Attempted murder - 2 years enough?

[Phanerothyme]

Originally posted by Zamo

"<snip>after he pleaded guilty to wounding with intent. He denied attempted murder and the prosecution accepted his guilty plea to the lesser charge." source

Granted - not on the BBC story postedby Nomme however

However, this case is far more straight-forward and a jury should have been given the opportunity to decide if it was attempted murder, wounding with intent or self defence. If a jury had found him guilty of attempted murder then I believe he would have received a far longer, and more appropriate, sentence.

well yes, because then he would have ben guilty of attempted murder, which he is not, currently. That much is straightforward

The sentence seems even more inappropriate given the fact that perpetrator was also given a community rehabilitation order for robbery only last September. How many chances do you give people? Where's the deterrent? Where's the justice?

 

If you have information that Thompson attempted to kill Siddle with malice aforethought then you need to contact the CPS seeing as they probably couldn't have proved that beyond a reasonable doubt in court, hence the acceptance of a guilty plea for a lesser charge.

[Zamo]

Originally posted by Phanerothyme

If you have information that Thompson attempted to kill Siddle with malice aforethought then you need to contact the CPS seeing as they probably couldn't have proved that beyond a reasonable doubt in court, hence the acceptance of a guilty plea for a lesser charge.

You're just being silly now. I personally think that the photo of the injury with an admission of wounding with "intent" is sufficient evidence to justify a jury trial for attempted murder.

 

At the very least let the CPS explain their reasoning for what I see as a let off.

[max]

Originally posted by Zamo

You're just being silly now. I personally think that the photo of the injury with an admission of wounding with "intent" is sufficient evidence to justify a jury trial for attempted murder.

 

At the very least let the CPS explain their reasoning for what I see as a let off.

Zamo, instead of repeating the same thing again and again why don't you do as phanny suggests and write to the cps or your MP for more information. In fact, you could pm your MP as he's a contributor to this forum - Richard Allen.

[Sidla]

Originally posted by Zamo

I personally think that the photo of the injury with an admission of wounding with "intent" is sufficient evidence to justify a jury trial for attempted murder.

But how do you know he was attempting to murder him?

[Zamo]

Max, so sorry to bore you.

 

If someone post their view back asking "what about this" or "what about that" then I try to answer their points. True this has lead me to repeat the same argument more than once but that's because it applied more than once.

 

I was myself the victim of an unprovoked assault that left me unconcious, with multiple injuries and only my lucky stars to thank that one of the kicks to my head didn't finishing me off. My attackers were never caught. Whilst this is frustrating I don't blame the police, who I think worked hard to find them, and is something I can live with. What I find harder to live with is when similar cases do get to court some pr*ck in a wig decides to offer a plea bargain because he's got too many cases on. Whoops, there I go again repeating myself.

 

Max please do try forgive my passion for a subject close to home. I'll try not to bore you again.

[Sidla]

I sympathise about what happened to you, I really do. Do you think you attackers got the correct sentence?

 

However, just because you have once been a victim, it doesn't mean you can act as judge, juror and executioner. You know very little about this case and yet you're talking as though this man should rot in hell and damnation for all eternity. If you were at the trial and heard all the given evidence it would be more acceptable, however I'm still not certain I'd trust your judgement because of your past experiences.

 

As a judge it's your duty to be unbiased and take all evidence into consideration before making your final judgement. I accept that sometimes they may make the wrong decisions but I'm not willing to believe it happens very often. I do not like it when people get up in arms about such matters when they cannot see the full picture.

[Zamo]

Originally posted by Sidla

But how do you know he was attempting to murder him?

You say "how do you know he was attempted to murder him". Well of course we will never know 100% for sure that his intention was to kill him. Instead we have to use a thing called judgement to decided beyond reasonable doubt.

[Sidla]

Originally posted by Zamo

You say "how do you know he was attempted to murder him". Well of course we will never know 100% for sure that his intention was to kill him. Instead we have to use a thing called judgement to decided beyond reasonable doubt.

It's up to a judge to use that judgement, not us.

[Zamo]

Originally posted by Sidla

I sympathise about what happened to you, I really do. Do you think you attackers got the correct sentence?

 

However, just because you have once been a victim, it doesn't mean you can act as judge, juror and executioner. You know very little about this case and yet you're talking as though this man should rot in hell and damnation for all eternity. If you were at the trial and heard all the given evidence it would be more acceptable, however I'm still not certain I'd trust your judgement because of your past experiences.

 

As a judge it's your duty to be unbiased and take all evidence into consideration before making your final judgement. I accept that sometimes they may make the wrong decisions but I'm not willing to believe it happens very often. I do not like it when people get up in arms about such matters when they cannot see the full picture.

I admit that on the small amount of evidence provided by the press I believe him to be guilt of attempted murder and should serve a far longer sentence. However, it has been pointed out to me that I'm not in posession of all the facts and that I shouldn't judge without them. Fair enough. But I say again (sorry Max!) that the photographic evidence, with an admission that he inflicted the wound "with intent", gives rise to enough concern to ask whether it was right not to put a more serious charge of attempted murder before a jury and whether the sentence imposes is truely a just one.

 

You may think that my sense of fair play has been clouded by my own experiences but I say it has simply been woken up.

[Zamo]

Originally posted by Sidla

It's up to a judge to use that judgement, not us.

No, in a jury trial (for serious offences) it is the jury that must use their judgement to decide guilt. The judge uses judgement to decide the sentence.