Manslaughter, murder and death

Shackley · 22 Jun 2007 at 22:48

Two teenagers have been detained for killing an artist in a so-called "happy slapping" attack.
. . .
Mr Justice Irwin, sentencing the boys, said: "You two killed Peter Ramsey by hitting him. "You did not intend to do that or to cause him really serious harm, that is the distinction between manslaughter and murder, but you killed him nonetheless. "The event was made worse by an intention to record the attack on the telephone as if to boast of it rather than to be ashamed of it." BBC Link

But the 13 & 15 year old boys may not be immigrants, so that is all right then :rolleyes:

starscream · 22 Jun 2007 at 22:50

Shackley said:
But the 13 & 15 year old boys may not be immigrants, so that is all right then

Perhaps they are black though?

Azagoth · 22 Jun 2007 at 22:52

Just goes to show what cretins inhabit the halls of Justice in this Country! Of course it's murder, they went out with the intention of causing harm which resulted in a guy's death. In my books that's murder.

Greenlizard0 · 22 Jun 2007 at 22:52

Not sure I understand the two comments above mine?

cymatty · 22 Jun 2007 at 23:02

The eldest boy could be eligible for release on licence in about 10 months after he was told he would serve 18 months of a three-year sentence minus 250 days already served. The younger boy will be eligible for release on licence in about eight months after he was detained for two-and-a-half years and told he would serve at least 15 months minus 233 days already served.

What a joke.

malfunkshun · 22 Jun 2007 at 23:08

Azagoth said:
Just goes to show what cretins inhabit the halls of Justice in this Country! Of course it's murder, they went out with the intention of causing harm which resulted in a guy's death. In my books that's murder.

But it isnt murder, killing someone when you had intended to cause harm is manslaughter. Murder is killing someone when you had intended to kill them afaik

[TW]Fox · 22 Jun 2007 at 23:11

It's not murder, regardless of what you guys think. There was no intention to kill, only wound, thus, its manslaughter.

cymatty · 22 Jun 2007 at 23:13

[TW]Fox said:
It's not murder, regardless of what you guys think. There was no intention to kill, only wound, thus, its manslaughter.

I agree but the punishment is a joke

Vonhelmet · 22 Jun 2007 at 23:13

It's manslaughter. As has been said, there was not the intent to kill that you have with murder. Although I almost think it's worse to be honest, as it's wanton. At least with a proper murder you have a comprehensible motive. Hmm.

Sucks that they'll get such short sentences, but there really isn't much that can be done.

Nzyme · 22 Jun 2007 at 23:19

vonhelmet said:
Sucks that they'll get such short sentences, but there really isn't much that can be done.

Tie them up and let them swing tbh its the least they deserve

Vonhelmet · 22 Jun 2007 at 23:21

Nzyme said:
Tie them up and let them swing tbh its the least they deserve

Sorry, I assumed there would be the implication in my sentence that I meant nothing legal can be done.

Adz · 22 Jun 2007 at 23:22

As they're kids, they'll be given the chance to reform which is probably the right thing although none of us are qualified to make that distinction.

When I was 14/15 there were rumours of various gangs who would run up behind old ladies and hit them in the back. It still makes me cringe to this day as they weren't all rumours...

Nzyme · 22 Jun 2007 at 23:24

vonhelmet said:
Sorry, I assumed there would be the implication in my sentence that I meant nothing legal can be done.

hehe i know

Surfer · 22 Jun 2007 at 23:33

sick sick sick :mad:

ok isnt there a minimum term for manslaughter these days?? i accept that they didnt intend to kill him ( BUT they did intend to terrorise an innocent human being.... For what??? Absolutely no reason at all just for their own fun...UTTER SCUM)

murder = 30 years minimum term. Hard Labour + solitary confinement.
manslaughter = 7 years minimum term.

Thats the bare minimums i would have for these and its an utter travesty that the punishment never seems to fit the crime in these days...

*shakes head* :rolleyes:

EDIT: in fact **** that! our prison system does not work. Detaining people doesnt work. Holding them for a certain amount of time then releasing the scum back into society DOES NOT WORK. Why? because nothing has been done to them.

Chop their hands off. No more happy slappy then ehh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Seriously i would chop hands off for assaults, thieving (unless they have just cause ie they are starving etc) etc. For Rape convictions they get castrated. For murderers...they would join the happy ranks of being experimented upon for cancer treatments etc (ie they do good for society)

and then chuck them in the stocks in the city centre for people to throw whatever the hell they like at them. (the murderers and bombers etc go into the solitary confinement watching Prisoner cell block H on tv nonstop)

If someone willfully chooses to ignore the law and without just cause maliciously harms and attacks other human beings then they waive their rights to be treated as a civilized human being

why? because if they behave like animals they should be treated as such.

Sonea Fifer · 23 Jun 2007 at 00:05

Azagoth said:
Just goes to show what cretins inhabit the halls of Justice in this Country! Of course it's murder, they went out with the intention of causing harm which resulted in a guy's death. In my books that's murder.

Quite true - am sure the situation/verdict would have been very much different if the son/daughter of Mr Justice Irwin or Mr Justin Gau had been the victim in this case - sadly its yet another demostration of exactly how far out out touch our judge's actually are with life today.

Surfer said:
sick sick sick ok isnt there a minimum term for manslaughter these days?? i accept that they didnt intend to kill him ( BUT they did intend to terrorise an innocent human being.... For what??? Absolutely no reason at all just for their own fun...UTTER SCUM)

murder = 30 years minimum term. Hard Labour + solitary confinement.
manslaughter = 7 years minimum term.

Thats the bare minimums i would have for these and its an utter travesty that the punishment never seems to fit the crime in these days...

*shakes head*

EDIT: in fact **** that! our prison system does not work. Detaining people doesnt work. Holding them for a certain amount of time then releasing the scum back into society DOES NOT WORK. Why? because nothing has been done to them.

Chop their hands off. No more happy slappy then ehh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Seriously i would chop hands off for assaults, thieving (unless they have just cause ie they are starving etc) etc. For Rape convictions they get castrated. For murderers...they would join the happy ranks of being experimented upon for cancer treatments etc (ie they do good for society)

and then chuck them in the stocks in the city centre for people to throw whatever the hell they like at them. (the murderers and bombers etc go into the solitary confinement watching Prisoner cell block H on tv nonstop)

If someone willfully chooses to ignore the law and without just cause maliciously harms and attacks other human beings then they waive their rights to be treated as a civilized human being

why? because if they behave like animals they should be treated as such.

Sounds harsh to me - and thats exactly whats needed within the prosecution system today imo. Why is it a person sentenced for life for murder can back back out on the street in just a few years?

Life imprisonment should mean exactly that !

Glaucus · 23 Jun 2007 at 00:06

It should be murder :mad:

they intended to physically harm someone with no provocation, therefore it should be murder, just because that physical violence doesn't normally lead to death, it shouldn't matter.

[TW]Fox · 23 Jun 2007 at 00:07

AcidHell2 said:
It should be murder

No, really, it shouldn't, becuase it wasn't murder.

The sentances should be much longer, but manslaughter is correct.

Glaucus · 23 Jun 2007 at 00:09

[TW]Fox said:
No, really, it shouldn't, becuase it wasn't murder.

The sentances should be much longer, but manslaughter is correct.

under current law yes, but I think it should be changed, there intention was to physically harm someone, with no provocation, just because that doesn't usually lead to death, isn't an excuse.

iCraig · 23 Jun 2007 at 00:09

Azagoth said:
Just goes to show what cretins inhabit the halls of Justice in this Country! Of course it's murder, they went out with the intention of causing harm which resulted in a guy's death. In my books that's murder.

Fortunately your book is not what they go by.

It's only murder if they planned and succeeded in killing him. If they did it with the intent to harm, and the death was an accidental by-product, it's manslaughter.

[TW]Fox · 23 Jun 2007 at 00:09

Sonea Fifer said:
Life imprisonment should mean exactly that !

Problem with life meaning life is there is no incentive for the prisoner to behave himself in prison. If you can see a small light at the end of the tunnel if you keep your head down and do your time, you probably will.

If thats it, your life is over, you are in prison for ever regardless, what incentive is there to behave? Why not pass your time beating the **** out of the wardens? Why not kill a few? Not going to make any difference to your life, is it?