Er no - the courts decide what is murder and what is not. That's what they are for. Are you suggesting that if I pull your hair lightly, and you fall and die, that it was murder?
M
Handyman jailed for planting child porn on boss's computer
- Thread starter Rainmaker
- Start date
Er no - the courts decide what is murder and what is not. That's what they are for. Are you suggesting that if I pull your hair lightly, and you fall and die, that it was murder?
M
Why do you keep coming out with these straw men?
It's established in law that the intention to commit GBH constitutes murder, ergo stabbing someone with a knife without provocation is murder. Doesn't matter what the courts decide, it is murder going by the legislation and the common sense approach, therefore I shall consider it murder along with every sane person and find that the judicial system is completely flawed in handing out 4 year murder sentences.
How on earth was that a straw man? You said any deliberate attack resulting in death was murder, and I gave you an example where that clearly wasn't true. And the intention to commit GBH does not mean it was murder if the person dies either, if the intention was ONLY to commit GBH. For it to be murder you must be reckless as to whether the victim dies, and a reasonable person must be able to see that death might be a reasonable possibility of your planned act. This is why it left to the courts, not people on bulletin boards.
M
Last edited:
Maybe it's a just a different definition on an attack, but I wouldn't consider hair pulling to be an "attack" in the same way that stabbing someone is.
The cases I mentioned satisfied all those conditions and thus were murder. The fact that the courts were blind to the facts shows their fallibility.
UK laws are among the most inconsistent I've ever seen, nothing surprises me any more. The extreme pornography laws are even worse, illegal to posses the images but the act itself is completely legal, so in effect it encourages people to do these things. The worse the action is the lighter the sentence.
You don't understand how the law or the judiciary work. Nice graphs by the way thou.
The reason those light crimes have such harsh sentences is to serve as a deterrent. Before you do them, you will think twice.
Argueably most of us would commit fraud given the chances if it netted you atleast 100 thousand pounds. There's lots of youth or organized gangs who rob corner stores or houses, just like there's lots of men who might be tempted to just rape a drunk woman on a Saturday night with the hope he won't get caught as she'll be too drunk to identify him (which btw, happens a lot).
Harsh sentences serve as a deterrent to society, to think twice before committing a crime. Let's be honest, if someone is mad/angry/sociopathic enough to kill someone, they don't care if it's going to get them 5, 10 or 25 years, they are going to do it because they don't care. Most of us thou, would think twice before robbing a house because we know we'll get 7 years and a 50in TV and some jewelry is probably not worth it
I don't think you understand the purpose of the judicial system, which is justice. Releasing a dangerous person after a few years so they kill again is not good sentencing.
Yes, but none of them were punished on the basis of the harm done to the victims (they were punished for wasting police resources) and that harm was either not mentioned or downplayed as at best the 3rd most important harm (behind wasting police resources and making it less likely that everyone automatically believes every man accused of rape is guilty).
Do you really think that the average sentence for murder in the UK is about 4 years? Bear in mind that murder carries a mandatory life sentence in the UK.
We already covered that one: he is using his own personal definition of murder, rather than the legal one. Can't wait to see his definition of rape.
M
So he's just abusing words to falsely create support for an untrue argument.
No I'm using the legal definition of murder, which the courts have not been doing.
You really are quibbling over semantics here, the fact is people get a few years for stabbing someone to death without provocation which is clearly disproportionately low, which is the point I am making.
Last edited:
And I don't think you understand how the judicial system works and the various theories of punishment. The courts aren't always interested in making sure people spend their lives in a cell. They are also interested in rehabilitating offenders, using them as examples to deter others from committing the same crime (like this guy who got 12 years), and then also the use of restraining orders or house arrest, to prevent an individual from committing a crime a second time with very harsh consequences if they do. Then there's the retributive theory which is obviously the only one you believe in and that someone's hand should be cut off if they steal a loaf of bread.
Oh and by the way, murderers, if found guilty and convicted, can be sentenced to 25 years in jail without a chance of parole. In very very few cases which are the ones the media reports and the ones you read on the daily mail then they will get less then that. But you don't know the whole circumstances or what happened, judges are expected to impartially access every individual circumstance and to provide justice by giving a fair sentence. This makes the system of precedent unpredictable yes, but it wouldn't be fair that a 40 year old man with a good job who found his wife cheating on him after coming home from work gets the same sentence as the sociopath that killed 2 children.
If you're going to build an opinion on legal issues then pick up a copy of the Law Journal and stop reading tabloids.
Don't presume, it doesn't reflect well on you, especially when you're wrong. I'm interested in what's best for the public, which isn't allowing killers onto the streets.
Again you (wrongly) presume the source. A few years is never a fair sentence in a killing such as this.
Then please provide full details of the case. What's best for the public is exactly rehabilitation, deterrence and incapacitation. Only when all of those fail the need for retribution arises. Prevention is always the best form of medicine.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-10823092
Prevention is exactly what imprisonment does, no other approach is as effective at preventing a person committing crime.
Do you want to think that through a bit? Are you telling me that you know the law better than the courts? And out of interest: what is your definition of murder? This is the classic:
There used to be a bit about "a year and a day" of course, but that was abolished. And also of course, it;s a lot more complicated than that in real world - which I think is the bit that upsets you.
M
I would hazard a guess the defence would have argued that this was done "in the heat of the moment"
Do I agree in this case ? No, but there are stated cases where a charge of murder has been reduced e.g. a husband finding his wife in bed with her lover and killing him and his wife.
In France its called a crime of passion. I know this is the UK but that's seen as a valid mitigating circumstance.
Last edited:
Murder is a crime at common law and is committed when a person kills another without necessary cause and where there is either:
a) An intention to kill OR
b) a wilful act so reckless as to show utter disregard for the consequences.