If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Man and two youths get life for murder of disabled man
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/wear/7270808.stm
All three men have received minimum tarrif life sentences. They tormented and beat a vulnerable person with learning difficulties to death over a £5 bet of who could knock him out first.
I have a serious question to ask, and there is no hidden motivation for this, I just want an honest answer; can someone give me a coherent feasible argument for exactly why these people should not spend the rest of their lives in prison, with no possibility of release?
All three men have received minimum tarrif life sentences. They tormented and beat a vulnerable person with learning difficulties to death over a £5 bet of who could knock him out first.
I have a serious question to ask, and there is no hidden motivation for this, I just want an honest answer; can someone give me a coherent feasible argument for exactly why these people should not spend the rest of their lives in prison, with no possibility of release?
0
Comments
No. Cunts of the most cuntish variety.
Apart from that the vulnerable must be protected, and to be quite frank there must be a measure of punishment for something this sick.
Yes, when there is absolute proof of remorse, regret and rehabilitation.
Even then only after 30 years minimum has been served.
That's not to say any of these cunts should automatically be considered, or that they should be considered any time soon. If we're arguing whether they should be released within 15 years, I'm pretty sure we all agree they should serve a long, long time. If we're arguing they should automatically receive life sentences without parole, I don't actually agree.
It all comes down to case-to-case basis really.
Anyone who argues that these scum shouldn't stay inside until they die are the sort of people who don't suffer with the problems they cause, or they've got their heads too far up their own arses to realise that the majority of people don't want pyschotic bastards who murder people for a £5 bet wandering the streets.
Let the bastards rot.
I'm inclined to see some circumstances in which this could be quite convincing.
I'm half-expecting to see a story in one of the Sunday papers this week saying that the three boys are now all suicidal. If so, good. It's the least they deserve.
I can only go by what the BBC article says, but according to it the bet was about who could knock out the man first.
Now I'm not in anyway condoning the disgusting actions of those wankstains. But if you believe a man who, say, has a fight with another man, who ends up dying as a result of the injuries sustained by the fight, deserves eventually coming out of jail, then who is that different from this lot?
I do believe in life in prison without parole in some cases. I'm just not sure this case necessarily qualifies. It would certainly depend on their future admission of responsibility, remorse and rehabilitation. I can certainly think of many worse cases in which the killer actually meant to end another person's life and just did so, and eventually gets released from jail.
Absolutely not. That should not be a mitigating circumstance; ignorance should not be a defense in a case such as this. They made a decision to deprive someone of consciousness through imprecise and arbitrary violence - that carries with in an unacceptably high risk of outcomes that you can't control, such as death. It a one punch situation maybe not, but the sustained attack tells a different story.
Grow up.
People makes mistakes in life. Sometimes they are huge ones, like in this case.
What you are effectively saying that that people cannot change, cannot recognise the consequenecs of their actions or realise the error of their ways and so should be put on the scrap heap.
My suggestion isn't a case of simply saying "sorry" and then quick release. It would require massive amounts of proof that the person truly has reformed, truly has shown remorse and truly is rehabilitated. One of these people might possibly get that far, in which case keeping him inside serves no more purpose.
I think then it's a case of opinion.
2 men who are in a fight, one of whom gets punched and dies from a head injury. Yes, it's murder, yes the murderer should serve a significant amount of time.
A mentally ill man who is set upon by 3 blokes he was trying to make friends with, who make a bet to see who can knock him out first? To me they know full well that their actions will end in tears, and I personally think they should rot inside.
As for worse cases where people have been released, that just highlights the crapness of the system, although I can't picture there being "much" worse than beating a mentally ill man to death for a fiver, (and no, that isn't an invitation to go and dig up hundreds of cases of necrophilia :P)
Morgan Freeman in The Shawshank Redemption at the end. 30 years inside, i think he was quite remorseful.
Can I name any? No. Do I know that they exist, yes most certainly.
Point is SG, without meeting these people, without talking to them, without giving them a chance to show remorse you have decided that they are incapable of recognising that what they did was wrong.
You are effectively saying that such a thing is not possible in a human being.
That's not murder. That's manslaughter.
You should know that.
No, it's not murder, it's manslaughter.
For someone who supposedly upholds the criminal law your knowledge of it is diabolical.
There are some crimes for which you can never show enough remorse and regret. There are some crimes for which you can never be fully rehabilitated.
I don't think murder should have a mandatory whole-of-life tariff because not everyone means to murder and not everyone will be a danger for the rest of their lidfe. I don't think children should get whole-of-life tariffs, although I do think Venables and Thompson were let out ten years too soon.
But for a lot of murders I don't think parole should ever be considered. Beating a disabled man to death for a laugh is not a "mistake", it is an act of evil.
I'd hang the fuckers to be quite honest, except I think locking them up for the rest of their life is probably a nastier punishment.
When it comes to upholding the law my knowledge requirement ends at public order offences that i'm actually LIKELY to come into contact with.
Ask me a question about public order or theft or misuse of motor vehicles or what powers under PACE cover entering a property and i'll blind you with info.
As for murder/manslaughter e.t.c. Don't come across many of them i'm afraid so you'll have to forgive me if my law encyclopedia isn't quite as full as yours. But then what good is the theory if it'll never be put into practice....? Armchair pundits never ask themselves that.
p.s. I am aware of the fundamental difference. I merely put that example in for the benefit of Aladdin whom I was responding to.
Intent is an important aspect of a lot of crimes, not just ones that result in a death. As you say the difference between manslaughter and murder is pretty basic and it doesn't look good when somebody who's supposed to be upholding the law looks ignorant to it.
Even as an example it's flawed because it's incorrect.