Eyes not spreadsheets
You get that anyway though.
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 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?
Oh, in my book its murder.. Having heard the details I can't see how its accidental..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.
Yeah, manslaughter would be what we're talking about, or negligence causing death. You accidentally kill someone in a fight like this...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)
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.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.
But four people on one isn't a fight.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.
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.andyc said:But four people on one isn't a fight.
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?"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.
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..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?"
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.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.
On the other hand if (in a perfect world though) if they never comitted the crime then they wouldn't bee in this situation.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.