tinfoilhat Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 Honestly, can anyone, based on the information in the two links give me any idea why you can only get four years (out in two) for killing a man. Apologies, one is daily mail. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2567496/Pictured-Shocking-moment-doting-son-killed-single-punch-head-row-cycling-pavement-killer-jailed-just-four-half-years.html http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/lewis-gill-killed-andrew-young-3183689 I don't get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted February 26, 2014 Author Share Posted February 26, 2014 One follows the other. He was tried and convicted. The justice system worked. He got 4 years. That can't be product of a healthy justice system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinz Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 On the face of it far to lenient. Idea: If you steal from someone you pay them back x6 for any loss or reparation, aside from any custodial sentence. Take a life and you pay back the next of kin for the rest of your life, regardless of being released early. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
999tigger Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 lol@ skinz. OP I think its far too lenient and 8-10 years served id be much happier with. I hope the sentence is appealed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 he was jailed for manslaughter, he didn't set out to kill him, just punch him, there's a difference in murder and manslaughter its called intent and to answer your question yes there is, of course, or there'd be even more people dead, killing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 Honestly, can anyone, based on the information in the two links give me any idea why you can only get four years (out in two) for killing a man. I don't get it. It's pretty obvious really. The fact that this poor chap died was, in effect, an accident. There was no intent to kill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zamo Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 On the face of it far to lenient. Idea: If you steal from someone you pay them back x6 for any loss or reparation, aside from any custodial sentence. Take a life and you pay back the next of kin for the rest of your life, regardless of being released early. That is too simplisitic and would diminish justice. More discretion is required not less. In my opinion 4 1/2 years for killing someone is too little but 4 1/2 years for hitting someone once is too much.The judge has tried to get the balance right because the assailant obvious intended to cause serious harm but didn't intent to cause death. However, whilst judges have some discretion to give harsher or more lenient based on criminal record I do not think it is enough. I'd like something similar to the US '3 strikes law' so judges could double or triple standard sentences for persistent serious offenders. I think 10-12 years for the individual in question (previous convictions for handling stolen goods and robbery) would have been nearer the mark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivanava Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 Honestly, can anyone, based on the information in the two links give me any idea why you can only get four years (out in two) for killing a man. Apologies, one is daily mail. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2567496/Pictured-Shocking-moment-doting-son-killed-single-punch-head-row-cycling-pavement-killer-jailed-just-four-half-years.html http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/lewis-gill-killed-andrew-young-3183689 I don't get it. Nor me, there's enough evidence to prove behold any doubt that he killed the man, there is little point to his continued existence so his body should be recycled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zamo Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 Nor me, there's enough evidence to prove behold any doubt that he killed the man, there is little point to his continued existence so his body should be recycled. Executing people for a single punch is not justice. That sort of 'justice' is more commonly found in places like North Korea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 That is too simplisitic and would diminish justice. More discretion is required not less. In my opinion 4 1/2 years for killing someone is too little but 4 1/2 years for hitting someone once is too much.The judge has tried to get the balance right because the assailant obvious intended to cause serious harm but didn't intent to cause death. However, whilst judges have some discretion to give harsher or more lenient based on criminal record I do not think it is enough. I'd like something similar to the US '3 strikes law' so judges could double or triple standard sentences for persistent serious offenders. I think 10-12 years for the individual in question (previous convictions for handling stolen goods and robbery) would have been nearer the mark. Executing people for a single punch is not justice. That sort of 'justice' is more commonly found in places like North Korea. On form today Zamo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.