'Single punch' murder

[steveo]

If this was a case of two blokes willingly fighting and one accidentally died the sentence would be fair. however, an unprovoked attack of this nature against a far undermatched opponent should have resulted in at least 10 years.

 

[Clinton Baptiste]

They had this on radio 2 yesterday lunchtime, listening to some of the stories was awful. One guy got 6 months for punching a guy and killing him. Justice is a joke in this country.

 

[Uncle Leo]

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

Is that the only reason?

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

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.

Very little has changed since the nineties. Punching someone* was wrong in 1861, was wrong in 1990 and is still wrong in 2014.

*outside of a boxing ring. FWIW the Queensbury Rules were published 6 years after the 1861 Offences against the Person Act.

 

[Massimo Giovanni]

Review of sentence rejected by High Court, minimal sentence allowed to stand.

 

[Smudger]

Review of sentence rejected by High Court, minimal sentence allowed to stand.

Karma is a bitch - that **** (sorry OBL, no other word is appropriate) will get his when the time comes.

 

[Massimo Giovanni]

I spoke with a local man last week who was "one punched" in a surprise no motive assault by a stranger last year, he had a detached retina and is now 1 eye blind and can't drive a HGV anymore plus has several more ops required to ensure he doesn't go fully blind. His attacker is up for sentencing soon and I wonder what that will be? If it was mine (or anyone's sight) taken in such circumstances I would expect the attacker thug to be locked up for ten years but I also know that won't happen. How this killing is only " worth" 4 years is madness and no real deterrent or true punishment.

 

[Davros]

The area of the law this falls under is 'the thin skull principle', in that you take someone as you find them, so if you choose to punch someone and it kills them in one hit, then so be it, it is no defence that it wouldn't have killed another person

 

[GBJ]

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

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

Hold up. If someone Was trying to hurt a family member of yours, and you acted in a violent way, which resulted in the death of said assailant, would your opinions stay the same? Rightly or wrongly, manslaughter or murder, you've just iced someone, so by your own admissions, you would happily accept a long stint in the steel hotel?

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.

That's not really how the law works. FWIW I tend to agree with you, though. It would be nice to see this barbarian (and others like him) get truly served up, but the law in this country is a laughing stock. That's the main reason things like this happen, because people aren't scared of repercussions.

Also. The punch wasn't that special though. Typical street fighter style, just a big winding haymaker. Executed pretty poorly aswell tbh. Pubey is right, 9/10 this doesn't kill & being totally honest, would be totally telegraphed by someone on the ball. Unfortunately in this case it has been detrimental, and the action should be met with severe repercussions. But let's not kid ourselves into thinking this was something special, like a trained fighter would inflict. Without trying to sound callous, this was more (for lack of a better word) a "unlucky" punch.

I spoke with a local man last week who was "one punched" in a surprise no motive assault by a stranger last year, he had a detached retina and is now 1 eye blind and can't drive a HGV anymore plus has several more ops required to ensure he doesn't go fully blind. His attacker is up for sentencing soon and I wonder what that will be? If it was mine (or anyone's sight) taken in such circumstances I would expect the attacker thug to be locked up for ten years but I also know that won't happen. How this killing is only " worth" 4 years is madness and no real deterrent or true punishment.

What did the attacker get charged with? GBH can carry a life sentence & in this case, It'd be justifiable.

 

[Massimo Giovanni]

My understanding is that the mens rea of an offence is an important part of the crime, an that there is also a reasonable person test of expectation and likely result of any deliberate action taken.
A swung punch made deliberately for the head as opposed to an instinctive reaction to, say, a shove under stress is different.
In the killing, and in the blinding case I believe both were made with expectation and desire to cause serious harm, if not kill or maim, and although on many occasions maybe an air punch could happen / occur BUT if the worse does happen then the consequences must be taken accordingly and the sentence ought to reflect that and two years does not, clearly IMO.
As for the sentence for Sec 18 or 20 GBH ( intent or not) it makes little difference when courts sentence with guidelines given politically to keep jails from severe over crowding.

 

[MK Shrimper]

Hold up. If someone Was trying to hurt a family member of yours, and you acted in a violent way, which resulted in the death of said assailant, would your opinions stay the same? Rightly or wrongly, manslaughter or murder, you've just iced someone, so by your own admissions, you would happily accept a long stint in the steel hotel?

I'm struggling to see how the punching of an innocent man equates to someone trying to hurt a family member. They're polar opposites.

 

[mrsblue]

Imagine if the population all went around punching without any regard for the victim it would be a bloodbath.

This guy should have received 2 sentences

1.Put into a room with a complete nutter and if he is still alive after 25 minutes fair play.

2.Assuming he survived the above give him 10 years in nick.

 

[GBJ]

I'm struggling to see how the punching of an innocent man equates to someone trying to hurt a family member. They're polar opposites.

An innocent man is randomly punched and killed.
A man causing harm or distress to your family member, is punched and killed.

Despite being polar opposites, both outcomes are the same. A human life is gone. So I'm asking, Should the consequent sentences be the same? If I've read it wrong I apologise, but I got the impression that you & DWB were advocating that the law should be... if you take a life, yours should be taken in return?

 

[MK Shrimper]

An innocent man is randomly punched and killed.
A man causing harm or distress to your family member, is punched and killed.

Despite being polar opposites, both outcomes are the same. A human life is gone. So I'm asking, Should the consequent sentences be the same? If I've read it wrong I apologise, but I got the impression that you & DWB were advocating that the law should be... if you take a life, yours should be taken in return?

Jeez, I never meant that. Taking of a life in defence of yourself or people you love is justified in my eyes and hopefully in the eyes of the law.

 

[steveo]

An innocent man is randomly punched and killed.
A man causing harm or distress to your family member, is punched and killed.

If you are defending your family member then its completely different from whacking an innocent bloke in the street.
The victim was no threat. The scumbag could have walked away.

 

[GBJ]

Jeez, I never meant that. Taking of a life in defence of yourself or people you love is justified in my eyes and hopefully in the eyes of the law.

"Hopefully" being the key word. I'm no expert, but I do know a guy with a similar story who has been bailed & is awaiting further notice. The CPS can be *******s.

If you are defending your family member then its completely different from whacking an innocent bloke in the street.
The victim was no threat. The scumbag could have walked away.

I'm not disagreeing with that at all

 

[davewebbsbrain]

Hold up. If someone Was trying to hurt a family member of yours, and you acted in a violent way, which resulted in the death of said assailant, would your opinions stay the same? Rightly or wrongly, manslaughter or murder, you've just iced someone, so by your own admissions, you would happily accept a long stint in the steel hotel?



That's not really how the law works. FWIW I tend to agree with you, though. It would be nice to see this barbarian (and others like him) get truly served up, but the law in this country is a laughing stock. That's the main reason things like this happen, because people aren't scared of repercussions.

Also. The punch wasn't that special though. Typical street fighter style, just a big winding haymaker. Executed pretty poorly aswell tbh. Pubey is right, 9/10 this doesn't kill & being totally honest, would be totally telegraphed by someone on the ball. Unfortunately in this case it has been detrimental, and the action should be met with severe repercussions. But let's not kid ourselves into thinking this was something special, like a trained fighter would inflict. Without trying to sound callous, this was more (for lack of a better word) a "unlucky" punch.



What did the attacker get charged with? GBH can carry a life sentence & in this case, It'd be justifiable.

I think you know me better than that.

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

String the ****er up.

 

[Ulysses]

25 years - end of

 

[Bielzibubz]

1. Totally unprovoked attack on a perfectly innocent person with no thought as to the consequences and a human life is taken

2. The defence of a loved one, family member or your own life being in immediate danger and a human life is taken.

The ultimate outcome is one and the same. A life is gone and others are left to pick up the pieces. That's where the similarities between these two scenarios end and is the reason why you cannot use one in comparison to the other.

Sentencing should reflect ALL aspects of the crime not just the final outcome and why 4 years, with the prospect of being out in two, is woefully inadequate in this instance.