it usually does.

As far as publicising the names of former criminals, I entirely disagree. Let's assume someone commits a horrible crime, and the justice system determines that X number of years is a fair punishment. They spend that many years in prison, and come out reformed and interested in trying to piece their life back together. Why should they be forced to deal with vigilantes harassing them, employers refusing to employ them etc?

Prison has a purpose. That purpose is partly to punish and partly to keep dangerous elements away from society, but it's also designed to reform criminals. If it doesn't, there's no point in it at all. While we have a legal system based around the concept of reforming criminals, it's ludicrous to completely ruin the lives of ex-criminals who have done their time and been released from prison. They will already have probationary periods to deal with, probably terms of parole and so on, and if they ever commit a crime again their previous acts will count against them. That's more than enough, because if you release a former criminal from prison and simultaneously ruin any chance they might have of becoming decent, law-abiding citizens, there's no point in releasing them at all because they will almost certainly revert to criminal behaviour.
 

andyc

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
FaaipDeOiad said:
Why? 12 and a half years is really quite a lengthy sentence for what I assume (without knowing the specifics of the story of course) would be classed as an accidental death resulting from a fight.
But four people on one isn't a fight.
 

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
andyc said:
But four people on one isn't a fight.
It can be, depending on the circumstances. However, I think if it was just a normal one on one argument which developed into a fight and someone accidentally died, we'd be seeing much less than 12 and a half on the table. I know of cases like that in Australia where it was a total accident and people have got 2 years or so. Obviously this is a more serious offence.

12 and a half years is a large manslaughter sentence or a fairly average non pre-meditated murder sentence. Keep in mind the standard "life" sentence in Australia, which is usually reserved for particularly brutal pre-meditated murders is 25 years. 12 and a half for a crime in which the intent was probably not to cause death is not an insignificant punishment. Whether or not it ends up as something like that probably depends on the details as it comes out, but I gather all we are talking about here is initial estimations, and 12.5 isn't an especially low one. Either way, it's definately too early to judge. I think there'll probably be a fair amount of media pressure if it's a high profile case, which often results in an unusually harsh sentence which will probably come down on appeal, and then people will start railing against the appeals court etc for being too lenient, as with the rape case I mentioned in Australia. It makes much more sense to give a sensible punishment in the first place.
 

Slow Love™

International Captain
I don't know much about this case, it sounds quite sad. I have no idea whether it's alcohol-related or not.

But while the roots of a lot of violent behaviour will certainly be largely social, this doesn't mean, as Faaip put it, that alcohol is an excuse and never an instigator of violent behaviour.

I also don't think it's true to say that alcohol doesn't make people do something they wouldn't do otherwise. While there are certainly those without a violent bone in their body who will never exhibit much capacity for violence, drunk or sober, there are plenty of people out there who are completely non-violent when not intoxicated, whose behaviour changes quite radically with heavy drinking. (I would also say that if you think drinking won't make you do a variety of things you ordinarily wouldn't, you clearly haven't gotten blotto enough to properly test this scenario. 8-)).

Yes, it can be argued that if violence occurs, some tendency is already there for violent behaviour - that's obvious. But it's not very useful (or practical) to point this out when alcohol lowers inhibitions and controls enough to bring that kind of behaviour to the surface in otherwise non-violent people.

For this reason, policing consumption of alcohol and educating people as to responsible use is one important part of dealing with teen/adolescent street violence in particular. And these problems are definitely frequently associated (which is not to imply that violence only occurs with alcohol).

Aside from this, violent crimes for the sake of sheer enjoyment of violence (which, from what Langeveldt said, seems to be the case here) has to be one of the least forgivable crimes. The only mitigating factor here is the ages of the perpetrators - there's a difference between committing such a crime as a juvenile, and committing it as a developed adult (which tends to be rarer). Other than that, I have very little sympathy for a perpetrator of a violent act that gets 10 years plus in prison, for beating somebody to death as a leisure activity. Having said this, you'd be lucky to get this much of a sentence in general, so I wouldn't go around complaining that it's too light.

The solutions (or at least, ways in which these kinds of crimes can be reduced) to this behaviour IMO have less to do with pop culture (which most definitely includes film, tv and music as well as sport) than with having meaningful roles for adolescents/teens in society and unhealthy age seperation at schools. And in many cases, a culture of over-consumption of alcohol.
 

Slow Love™

International Captain
PommieMacGill said:
I suspect the reason the "Europeans" do not have societal problems, despite having 24 hour drinking and more relaxed licensing laws, is because their societies are in total far more cultured and respectable than ours. They most certainly do not have hordes of teenage chavs who consider it fun to fight, having fuelled themselves on ****tails of drink and drugs.
LOL. Dunno about that, mate. There are serious problems of street violence/drunkenness etc throughout Europe, as far as I know. There is definitely a lot of talk concerning the problem in Switzerland, Germany and the Netherlands. And that's without mentioning all the soccer hooliganism. Somewhat hilariously, a lot of people in the US, in lamenting their youth street-crime problems, say "why can't we be more like Britain?"
 

Langeveldt

Soutie
Slow Love™ said:
, a lot of people in the US, in lamenting their youth street-crime problems, say "why can't we be more like Britain?"
Haha! Mind you, its not entirely bad here, at least we dont have much of a gun/school problem, but drunken violence is simply everywhere..

I'd say the aspiration should be on cities like Stockholm, Tokyo, Dubai, Helsinki etc. Would feel safer walking around there at night than I would in the day here
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
In view of this event, it's just dawned on me that we had a similar case in Warwick about 18 months ago.

A lone lad was set upon by 3 other lads, who ran off and left him for dead. Fortunately after being in a coma for 3 weeks, he came through.

The 3 were caught and are currently serving 14 years for attempted murder.

As far as I can remember there were no weapons involved in that case.
 

Langeveldt

Soutie
I'm not sure about weapons, the girlfriend says they used a metal spike/pole, but this hasn't been mentioned in any of the papers..

Quite glad I went to the right party, If I hadnt passed my test I would have been walking back from the one in question :mellow:
 

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
marc71178 said:
In view of this event, it's just dawned on me that we had a similar case in Warwick about 18 months ago.

A lone lad was set upon by 3 other lads, who ran off and left him for dead. Fortunately after being in a coma for 3 weeks, he came through.

The 3 were caught and are currently serving 14 years for attempted murder.

As far as I can remember there were no weapons involved in that case.
Well obviously, if they were convicted of attempted murder then intent was proven. If intent is proven in this case (ie: the four people who committed the assault planned to kill the victim and did it on purpose) then obviously the crime is murder and there's no question about it.
 

Craig

World Traveller
FaaipDeOiad said:
I'm actually not certain how parole works in England... I assume there would be a non-parole period after which it would depend on the circumstances, as it usually does.

As far as publicising the names of former criminals, I entirely disagree. Let's assume someone commits a horrible crime, and the justice system determines that X number of years is a fair punishment. They spend that many years in prison, and come out reformed and interested in trying to piece their life back together. Why should they be forced to deal with vigilantes harassing them, employers refusing to employ them etc?

Prison has a purpose. That purpose is partly to punish and partly to keep dangerous elements away from society, but it's also designed to reform criminals. If it doesn't, there's no point in it at all. While we have a legal system based around the concept of reforming criminals, it's ludicrous to completely ruin the lives of ex-criminals who have done their time and been released from prison. They will already have probationary periods to deal with, probably terms of parole and so on, and if they ever commit a crime again their previous acts will count against them. That's more than enough, because if you release a former criminal from prison and simultaneously ruin any chance they might have of becoming decent, law-abiding citizens, there's no point in releasing them at all because they will almost certainly revert to criminal behaviour.
On the other hand if (in a perfect world though) if they never comitted the crime then they wouldn't bee in this situation.

What my post was directed at the rights of the victims who have suffered from some of these crims who didn't take their rights into hand - the right to have a good time, go to a party and not end up in a wodden box six feet under the ground (in this case), and yet it comes out as they have more rights then the victim or the victims family who have to suffer through this throughout the rest of their lives.

Anyway I will post more latter when I think more of the subject but is this the norm in England?
 

Top