Zamo Posted October 28, 2003 Share Posted October 28, 2003 On the way to work I read a story in the Metro about someone who was stabbed in the head with knife. There was a picture of his head with the knife still in it and an x-ray showing the blade in nearly up to the hilt (3 inches). The person who carried out the attack admitted "wounding with intent" and was given 2 years (which means he'll probably be out in 1). Surely the intent when stabbing someone in the head is to kill them? Why have the CPS plea bargained in such a case? Why has the judge given such a pathetic sentence? Do people agree that we should now be electing judges, and perhaps senior officials within the CPS, so we can vote out idiots making decisions like these? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
max Posted October 28, 2003 Share Posted October 28, 2003 Originally posted by Zamo Do people agree that we should now be electing judges, and perhaps senior officials within the CPS, so we can vote out idiots making decisions like these? Good lord no! We would end up with judges and senior officials posturing in the press and pandering to the public in decision making as they do in the USA. imo in this case there was a lot more than the press reported. It may be that had the prosecution pressed for conviction on a more serious charge it would have failed. For instance, if the victim had a criminal record himself or a history of drunken behaviour and this came out in court a jury may well have thrown the case out on the basis that he deserved what he got. I'm quite happy with the judiciary we've got. To paraphrase what Hal said in another thread "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zamo Posted October 28, 2003 Author Share Posted October 28, 2003 But Max, I think most people in this country are of the opinion that our judicial system is "broke" and does need fixing. There may be other facts not reported in the paper but if you stab someone in the head you are trying to kill them aren't you? Therefore if there's acharge to answer then it must surely be attempted murder. If there are "other " circumstances, such as a claim of self-defence, then that is for the jury to decide isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted October 28, 2003 Share Posted October 28, 2003 Originally posted by Zamo But Max, I think most people in this country are of the opinion that our judicial system is "broke" and does need fixing. There may be other facts not reported in the paper but if you stab someone in the head you are trying to kill them aren't you? Therefore if there's acharge to answer then it must surely be attempted murder. If there are "other " circumstances, such as a claim of self-defence, then that is for the jury to decide isn't it? Unless you actually go to court and obtain permission to view the transcripts of the trial then you are not in full possession of the same facts as the judge, jury, prosecution or defence. Better still, go as a member of the viewing public. It can be very boring at times, but you never know what might be tried in front of you. I think it is important for anyone who wishes to criticise the judicial system to have at least attended a crown court trial, or even a county court trial. Justice may not always be enacted, but you will never have a perfect system, and you have to base your own judgements on that fact too. To my mind it is the extended dependence on the legal profession that is the problem. And that is a thorny topic indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
max Posted October 28, 2003 Share Posted October 28, 2003 Originally posted by Zamo But Max, I think most people in this country are of the opinion that our judicial system is "broke" and does need fixing. There may be other facts not reported in the paper but if you stab someone in the head you are trying to kill them aren't you? Therefore if there's acharge to answer then it must surely be attempted murder. If there are "other " circumstances, such as a claim of self-defence, then that is for the jury to decide isn't it? There you go with your sweeping, unsupported generalisations again. If you read my post you will see that I said that I'm satisfied with our judiciary. You, on the other hand, take it upon yourself to speak for the majority. Please substantiate your opinion. Again, on the subject of leaving it to the jury to decide, once again the cps is in the position of damned if you do damned if you don't. If it had gone to trial as a more serious charge, as I hypothesised, and the case had collapsed you can be assured that the cps would have been pilloried for wasting the court's time. The Daily Mail would have been asking "why waste money on a trial, just let the scumbags kill each other?". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sidla Posted October 28, 2003 Share Posted October 28, 2003 Originally posted by max There you go with your sweeping, unsupported generalisations again. If you read my post you will see that I said that I'm satisfied with our judiciary. You, on the other hand, take it upon yourself to speak for the majority. Please substantiate your opinion. This is the problem though. As members of the public we never get an objective view of court cases. Our opinions are formed by what we're told by the press. It's a sad fact that the press always try to feed you the gorey details of a trial so our opinions are moulded into believing the accused is guilty. What's to say this person wasn't provoked? Does anybody actually know any of the details of this trial? I would guess not, and you can't criticise things until you've got facts, or at least hard evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zamo Posted October 28, 2003 Author Share Posted October 28, 2003 I agree, you shouldn't make a final judgement without all the facts but that doesn't mean you can't ask questions abour whether something is right or not. I think it is reasonable to question the decisions made in this case based on the picture of the knife with it's three inch blade embedded into the temple of the victims head and the fact that the person who put it there admitted wounded with intent. I question why a charge of attempted murder is not brought because I fail to see how anyone stabbing someone in the head like this was not intending to kill. Max, I don't think the CPS should only bring cases to trial that they are sure they can win - even if it means a story in the Mail. I think it is right that juries get to make decisions, especially in serious cases. This case was effectively decided by two barristers who agreed what they thought was a win-win solution, from a career point of view. The defence barrister get's his client off with a charge that will probably see him serve just 1 year for nearly killing someone and the prosecution get his conviction. This doesn't seem right to me. Of course, everything herein is only my opinion. When I said that I think that most people are of the opinion that the judicial system needs fixing, that was again just myopinion. However, I think I am right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sidla Posted October 28, 2003 Share Posted October 28, 2003 Originally posted by Zamo I question why a charge of attempted murder is not brought because I fail to see how anyone stabbing someone in the head like this was not intending to kill. What if it was in the heat of the moment? What if the person didn't know what they were doing for some reason? What if they were aiming for their chest but missed? If 2 barristers came to the same conclusion then I think it's unlikely that they would have got it wrong. It's all very well for you to say "you couldn't stab someone in the head without meaning to kill them", but without knowing all the facts how could you reason this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nomme Posted October 28, 2003 Share Posted October 28, 2003 Last story in DB's post...intent to kill or to cause harm? http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2838&highlight=emergency+room Nomme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted October 28, 2003 Share Posted October 28, 2003 Originally posted by Zamo Of course, everything herein is only my opinion. When I said that I think that most people are of the opinion that the judicial system needs fixing, that was again just myopinion. However, I think I am right. Absolutely. But there are thousands of speculative reasons why the charge of attempted murder wasn't made. It could be there was some evidence to show that the victim fell on the blade - proving or disproving this would be difficult. It could be the defendant was prepared to plead insanity. It could be the defendant believed the blade to be made of rubber. Any number of reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.