Justice done?

The difficulty is should you bear in mind frailty when determining sentences.

As in if someone, for a laugh, throws icy-water over someone random in the street who gets soaked, what should their jail sentence be? 30 years? Hanging?

No? Well what about if totally unexpectedly it turns out the victim has a heart-murmur and other problems the water-thrower had no idea about, has a massive heart attack because of the sudden drop in body temperature, and dies?

Basically do we really want 'raw luck' at the heart of our judicial system? Do we really want to 'let off' thugs if they happen to fluke upon victims that don't die?

Its not raw luck though is it. You keep providing scenarios where there is a ten million to one chance of the outcome being death. Hitting someone randomly is going to hurt them. I bet I could hurt someone in the UFC if I just run up behind them and whacked them as hard as I could, if they knew I was coming it wouldnt go so well for me.

As you said though, if they are frail then they are more easily hurt. Ergo you should be extra extra careful around the elderly. I wouldnt hit a hockey ball at an old man as hard as I would a young lad with quick reactions. We dont treat everyone the same.

If you hit someone without knowing if they are elderly or not then you are twice as likely to really hurt them. What if it was a kid of 10 or 11 they did it to. Could have resulted in the same outcome.
 
what is morgan freemans character in jail for, in the shawshank redemption?

I think it's beating someone to death, when drunk, when - like - 15 years old. Even Morgan can hardly remember the details ..


In the film the character is uber-passive and about 60 years old and is basically never going to hurt anyone. He's being held for 'revenge' purposes, even though he was completely broken (in fact institutionalised) and kind of couldn't remember not being in prison. It was effectively the whole of his life .. he didn't know life outside of the walls, so of course relatively wasn't being taught a lesson at all .. that all finished years ago ..

I think it was a play by the director on the stupidity of keeping the character there for his whole life just for some mistaken sense of revenge ... as nothing was any more being achieved it was just costing money and morgans life for no gain to anyone any more.. if that makes sense ..
 
Last edited:
"The CPS really need to buck up their ideas because people are getting away with murder. My father died. It's a disgrace"

pretty much says it all, and the police 'claim' they are doing something about this sort of behaviour, theyv just printed a license to kill for those wannabe gang members out there.

No one is getting away with murder. They're being punished for manslaughter. Yay hyperbole... Still seems a bit on the low side though.
 
Quite a bit of police bashing, they have no involvement in sentencing. Thats the courts job.

The police did their job and caughts these scum. CPS went soft.
 
I think it's beating someone to death, when drunk, when - like - 15 years old. Even Morgan can hardly remember the details ..


In the film the character is uber-passive and about 60 years old and is basically never going to hurt anyone. He's being held for 'revenge' purposes, even though he was completely broken (in fact institutionalised) and kind of couldn't remember not being in prison. It was effectively the whole of his life .. he didn't know life outside of the walls, so of course relatively wasn't being taught a lesson at all .. that all finished years ago ..

I think it was a play by the director on the stupidity of keeping the character there for his whole life just for some mistaken sense of revenge ... as nothing was any more being achieved it was just costing money and morgans life for no gain to anyone any more.. if that makes sense ..

i could be wrong but i don't remember red's reason for being inside ever being disclosed. though i suppose your point still stands
 
That is nothing like what happened though in this instance!

I meant the severity of the crime and someone being brutally attacked.

The CPS should have learnt from previous cases, manslaughter is a lot of crap. There is no such thing as happy slapping gone wrong.

Its like when them two lads thought it would be fun to pour fuel on the tramp and burned him.
 
I meant the severity of the crime and someone being brutally attacked.

The CPS should have learnt from previous cases, manslaughter is a lot of crap. There is no such thing as happy slapping gone wrong.

Its like when them two lads thought it would be fun to pour fuel on the tramp and burned him.

Nobody has been convicted of his murder though?
 
Well let's wait until all the facts in before we pass judgment on these lads. Doesn't look like they meant to kill him, they were just having a laugh. Boys will be boys. I'm sure we've all done silly stuff like that when we were kids. Is it really fair to ruin two boys lifes because of a freak accident from this old man having dodgy health?

You're as bad as them in my eyes
 
No one is getting away with murder. They're being punished for manslaughter. Yay hyperbole... Still seems a bit on the low side though.

3-4 years is what you would expect for manslaughter by provocation, say if you took revenge on someone who just killed your dog. Not committing a random assault on an innocent bystander. Considering there was an intent to harm I don't see how they weren't convicted of murder personally.
 
6ci8x.jpg.png
 
I'd personally kill them myself if that was done to someone close to me and I was in the same spot.

I don't care if I get jailed for 3-4 years for it :p
As I'll truly feel that justice has been served, that is all.

This.

If they did that to my father or whoever, I would kill them myself safe in the knowledge I had dealt real justice and would only get 5 or so years. In my eyes it would be worth it.
 
Back
Top Bottom