Guest Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 You can work on whatever principle you like, but the legal principle is one of 'intent', and a prosecutor would have a difficult time convincing a jury that a defendant who punched someone once had intended to kill them. Its a bit like the incident with Ian Tomlinson who was shoved in the back by that police officer but ended up dead from the fall, the police officer clearly meant him no real harm but it didn't stop many calling for him to get done for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivanava Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 You can work on whatever principle you like, but the legal principle is one of 'intent', and a prosecutor would have a difficult time convincing a jury that a defendant who punched someone once had intended to kill them. I know what the legal principle is, but that doesn't alter the fact I can disagree with it and express a different opinion. They wouldn't have to prove intent, if the law implies intent, if you commit an illegal act that can result in death, I see nothing wrong with simply implying intent, obviously doing something legal can also result in death but in that case I wouldn't imply intent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 Its a bit like the incident with Ian Tomlinson who was shoved in the back by that police officer but ended up dead from the fall, the police officer clearly meant him no real harm but it didn't stop many calling for him to get done for it. It's not really like that incident because the police officer wasn't 'done for it'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 It's not really like that incident because the police officer wasn't 'done for it'. No but many people wanted him to get done for it, even though there was no intent by the officer to kill the guy or even cause him any harm, it was just a shove. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 I was referring to the thugs that think punching someone is acceptable and can't kill them, I work on the principle that if you choose to punch someone you can't then claim that you didn't intend to kill them, because everyone should know that punching someone can kill them. That just says to me that you don't know what intend means. Its no different to someone claiming that they didn't intend to kill when they shot or knifed someone. That's still possible, although the far more lethal nature of those acts makes it harder to claim. If you do something that is illegal and can result in someone's death then it should be treated as though you intended to kill them. I disagree, our justice system is based on evidence and proof. Not assumptions. How? and rehabilitation obviously didn't work for him did it. The million dollar question. Why, there are already plenty of good people, why do we need to keep the bad people. I suspect you'd change your mind if you were accidentally classified as a 'bad' person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 I know what the legal principle is, but that doesn't alter the fact I can disagree with it and express a different opinion. Absolutely, but you're trying to convince us that the legal principle is wrong. They wouldn't have to prove intent, if the law implies intent, if you commit an illegal act that can result in death, I see nothing wrong with simply implying intent, obviously doing something legal can also result in death but in that case I wouldn't imply intent. However the evidence suggests that someone being punched once is unlikely to die, so it might be reasonable to argue that someone killing someone by punching them didn't believe they were going to kill them. As Zamo said earlier, a 4+ year sentence for punching someone is punitive, whereas a 4+ sentence for that punch resulting in someone losing their life is lenient. ---------- Post added 26-02-2014 at 10:40 ---------- No but many people wanted him to get done for it, even though there was no intent by the officer to kill the guy or even cause him any harm, it was just a shove. But you're comparing chalk with cheese, the youth in the OP was tried, convicted and sentenced are you saying he should have been acquitted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivanava Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 That just says to me that you don't know what intend means. So if I deliberately run you over with a car, you wouldn't think I intended to kill you, clearly it wouldn't matter if I intended to kill you or not because the consequence is likely your death or serious injury, so the law should simply assume that I intended to kill you. I disagree, our justice system is based on evidence and proof. Not assumptions. I know, and it is this I disagree with in cases such as this, I don't think it should be necessary to prove intent, I would be happy for the law to simply assume intend. I suspect you'd change your mind if you were accidentally classified as a 'bad' person. Off cause I wouldn't want to be executed if I killed someone, but that doesn't change my opinion, that I should be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 I know, and it is this I disagree with in cases such as this, I don't think it should be necessary to prove intent, I would be happy for the law to simply assume intend. ..until such time as your hitherto well behaved teenage son gets involved in a scuffle, punches someone whose head bangs on the pavement and subsequently dies. ---------- Post added 26-02-2014 at 10:48 ---------- So if I deliberately run you over with a car, you wouldn't think I intended to kill you, clearly it wouldn't matter if I intended to kill you or not because the consequence is likely your death or serious injury, so the law should simply assume that I intended to kill you. The difference we all know driving a car at someone is likely to kill or at least seriously injure them, whereas punching them isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivanava Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 Absolutely, but you're trying to convince us that the legal principle is wrong. It is wrong in my opinion, I not in any way trying to convince you of this though. However the evidence suggests that someone being punched once is unlikely to die, so it might be reasonable to argue that someone killing someone by punching them didn't believe they were going to kill them. I shouldn't matter what they believe, they committed an illegal act that resulted in someone death, why should they get to live a long life when their victims life as been cut short. ---------- Post added 26-02-2014 at 10:49 ---------- ..until such time as your hitherto well behaved teenage son gets involved in a scuffle, punches someone whose head bangs on the pavement and subsequently dies. No, the same rule would apply to all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 I shouldn't matter what they believe, they committed an illegal act that resulted in someone death, why should they get to live a long life when their victims life as been cut short. I understand your argument, but the punishment has to take account of the intention of the defendant and of course the consequences to the victim, that's why you might get a community penalty for punching someone and 4+ years for that punch killing them. What we do agree on is that level of sentence is too low, but I wouldn't agree on a sentence being imposed similar to one where someone deliberately with premeditation sets out to kill someone, even though the consequences to the victim are the same. ---------- Post added 26-02-2014 at 11:41 ---------- Hot Off the Press The attorney general is reviewing the sentence with a view to challenging its leniency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.