'Single punch' murder

[Pubey]

4 years too long/short/just right? How much of sentencing should be influenced by the consequence of the action?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...e-punch-killing-sentence-was-too-lenient.html

Be warned, the video in this is horrible.

 

[mrsblue]

Disgusting act and extremely cowardly.

Minimum 7 years served.

 

[MK Shrimper]

Out in 2 for taking the life of an innocent? Manslaughter or not, the sentence is far too short.

 

[davewebbsbrain]

Should be life, manslaughter or not. He took a life, he should have his taken away

 

[Massimo Giovanni]

I suspect the killer has a criminal history; there is no reason for the violence and the sentence needs to reflect both the crime (killing) and the responsibility for such casual thuggery.
10 yrs minimum and then only let out if he has changed & is no longer a danger to anyone who crosses his path.

 

[Greebosan]

He does have a criminal history - sure I read that he was on bail for receiving and violence. There have been a few examples locally recently of how one punch can kill - if you assault anyone, you cross the line and it should be treated the same as any other murder - life.

 

[Ricey]

The sentence is way too short, he needs to be made an example of whether he didn't mean to kill him or not. This sort of offence should be stamped upon. Our legal system is a complete joke, I don't care if someone has been good in prison they should serve the sentence they are given, not be released because they haven't caused any fights in jail. They should be on good behaviour so they get out on time and not have to stay longer.

He took a blokes life, that was one hell of a punch I'd personally put that down as murder rather than manslaughter looking at the way the punch was executed. So the bloke should spend life in prison.

 

[OldBlueLady]

Should be life, manslaughter or not. He took a life, he should have his taken away

I don't agree with that statement in its simplest form, you can go back to the most obvious case of Tony Martin to justify that it's wrong to simply state that.

The case in point here though is different, there needs to be a deterrent to make people think about the consequences of their actions...and that is not the same as Tony Martin's case. Personally, I find this sentence to be an insult to the family of the victim.

Minimum 15 years, with no chance of parole. And then earn the right.

 

[davewebbsbrain]

I don't agree with that statement in its simplest form, you can go back to the most obvious case of Tony Martin to justify that it's wrong to simply state that.

The case in point here though is different, there needs to be a deterrent to make people think about the consequences of their actions...and that is not the same as Tony Martin's case. Personally, I find this sentence to be an insult to the family of the victim.

Minimum 15 years, with no chance of parole. And then earn the right.

I meant in this case. Accidental death can be viewed many ways but that punch wasn't accidental. Whether he meant to kill or not, that punch was meant and the outcome should be life behind bars.

 

[Pubey]

The sentence is way too short, he needs to be made an example of whether he didn't mean to kill him or not. This sort of offence should be stamped upon. Our legal system is a complete joke, I don't care if someone has been good in prison they should serve the sentence they are given, not be released because they haven't caused any fights in jail. They should be on good behaviour so they get out on time and not have to stay longer.

He took a blokes life, that was one hell of a punch I'd personally put that down as murder rather than manslaughter looking at the way the punch was executed. So the bloke should spend life in prison.

Why should a judge arbitrarily decide to 'make an example' of someone? Surely sentencing should be consistent.

The punch was vicious, but I'd guess that 9 times out of 10 it wouldn't be fatal, and I doubt the intention was to kill the guy. I can understand why it isn't seen as murder, but I do agree that punching someone can be fatal and as a society we need to see that punching can have fatal consequences. Perhaps it's right to suggest that manslaughter should have broader sentencing guidelines that allow the wide range of possible scenarios to be captured.

There is a club near my old flat and a guy was punched and hit his head on the curb and died. Should he spend life in prison? I don't think so. He also got a 4 year sentence, which even if only 2 years is still a significant life-changing time in prison and something that will have severe consequences on his ability to life the rest of his life (career, family, friends, relationships etc).

http://www.thestar.co.uk/what-s-on/out-about/killer-jailed-for-city-bar-attack-1-2968800

 

[OldBlueLady]

I meant in this case. Accidental death can be viewed many ways but that punch wasn't accidental. Whether he meant to kill or not, that punch was meant and the outcome should be life behind bars.

You didn't say that though, I've picked up the same point in comments on FB. The old "eye for an eye" thing is just not appropriate, any more than "turning the other cheek" is.

 

[Ricey]

I meant in this case. Accidental death can be viewed many ways but that punch wasn't accidental. Whether he meant to kill or not, that punch was meant and the outcome should be life behind bars.

Problem is with a lot of the law it's was all written before even Southend United existed. The offences against a person act is from 1861 and what manslaughter comes under is the Homicide act 1957. Have a read one bored evening it's interesting stuff, the police in an interview and in the court of law will pull all the points to prove out of the relevant act. I'm not that clued up on the homicide act but will have a read over my notes and see what I can pull out.

 

[Pubey]

I don't agree with that statement in its simplest form, you can go back to the most obvious case of Tony Martin to justify that it's wrong to simply state that.

The case in point here though is different, there needs to be a deterrent to make people think about the consequences of their actions...and that is not the same as Tony Martin's case. Personally, I find this sentence to be an insult to the family of the victim.

Minimum 15 years, with no chance of parole. And then earn the right.

Not all victims/families of victims want severe sentences for perpetrators. There have been some amazing stories of forgiveness, even for horrendous acts.

If someone shows genuine remorse, then you can understand how a victim might want to avoid more lives (of the perpetrator and their friends/family) from being completely ruined.

 

[Ricey]

Why should a judge arbitrarily decide to 'make an example' of someone? Surely sentencing should be consistent.

The punch was vicious, but I'd guess that 9 times out of 10 it wouldn't be fatal, and I doubt the intention was to kill the guy. I can understand why it isn't seen as murder, but I do agree that punching someone can be fatal and as a society we need to see that punching can have fatal consequences. Perhaps it's right to suggest that manslaughter should have broader sentencing guidelines that allow the wide range of possible scenarios to be captured.

There is a club near my old flat and a guy was punched and hit his head on the curb and died. Should he spend life in prison? I don't think so. He also got a 4 year sentence, which even if only 2 years is still a significant life-changing time in prison and something that will have severe consequences on his ability to life the rest of his life (career, family, friends, relationships etc).

http://www.thestar.co.uk/what-s-on/out-about/killer-jailed-for-city-bar-attack-1-2968800

Fair point, haven't really got an answer to that just my personal opinion but that's why I'm not a judge.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Problem is with a lot of the law it's was all written before even Southend United existed. The offences against a person act is from 1861 and what manslaughter comes under is the Homicide act 1957. Have a read one bored evening it's interesting stuff, the police in an interview and in the court of law will pull all the points to prove out of the relevant act. I'm not that clued up on the homicide act but will have a read over my notes and see what I can pull out.

As amended by the Criminal Law Act 1977 (amongst others).

 

[Ricey]

As amended by the Criminal Law Act 1977 (amongst others).

You still arrest people on certain offences under the offences against a persons act for things such as ABH.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

You still arrest people on certain offences under the offences against a persons act for things such as ABH.

Yes, but those offences have been amended by subsequent legislation.

The original act may have been 1861 but those laws have been revised over the years.

 

[Ricey]

Yes, but those offences have been amended by subsequent legislation.

The original act may have been 1861 but those laws have been revised over the years.

My point is although some parts of acts have been revised like certain words added, not many acts are updated to the 00's they are all 90's and prior. A lot has changed since the nineties and definitely since the early 2000's, just my opinion that a lot of the law needs revising to modern day and kept on as a live document.

 

[maninasuitcase]

I don't think 'making an example' of someone with long prison sentence is a deterrent in the first place. If prison was a deterrent, then there would be no crime. I would guess most people are in prison because they thought they could get away with it, whether it be multiple driving offences through to fraud, drugs, burglary, violence, manslaughter, rape and murder.

Prison is there to punish the individual, in some case rehabilitate them back in to society, and in others to protect the general public from their actions.

The key is consistency, not the level of press and public outcry over one particular case.

According to the CPS website, the guidelines for sentences for 'single punch manslaughter' are between 12 months to four years. The question is are these guidelines correct? My own opinion is no, I would like to see it increased to four to 10 years.

 

[OldBlueLady]

Not all victims/families of victims want severe sentences for perpetrators. There have been some amazing stories of forgiveness, even for horrendous acts.

Agreed, and it takes a very special kind of person to feel that way. I know I wouldn't be strong enough to do so.