Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
is that a video of someone being killed? ffs
i don't think you should post things like that
There was literally no reason to do it.
but have a creepy interest in the development of teenage girls?
Total fucking cunt.
when there's a fight and one person gets done for something like this, it's a bit more murky in terms of blame, but this was just a guy punching an old man who clearly posed no threat.
I'm feeling a bit Daily Mail about this too - Lock the cunt up for murder.
It was really the frail vs healthy / small vs large thing. But age also counts. All in all, it was a bully hitting a vulnerable man.
I was going to say that single punch killings are normally manslaughter......but,,,,,if you are that much more powerful and punch as hard as you can, someone much less powerful (it indicates he might not baulk at hitting an old woman or child like that) then it is much worse.....
I wish i hadnt seen it, but on reflection I would say (from the video evidencealone) that the sentence should be at the upper limit of the manslaughter tarrif.
The puncher is also obviously dangerous to the public and needs serious rebilitation.
Of course if it is true that the guy said something racist, then that makes it a bit more muddied, but, people with tourettes and aspergers must be allowed to not be beaten up badly.
PS at least when I got sucker punched in Edinburgh, there were two of us and two of them, and i wasnt significantly smaller or less powerful, its a completely different sort of thing.
I wish I hadn't watched that
Stepping back from the awful consequences, can anyone come up with a reason this man should be punished more harshly than anyone who punches someone in the street, who then gets up and walks away unharmed?
The crime is the punch. Either everyone who punches people unprovoked should be punished to this degree, or he shouldn't be.
and punching a grown man - same punch
the context is the issue here.
is that the consequence of the same punch to the same guy shouldn't matter. so the context alcoxxck brought up is irrelevant.
between punching a baby and punching a man.
There's no difference in action between punching a man who dies, and punching a man who walks away unscathed.
I just find it uncomfortable when sentences are based on the consequences of the crime, not the crime itself.
you generally don't go to jail for 4 years for punching someone in the face and they walk away unscathed
You're highlighting a difference in the consequences (death/walking away). There is no difference in the action, which is what the man is being convicted of (or should be).
Same action etc.
There is also supposed to be the idea of consequences, and the victim/victim's family has to feel that justice has been done.
Taken to the logical extreme, driving a car and running someone over must be either both legal or both illegal. Same action! Also, you'd have to either ban boxing or legalise assault.
and shooting at a person? You know the difference, or you wouldn't have asked the question.
One is attempting to hurt/kill someone. The other isn't.
(not going to watch the video)
old people are a category like babies
he said "The crime is the punch. Either everyone who punches people unprovoked should be punished to this degree, or he shouldn't be."
i pointed out that the victim of the punch is relevant to the severity of the crime, nothing else
I thought it was obvious that he meant the consequence of the punch shouldn't affect the punishment, rather than any context at all.
If you punch an elderly man, should you be charged with the same offence whatever the consequences?
if you drink drive and crash your car, you get done for drink driving. if you hit someone, you get done for manslaughter (as far as i know). you've done exactly the same thing in either case havent you? made exactly the same terrible decisions
Again, I think the crime is the same there, and the sentencing should ideally be the same. Either we consider the crime of getting into a car drunk worthy of prison time, or we don't. It's illogical to turn one to the other if someone runs out by chance in front of a drunk driver.
you are aware you are engaging in a highly dangerous activity that can result in the death of one or more people.
When you punch someone you're not assuming this at all.
You could possibly pull up statistics (if we had total truth from divers about the number of times they've drunk driven) of drink driving outcomes compared to number of people who've been fatally injured or disabled as a result of a few punches and discover the two are actually equally dangerous, but people make decisions based on apparent truths not actual ones.
I think people are as aware they're engaging in a potentially dangerous act when they punch as when people drink drive.
Partly because lots of people understand the potential for killing people when you throw punches around. Partly because shitloads of people don't consider driving drunk remotely dangerous.
I think they're very comparable.
there's stories in the news every other week about people being killed by a punch, fight etc
Because we're talking about how we feel in terms of the JUSTICE of a sentence. People, in general, will respect the right of an individual to punch someone, they will never respect the right of someone to drink drive.
Again, we're not talking about hard facts here because we already know that people in general aren't quick to like facts (look at immigration facts vs public opinion). I'd also like to make it clear I'm not setting myself above the public here and I'm not drawing some kind of 'unwashed masses think this' picture.
Hard, harsh sentences for drink drivers who kill people will always be respected more than harsh sentences for people who punch someone and that person dies. And that's down to a lot of different factors, not least being that punching someone can occur in a single moment of high adrenaline and emotion. Whereas getting drunk and then getting in a car and driving around takes a level of premeditation.
And again, we come back to not really even knowing the full facts of the case in court. If the defendant alleges he felt threatened or insulted it's already a different situation.
All of these things add up to he real consideration as to whether this sentence is, in fact, even all that lenient, given what happened.
I mean if we parallel this particular type of single-punch incident.
Anyway, don't get me wrong, the defendant sounds like one cold fucking uber-bastard.
I just don't think public perception about those two issues is as different as you do.
No way of proving it either way really.
i don't think he's as old/frail as people ITT seem to be making out, certainly not 'old as fuck'. i could be wrong though
I'm 40 next year.
It's a horrible, tragic story and the reaction from the family is entirely understandable, but it's not a lenient sentence.
a video of a man being killed, fuck them.
I think it is.
if he'd thrown that punch and the guy had been fine?
If you do, fair enough.
Great debate. See you tomorrow.
nobody gives a fuck when you're trying to be serious.
You can just ignore it.
is probably a good reason for the sentencing being reviewed. I
I can see a case for manslaughter if it was actually a fight but there's no sign the other person was even trying to defend themselves.
a similar thing happened in bolton last year, with the lad getting a ten-year sentence for murder
anyway, it's all hypothetical at the moment as it's all coulds.
"Lomax earlier pleaded guilty to two other unprovoked attacks on strangers on nights out in the weeks leading up to Mr Mitchell's attack in Victoria Square."
that's the difference i'm struggling with. I don't want to get involved in what's right/wrong here but consistency needs to be there
but from what I can see the Bolton kid was threatening violence and had been doing the same to others, which suggests that it was somewhat premeditated. This case seems like someone flipping out. Absolutely wrong and deserves to go to jail for it, they're not like-for-like cases though.
but surely there could be some sort of "anticipated outcome" theory.
If I lamp a rugby player on the chin the anticipated outcome might be different to if a rugby player lamps an old man.
You're right that the crime is the punch, but not all punches are equal.
The animal in that video steadied himself, lined his victim up and spanked him square on the chin for maximum impact. I see that as a different crime to taking a swing at someone in a scuffle.
any discussion like this, it doesn't help to use language like that
the guy as a "scumbag."
If you're going to be picky over the language we use in this discussion, you should try to be consistent.
said it was a scumbag thing to do, subtle distinction
I ^this everything (didn't notice)
when they're older and much more vulnerable, like some fucking big man, then be prepared to face the consequences if you harm them.
If someone got up and walked away unharmed, chances are they would be younger, bigger and more robust than this guy.
Hence why he died. It's not so much just the punch, it's the fact it was a young big bloke vs a small frail old bloke.
died from a single unprovoked punch. They were in their 20s and very fit. It can happen to anyone. If you throw a punch and connect, you can kill someone.
So should all unprovoked punches be charged as attempted murder?
so why not? What justfication is there?
I'm not taking a side. I'm just uncomfortable with the inconsistency. I'd be happy with stricter sentences for harmless punches, or more lenient sentences for fatal punches. Law has to go one way or the other for me, though.
is different from attempting to kill
but that's a possible consequence of punching someone with or without provocation
, I think there's a number of factors you could/should include here i.e there's no sign that the other man was trying to defend himself, there was a clear size/strength discrepancy and there was no sign that the person who threw the punch had been provoked.
was that the guy died. Because nobody would ever get a sentence like that unless the victim died.
I don't think that's right. Take those things you list into account, for sure. But convict on the action.
society doesn;t work that way though. you'd need to build a hundred new prisons.
Or change the culture so people are less likely to commit those crimes.
There's no easy solution, but the current situation is really not good.
you'd want to see some sentence being given. there's a lot of factors in play there.
Is it more of a crime to kill someone who's loved and will be grieved for than a hermit who nobody will even notice is gone? No.
The justice system is not there to provide revenge for victims' families.
but if you think stuff like that doesn't come into play you're naive. why are they reviewing the sentence?
I'm saying it's wrong. I'm saying it has absolutely no business being in the decision-making process.
vs ones that do have serious consequences
had already crossed my mind.
I think the same applies. Getting into a car drunk is the crime.
i've seen far more vicious things that have resulted in similar consequecnes and more lenient sentences ( and much bigger injustices). it's just one of those things. obviously a cowardly, scumbag thing to do but there's no way he thought one punch was going to kill him. he has to live with it on his conscience. i'm not sure what sentence people regard as fair for one moment of madness.
always have. very interesting debate to be had as to whether they should do or not, but they do. if someone's black out drunk driving and mounts the pavement by accident, for example, the sentencing will be very different depending on whether someone is on that bit of pavement, even though the action's exactly the same
I don't really agree with that reasoning.
When you commit a (violent) crime, you're always taking on a level of risk that the consequences could be more severe than your intent. It's kind of just tough luck for you. But you're the one who's punched a vulnerable defenceless lone man in the street (apparently) without provocation. If you behave in a way that creates a real possibility that someone else's life is gonna be endangered, I think you should be held responsible for the consequences even though that means you'll get harsher treatment than someone who has done essentially the exact same thing.
Same principle applies in other areas -someone will be jailed for causing death dangerous driving because when reaching for a sweetie they run someone over. Yet other people do that all the time without it resulting in death. Or where someone is particularly frail or vulnerable -you don't need to have actually been aware of their condition. In this case I don't know whether this guy had any underlying health problems that made him more susceptible to injury but it doesn't really matter.
In addition to that... I watched the video and he appeared, to me anyway, to be deliberately punching the other guy to the ground. He kind of leans over him and holds out his left arm as if to hold back the victim to prepare for a second punch - possibly to ensure that he is knocked down. To me, it doesn't seem to be simply by a fluke that the guy fell over and hit his head on concrete.
As for the actual charge (murder/manslaughter), there's obvs a specific test for murder (iirc they'd have to prove intent to cause gbh at a minimum - intent to cause death isn't necessary. which I imagine the CPS looked at and weren't satisfied with). But in principle, I think it's kinda fair enough that someone could be punished more harshly even though they were partly just unlucky. It's a risk he's taken willingly.
but on the other hand, it's really not. And if we really want to prevent the action, which is the most important thing the justice system should do, the crime should be punished as severely whatever the consequences.
Like, the example I gave about reaching into your pocket whilst driving. How would we punish everyone who does that 'whatever the consequences'? If we actually caught and prosecuted everyone for every crime committed, then the majority of us would be in prison. The criminal law isn't designed to catch all criminals. I guess part of the rationale here is that it's a deterrent. If you know that punching someone is probably just gonna give them a black eye but it's not actually inconceivable that they could end up dying and that you would be held responsible for manslaughter then you're probably less likely to punch that person in the face. That is one way of "preventing" the harmful action.
I wouldn't claim this is a "just" outcome but I think it's the most feasible philosophy for a criminal justice system.
I mean, I think there is an argument morally for giving somebody caught reaching into their pocket for their phone the same sentence as someone who does that, then kills someone as a result of not looking at the road. It's the same crime. Careless driving.
It is a bit iffy that people are put in prison because it's the most practicable way to deal with a complex issue. I can understand why it goes that way though, as I've said.
causing death by dangerous driving is a separate offence. same 'moral wrong' or same 'level of moral culpability' etc maybe but not at all the same 'crime' - cause crime is a totally constructed category anyway.
Totally agree it's iffy that people are put in prison to fulfill fairly dubious public policy aims.
there's stuff we haven't really heard enough about - e.g. the allegation of racist remarks. in principle though, I think 4 years does seem slightly lenient. I don't have enough faith in our penal system for it to matter that much to me tho.
smacks of a 'don't do the crime...' philosophy, whereby you can't or shouldn't complain about getting a disproportionately harsh punishment.
I don't really know what I'm supposed to say in response to you. Like, you think my argument resembles another, different argument. k...
As I don't think this would be in principle a "disproportionate punishment" they're not comparable.
with being punished disproportionately harshly for no reasons other than bad luck and poor judgement. I just thought it was a bit cold.
If I think it's a "fair" punishment, I can't at the same time think it's a "disproportionate" one. You've just added in the "disproportionate" part and that's why it doesn't make sense.
that's a lesser crime than stabbing someone to death? And driving recklessly on an empty road is as bad as driving recklessly and killing a pedestrian? The crime is mansalughter, not assault by punching, no?
Yes, but I'm not talking about the definition of the crime
the offence is manslaughter. You don't just look at the punch in isolation, you look at the consequences of the punch also.
If the punch had broken the victim's nose, the offense would have been grievous bodily harm, if it had glanced off his head causing bruising it would have been actual bodily harm and so on.
but morally, the offence is exactly the same. I should clarify I'm arguing morally. I understand the law sees it differently and takes consequences into account.
with no provocation at all, i hadnt even looked at the assailant or his freind......but its completely different, not just because i survived, but because I was not significantly smaller and less powerful, also there were two od us and two of them. ...this guy hit (as hard as he could) and it looked like he could hit VERY HARD INDEED.
Thing is, the puncher could have punched the guy lighter, because he would have been in no danger from the victim retaliating if he hadnt totally flattened him.
which is why it is valid to ask if the guy would hit a baby......basically the relative weakness or vulnerability or threat of retaliation of his target, had no moderation upon the force with which he acted.....which indicates that this guy IS significantly more dangerous than most men who starts fights with men.
What is the usual sentence for such a crime, manslaughter when someone is killed during an argument? I thought 4 years was pretty normal. Not that it is right necessarily.
for taking a life without provocation (intended or otherwise)
What's the argument?
But in theory out in two I suppose. The fact sentences aren't actually the time they spend in prison is another matter.
Imagine if you met someone today and they told you they had killed an innocent person with little to no provocation and you asked them when it happened and they said "2010". I'd be like whaaaaat.
you'd think "Hey cool. Stay rude."
which lead to him cracking his skull on the pavement hand having a brain hemorrhage, got 120 hour community service.
So yeah, punch away basically.
I appreciate people might think I'm saying this guy should have got a more lenient sentence. I don't think he should necessarily. I think there's a compelling argument for treating a thrown punch the same as pulling a knife, from a legal perspective. Would make people think twice before just launching their fists at people, which can have horrific consequences.
Problem is it happens so much.
Didn't mean to this
and while I sympathise it's a horrible, emotional situation, I didn't take to kindly to the guy's mother saying "I wish he had pleaded not-guilty so he could have got a longer sentence". However cynical the plead may or may not have been, surely the fact that he pleaded guilty is better and why it's probably the right sentence?
She's not the bad guy here is she.
baddies go to jail for ever
goodies are immune from all judgement
nuance is weakness
I mean really, what the fuck is your point? There is literally no harm in a bereaved person getting the chance to mouth off about whatever they like. You don't have to take any notice.
is an incredibly stupid thing to say
It's simply a statement that she's done nothing wrong.
is the same as granting a blank cheque to say WHATEVER she fucking likes, it's more 'oh, this person's just lost their son to a random act of violence, maybe let's not judge her too harshly if she gobs off about it'.
Chicks get upset about these things idk
said with an airily dismissive wave of the hand, Shirley? You're taking what he literally said (typed) too literally.
but what does it achieve? He's still going to prison for a prolonged period and though I've no idea whether he showed any remorse, has pleaded guilty for punching someone who he almost certainly didn't expect to kill (he just walks off). She said that while also saying as a Christian she believes he should have his life taken
The usual response when someone is wrestling with grief is to cut them some slack, surely, while they deal with their burden.
and that's why I said I sympathise that it's a horrible and emotional situation, it just doesn't seem particularly useful. But I guess that's it, she's always going to say that given her proximity to the case
I remember many years of listening to Denise Bulger palpably failing to come to terms with what happened to her son, and being goaded by the press into providing copy-worthy soundbites for them. But I think the only sane reaction is to feel sadness, and try to leave judgment to one side.
Seems kinda harsh to call out the mother of a murdered son like that. You're cold man, you too fidel.
if someone says something as stupid and awful as that as a Christian she believes he should have his life taken, I don't see any harm in calling that out.
Emotions were probably running high and it's not like what she said was particularly harmful to anyone in any way, leave her be. And she was calling for a life sentence, not for him to be killed.
the defendant's claim that the dead man made a racist remark. Not that such a thing deserves death or even likely a punch, but it certainly changes the provocation aspect.
I'm with Pegfeet here, however. This doesn't sound like an unusual sentence for the situation. The guy who punched him is clearly not a great person, as is anyone who resorts to violence, but then it's easy for me to be all hippy about these things with my upbringing.
it's a HOT POTATO
It can range from life imprisonment (as with Mike Philpott )to a conditional discharge. Nicked teh following online:
Manslaughter is divided into two: a) voluntary manslaughter and b) involuntary manslaughter. The former occurs when there is an intention to kill but a defence is present which reduces the conviction from murder to manslaughter. An example would be loss of control.
The latter, which is the case here, is where there is an absence of an intention to kill. Apart from the absence of the requisite intent, all other elements of the offence are the same as for murder.
There are two types of involuntary manslaughter, namely:
A) that caused by the defendant’s gross negligence; and
B) that caused by his unlawful or dangerous act.
This case I think falls under Involuntary Manslaughter B)
this is doing me in
and I don't have any workable alternative legislative framework to hand, but I'm not sure I see any inherent problem with the consequences of a crime being a heavily weighted consideration in its punishment. Although the fact that this guy was up on a manslaughter charge rather than something less severe suggests lawmakers also feel that way.
He WAS charged, essentially, with killing someone, ie for the consequences of his actions.
I suppose you could say 'life is, butterfly effect etc' but I would rather a justice system that primarily convicted on acts and intentions, not consequences.
He was charged with manslaughter rather than murder, so his lack of intent to kill clearly had a very strong influence in how
he will be punished.
he was primarily sentenced on the consequences of his action. Had the guy not died, he probably would have avoided jail all together.
CPNSEQUENCES. It's why you can crash into a lampost while driving your car steaming and the worse that will happen is a drink driving charge and poss criminal damage. You crash into and kill a person and you're looking at death by dangerous driving too in most cases (at the v least).
I just don't feel comfortable with it, because it does mean you can be caught doing the same crime and either spend years imprisoned for it or get a caution depending on the consequences of what you do. And you've had no bearing on that at all. Morally, it's irrelevant to what you did. It's just down to pure luck of circumstance.
with the action (or actus reus). When you commit an actoin, what determines the level of 'crime' is your mental state/ intent (mens rea) and where there is an unexpected cause, the concept of 'causation' will be looked at. It is unconfrtable to think that a minor actus reus can result in a terrifying result, and depending on the circumstances, and the chain of causation, it is open to the court to conclude that a much worse 'crime' has happened. However the alternative positoin (i.e. that consequences have no bearing on severity of 'crime') is not ideal either. It is certainly tricky.
by me with 'action' throughout the thread. I wasn't aware of the distinction in legal speak.
regardless of type of victim and consequences? There's no perfect answer to the concundrum of cause and effect, but to say that actions should be judged in isolation is a bit simplistic. there has to be some kind of balancing act.
should be judged as being the same in a court of law, regardless of the consequences of that action from case to case. In an absolutely ideal justice system, I believe it would be. With the one we have, I appreciate it's not possible. Because it would be ripe for manipulation and provide an administrative nightmare.
A punch that ends up killing someone is a fundamentally different thing to a punch that gives somebody light bruising. It's not just about pure legal definition.
My take on your position (and please correct me if I've got this wrong) is that in an ideal justice system, the offence would be 'punching somebody' and would be punishable by four years in prison (for example) regardless of any consequences resulting.
I'm not trying to be confrontational or anything like that, just trying to get a proper handle on what you're saying
You could throw the same kind of punch at two people. One might die. The other might get up and walk away. You've done nothing differently either time.
I'm not saying everyone who punches anyone should spend 4 years in prison necessarily. I think there's as strong an argument for having lenient sentences for all punches. I just think in an ideal justice system both actions would be treated the same, because they are the same. As I've said, I fully understand the reasons it doesn't happen.
I guess the bit I find weird is that you can be caught doing exactly the same thing by the law, and you can either spend the bulk of your youth in prison, or you can walk away free that day. And it has nothing to do with what you actually did. It has to do with totally random consequences. I just find that weird, and problematic on a personal level.
In the first instance, you ended someone's life, in all likelihood causing huge amounts of grief to those that know them. In the second instance you've knocked someone over.
I accept that in both instances the exact amount of force may have been used in the act of punching (which I think is what you are saying) but what is pertinent in both instances is the person doing the punching has chosen to cause another person harm. Once you've made that decision, how much actual damage that results from the action is something that you have to accept. It's not an excuse to say that 'I don't mean to kill/injure him', the fact remains that you have. Such consequences aren't 'totally random', they are a direct result of an action you have chosen to take. It therefore has *everything* to do with what you actually did.
the punch that led to no consequences pose less of a risk to society? I'd argue they pose more, as the person who kills someone will probably better understand the potential consequences of doing it again.
I'm not sure where the confusion's coming from here. Once you punch someone in the face, intending to hurt them, the outcome of the punch could be death. It could just as easily be you get punched back just as hard. That is what I'm talking about when I say it's totally random. The person who gets punched back has done exactly the same thing as the person who's just killed someone. Surely there's an argument both should be treated as seriously as each other, if for no other reason than the one at the top of this post?
Protection of the public is a obviously a very important consideration, but other factors are just as important (punishing the offender for his/her wrongdoing, providing a deterrent to others, trying to ensure that the victims of the crime feel that justice has been served, etc).
As discussed above, the people in your example have committed two different crimes: The first, manslaughter or possibly even murder (assuming no defences apply) and the second probably actual bodily harm. These are not 'exactly the same thing'. Someone whose actions have directly resulted in the death of another should not be treated in the same way as someone who has caused another a slight harm. I genuinely can't see how you could view these as the same thing
I can't see how you can't see how they're not. Freeze frame at the point of punch impact, and the two people have done EXACTLY the same thing. What happens after that doesn't have any impact on what they *did* so much as what happened after what they did.
deliberately closing off your mind to the posisblilty of otjher points of view on this. while morality has a part to play in law, by and large the rtule of law is founded on many many things- utilitarianism, legal positivism, and many other compelling theories. As I said, there is no perfect answer, but what ever the clostes tjhing to 'correct' might be, you will not find it at either end of the black or white spectrum that you are trying to paint here.
I've totally accepted the legal position, and I do agree it's a complex issue.
But the fact people are doing the same thing at the point of impact isn't really up for debate. It's objectively true. How could it possibly not be?
Interpretations of the law after that fact... absolutely fine. But I'm arguing a very specific point which is, y'know, objectively impossible to argue with to my mind.
but I really don't think you can look at it like that. The circumstances leading to up to the punch, the punch itself and the consequences of the punch are all factors that should be given consideration. You can't (in my view at least) simply state that 'one person punched another' and leave it at that. You also can't 'freeze frame at the point of impact' because life doesn't work like that.
Really don't think it's a question of a 'moral vs legal' position either (as you seem to) but that's probably best left there
and taken that out of it, I can't be explaining myself well at all.
It's a matter of context specific weighting
is it's normally very complex, shades-of-grey stuff
you've got to account for:
victim (or family of)'s desire for some sort of retribution
yet to make the whole system practical and workable these subjective variables are pushed into a (fairly) inflexible system of minimum tariffs and things.
I don't think actual consequences or desire for retribution should be in there, though. As they're totally random, and that's the opposite of what a justice system should be based on.
but the example i gave upthread about someone mounting the pavement while drunk vs. someone mounting the pavement while drunk and hitting someone seems like they should have different sentences even though they're the same action. and i think part of that is the presence of a victim
And has nothing to do with the bad decisions that the defendant would be charged with making.
I understand why it goes the way it does. For one thing, it's a hell of a lot easier to administrate. But I do find it uncomfortable.
you're charged with the things you've actually done. obviously a really tricky issue but i think it's definitely justifiable to give him a harsher sentence than the one he would've got if the other guy had got up and walked away
"but you're not just charged with the bad decisions you've made - you're charged with the things you've actually done."
Same thing to my mind. What could you be charged for that wasn't a decision?
It's long been established that you take your victim as you find them. also called thin skull rule- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eggshell_skull
It deos seem lenient form a jurisprudential pov but i've not read the judgmenmt so I can't say what the reasoning will be. I'd expect the crown to appeal the snedtence on not just legal but also public policy grounds tbh.
I was trying to google this for SO long, but I was looking for "glass jaw" instead of "eggshell skull"
stupid "actual lawyers" >:[
despite their being apparent tacit agreement that we are super (er, wtf man.)
Can I also use this place to say, I just came out of a meeting where one of my colleagues, a distinguished partner in my firm, said 'easy peasy japaneezy' not once, not twice, but thrice. The banking pawyer who was dialling in to the meeting, whilst she has a modern western name, is of Japanese origin. CRINGE. IN fact, regardless of her being on thge call, CRINGE anyway. URGH. I'm so tired.
I can never be arsed fixing typos but i will fix shite grammar.
everyone knows it's 'Lemon Squeezy'
that an adult with an actual proper job would be using either of those phrases tbh
He is an amazing legal mind and quite brilliant at creative problem solving. But his manner is not attuned to the modern workplace, e.g. before/ after he says 'bloody' he says 'excuse me girls' or 'excuse me ladies' not sure which is worse actually) but apparently it's ok to say it in front of the men. I raised this in my review. It's still happening.
anyway, let's not have me derail another thread (Ref: eating disroders thread/ PO-face interface). BYE.
to post this very same thing
actually i was looking for hte thread on this this morning as knew there woudl be discussion
did not expect the weird detour into why should they be judged differently because of the outcome
that's like if i shoot a gun & it hits someone in the arm why should it be tried differently to if it blows their head off?
the mens rea is the same with a punch, regardless of the outcome
you are intending to cause harm
there can be no question over that
and as PO points out you take your victim as you find them
I just don't like the idea that your sentence depends on how lucky you are, not your actual crime
but it's the law and has been for a long time, draconian or not. The alternative would be to allow a defence of 'but I just tapped him on the nose, the fact that he died isn't MY fault' which would then lead into an analysis of whether a victim's weak state would be a contributing factor for the crime. And the law doesn't like the idea that innocent vicitms should be held responsible for the eventual crime simply because they have a weakness, latent or otherwise.
or justifiable when you look at it singled out as a moral question. and it kinda highlights how the meanings of 'crime' and 'punishment' aren't universal but totally dependent on the system in which they operate and however we define them. the system's not designed to administer punishments in equal, depersonalised/decontextualised ways. it's more an outmoded and ineffective way of 'controlling' society.
they could come up with a bit more of a sensitive name, couldn't they?
It developed properly as a doctrin in ythe 60s. One of the leading authorities on the matter fomr then was a case called SMITH V LEECH BRAIN & CO.
one presumes it's only a name and would never actually be read out in court or hearings where victim/family are present?
as part of l;egal reasoning, then yes it could. But it's only illustrative of the concept that you take your victim as you find them. If you slash somebody and they sustain an injury which most people would recover from, except your victim has, e.g. a clotting disorder/ is a haemophiliac/ is immuno-compromised and they die, then you have to face the consequences of your victim being weaker than average. That's the rub of it.
always struck me as an entertainingly creepy phrase
"The sentence is an absolute joke. I'm a committed Christian but I think that if someone takes a life they should be prepared to forfeit their own"
why bring up her christianity?
is it because a much misquoted part of the bible says an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, that is how it should not be
but this is going back to the intent to take a life thing again
one of the central tenets of that religion*"
good one then.
She's a committed Christian (i.e. in she thinks of herself as a forgiving and compassionate person) BUT in cases like these she thinks people should go to prison for life.
with some presumption that christian = good person & well formed view of morality. in the same way that single mothers and hard-working tax payers have to make sure everyone watching the wright stuff knows this about them before they make a point
to think that someone who killed your son after through deliberately hurting them should go to prison for life. I mean, I can understand why someone might say that despite usually being quite a forgiving person.
The guy that threw the punch was a pretty big, muscular guy which, even though it sounds odd to say it, should probably be included as a factor - this is in relation to Pegfeet's comment that all punches are created equal. He knew he overmatched the guy, which hurts any claim that he couldn't know how much damage he could inflict. If you take a guy that has traps that start at his ears and end at the edge of his shoulders taking the time to line up a punch, brace himself for maximum power and then delivering it square in the face while the victim is standing on a concrete road, then you can hardly act surprised when something like this happens.
If, say, me and DanielKelly were squaring off, we're both about the same age, our abs are the same relative firmness and our knuckles would both be couched by our fingerless gym gloves. But zxcvbnm suckerpunches some baby and I'd expect them to take a much sterner view of the latter even though they're the same crime.
for titus bramble kicking a dog?
can a man just go off on one and then not have to defend the lazy rhetoric and numerous inconsistencies in his post. Just once.
I don't think that was Pegfeets point (maybe I'm wrong?). Think he was saying that if a boxer punches someone, that should be treated differently than if a radiohead fan hits somebody. But if a boxer hits someone, it shouldn't be treated any differently depending on whether the person survives or not.
The rambling, emotive statements that would come out of my mouth if I was pushed for comment by a reporter after coming out of the court where the hearing as for the person who punched my child, causing them to die.
18 months ago a close friend of mine was killed in an accident - I'm not going to go into any of the details on here - but the mother of my friend pleaded with the judge not to give the guy who killed her a custodial sentence. She thought he was genuinely remorseful, and had also been sending money to the family every month (she had two young daughters). He got 4 years regardless of what she said. And she felt distressed afterwards because he *didn't* get off.
She's a better woman than me, that's for sure.
I'm not a woman. You get the gist
It's quite right that we sentence criminals in a way that, while considering compassion and the need to incorporate punishment, uses a dispassionate framework in isolation from the (justifiably) emotional responses of victims and victims' families.
One of the most humbling things I think I've ever seen was the statement of Anthony Walker's mother after the death of her son in a random attack.
I understand the judge said as much when sentencing him. Essentially that he had a duty of care towards the rest of society as well which meant he would be remiss in not seeking a prison term
was massively irked by her apparently calling for the death penalty, and something about vengeful families of victims gives me the massive fear for some reason. Anyway. Probs just don't punch people yeah.
I don't really have a problem with consequences being taken into account. Two identical actions, two different outcomes, it is bad luck if the person has to go to prison for longer despite no greater irresponsibility , but it's worse luck to get killed for no reason, as the perpetrator you open up the possibilities of these bad luck outcomes. And if it results in people realising that you take a gamble with your own life and your victims when you punch someone then that is a good thing.
In a nutshell, this;
'it's worse luck to get killed for no reason, as the perpetrator you open up the possibilities of these bad luck outcomes'.
It's bad luck to both parties involved but the court will generaly side with the innocent person who died rather than the person who, when they swung a punch, failed to take into account that not everybody will just bnounce back up again. he could have knocked him into the road, into the path of a speeding car. Or he could have knocked him down a manhole, any number of possiblities, seemingly remote, but all possible and within the chain of causation.
we've also all had moments where we've come out of the adrenaline of a situation, or sobered up, and thought 'Holy fuck - I was one bit of bad luck away from prison there' and it's scared us a bit. I guess people who learn from that and adjust their behaviour are less likely to end up being unlucky than people who learn nothing from it.
if we use our phones when driving, we could get fined. If we kill someone while driving and using our phones, we could be locked up. The alternative is treating every punch or person driving and using a phone as if the worst end result of taking that action had happened. I don't think the world could function if that was the case, we would all be locked up.
That was cuntish. Shouldnt do stuff like that
I saw the post count on this and thought, "oh man, I wonder who's having a meltdown now!!!1" I did not expect such a reasonable and enjoyable debate into the moral and legal complexities of this tragic case. Solid work guys.
I don't know...
I wondered if you were going to post this, and then thought "no, that's way too I-am-the-centre-of-everything" as I opened the thread.
HOW WRONG I WAS
some of the other threats to our super best friend society
Results : Inconclusive.
Does anyone find the older they get the less CERTAIN they are of things. I was so confident I was RIGHT when I was in my 20s.
of 'luck' and 'bad luck' in this thread
How else would you describe the difference between someone dying from a punch or walking away from a punch?
Luck as in circumstances or consequences that are entirely random, or are determined by such a complex myriad minutae that they might as well be.
which is affected by a) How powerful the hitter was, b) how hard the hitter hit c) how much less powerful the victim was d) how unprepared to be hit the victim was.
the assailant knew about a and c instinctively. and actively chose to make b and d the most extreme......thus rendering the maximum possibility that a very bad outcome might arise out of the myrid of other factors that we cannot measure due to the extreme granular complexity.
so yeah the assailant basically should get the maximum punishment for manslaughter by 'just' hitting and causing a death as a result
(Im assuming if you hit a baby that hard and killed them then it would be murder, ditto repeatedly hitting an oap hard)
Of course this can be moderated by possibly racist remarks causing the hitter to 'lose it' (does he look like hes lost it?) so its hot temper rather than cold viciousness (hot temper possibly being less dangerous as it can be 'treated?' I dunno bout these things)
hadn't actually read the article, think that should be a major mitigating factor because it is no longer unprovoked and not just the one aggressor any more, guess its hard to prove what happened in this case.