Home Politics & Debate
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 ✨

Murderer

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
I don't support the death penalty, but if i did, this is the sort of bastard that deserves to hang - but he gets just 11 years :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/10509022.stm
«1

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Should be double that. Fucking lunatic.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I hope they took him round the back of the station when he was nicked and at least gave him a thorough beating for his troubles.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Rot in hell, you utter fucking cunt.
  • SkiveSkive Posts: 15,281 Skive's The Limit
    The bloke's scum no doubt, but I can't see any evidence of a murder in that story?

    I dont support the death penalty, but if I did, it certainly wouldn't be for manslaughter.
    Weekender Offender 
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    What amazes me when I watch TV programmes like Road Wars (Sky) is the amount of times people run from the police in their vehicles, involving a protracted chase with damage to public property, and merely get driving related penalties. This case has only received the 11yr sentence due to the death, and you could argue that 11yrs is not long enough. I just find it appalling that someone has to die before an appropriate sentence is handed out, as if driving like a maniac in an uninsured vehicle and trying to evade the police isn't already a potential murder every second that the chase continues.

    The sentencing in this country is something I'll never quite understand.
  • SkiveSkive Posts: 15,281 Skive's The Limit
    super147 wrote: »
    as if driving like a maniac in an uninsured vehicle and trying to evade the police isn't already a potential murder every second that the chase continues.

    Well it isn't.
    And 11 years seems a bout right to me. That is if he does indeed serve the full term.
    Weekender Offender 
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote: »
    Well it isn't.

    It most certainly can be. Murder isn't based purely on the intent to kill. Murder can also be the charge is it is deemed that the acts of the defendant are almost certain to cause death. If death is proven to have been almost inevitable then the charge of murder can apply and not manslaughter, in the event that someone dies of course.
  • SkiveSkive Posts: 15,281 Skive's The Limit
    super147 wrote: »
    It most certainly can be. Murder isn't based purely on the intent to kill. Murder can also be the charge is it is deemed that the acts of the defendant are almost certain to cause death. If death is proven to have been almost inevitable then the charge of murder can apply and not manslaughter, in the event that someone dies of course.

    Rubbish. In English law murder requires intent; intent to either causes death or serious injury which results in death.

    Neither can be applied here or to anybody simply 'driving like a maniac in an unisured vehicle'.
    Weekender Offender 
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote: »
    In English law murder requires intent; intent to either causes death or serious injury which results in death

    No, not rubbish in fact. Intent, under British law, can be proven if the acts of an individual were virtually certain to result in the death. It doesn't have to be the intent to kill a specific person.

    Someone who steals a car and drives the wrong way down a motorway, as has happened, for example could be found guilty of murder if they kill someone. Perhaps my initial example was using the term 'murder' incorrectly, manslaughter would be more appropriate I agree.
  • SkiveSkive Posts: 15,281 Skive's The Limit
    super147 wrote: »
    Someone who steals a car and drives the wrong way down a motorway, as has happened, for example could be found guilty of murder if they kill someone.

    Constuctive manslaughter occurs when someone kills, without intent, in the course of committing an unlawful act. The malice involved in the crime is transferred to the killing, resulting in a charge of manslaughter.

    Not murder. Murder in English law requires intent.
    Weekender Offender 
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote: »
    Constuctive manslaughter occurs when someone kills, without intent, in the course of committing an unlawful act. The malice involved in the crime is transferred to the killing, resulting in a charge of manslaughter.

    Not murder.

    Intention is proved not only when the defendant's motive or purpose is to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (direct intent), but when death or grievous bodily harm is a virtually certain consequence of the defendant's act (indirect or 'oblique' intent).

    Possible murder.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    super147 wrote: »
    Intention is proved not only when the defendant's motive or purpose is to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (direct intent), but when death or grievous bodily harm is a virtually certain consequence of the defendant's act (indirect or 'oblique' intent).

    Possible murder.

    That is more akin to the situation where you plant a bomb in a public place though. You have the intent to cause harm.

    I doubt the driver making a getaway was intending to kill anyone. If it was a situation like in Holland a year ago or so where someone drove straight into a parade, that is different.
  • SkiveSkive Posts: 15,281 Skive's The Limit
    super147 wrote: »
    Intention is proved not only when the defendant's motive or purpose is to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (direct intent), but when death or grievous bodily harm is a virtually certain consequence of the defendant's act (indirect or 'oblique' intent).

    Driving the worng way down a motorway is not 'virtually certain' to cause death or even GBH. No intent here.

    This is not murder. And the Criminal Justice System seems to agree - thank fuck.
    Weekender Offender 
  • SkiveSkive Posts: 15,281 Skive's The Limit
    It worries me that people dont know the difference between muder and manslaughter.
    Weekender Offender 
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ShyBoy wrote: »
    That is more akin to the situation where you plant a bomb in a public place though. You have the intent to cause harm.

    I doubt the driver making a getaway was intending to kill anyone. If it was a situation like in Holland a year ago or so where someone drove straight into a parade, that is different.

    No, the bomb in a public place situation is only relevant when trying to prove murder without there being a specific intended victim.

    This is not about the intent being to kill someone, this is about the intent in the act being committed having a hugely high probability of killing someone, so much so as to make it almost a certainty.
  • SkiveSkive Posts: 15,281 Skive's The Limit
    super147 wrote: »
    This is not about the intent being to kill someone, this is about the intent in the act being committed having a hugely high probability of killing someone, so much so as to make it almost a certainty.

    You got a source for this?

    You have to be able to proove the the defendant foresaw the death as a result of his actions and did nothing to change his actions. That cannot apply here. If you think that driving down the road the wrong way is certain to cause death then you havnt watched enough road wars.
    Weekender Offender 
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote: »
    Driving the worng way down a motorway is not 'virtually certain' to cause death or even GBH. No intent here.

    This is not murder. And the Criminal Justice System seems to agree - thank fuck.

    I'm not going to argue with you further. There is a case for murder, it is down to how the judge interprets the acts of the defendant. The criminal justice system allows for that. Fortunately I don't need you to validate my opinion, and I have merely expressed a case where murder could be applied rather than just calling your views 'rubbish'. That is a bit too pompous for me.
  • SkiveSkive Posts: 15,281 Skive's The Limit
    super147 wrote: »
    There is a case for murder

    Isn't. :)
    Weekender Offender 
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    i agree that it's manslaughter. poor woman though.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Hanging for a hit and run? or because it was a 70 year old who was the victim? As Skive said, 11 years seems justifiable. Talking about Road Wars, I like watching that show but it annoys me when they say what their sentence was, most of the time it's a slap on the wrist, even with solid evidence.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    JavaKrypt wrote: »
    Hanging for a hit and run? or because it was a 70 year old who was the victim? As Skive said, 11 years seems justifiable.

    I agree that in the eyes of the law, this is manslaughter. But to drive the way he did, he would have known that his actions could lead to death. This was made especially clear in that he didn't stop after his first near miss. He chose to continue to run the risk of killing someone by driving without any regard to the danger he was putting other people in - and he didn't stop after hitting her either. In my PERSONAL opinion, this is murder.

    The age of the lady that was killed is irrelevant. He could have wiped out one of those oncoming cars with possibly a whole family travelling inside it. Would 11 years still be 'acceptable'? I would say, too, that the 11 years reflects that he didn't stop. How pitiful would the sentence have been if he had stopped after hitting her?

    Having said that, what also gripes me about this sort of crime is that you can get 11 years for embezzlement. No one dies but you do the same length of time as someone who's life has been needlessly been snuffed out.

    The law is an ass.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You don't have to prove just intent for murder. You can also prove malice aforethought. ie knowledge that your action or lack of action will result in somebody's death means you are guilty of murder. In layman's terms, if by walking down the street with a shotgun blasting people randomly in the face you kill a stranger, you may not have intended to kill that person but will have reasonably known that your actions would end with somebody's death.
  • SkiveSkive Posts: 15,281 Skive's The Limit
    It's not murder. And the sentance is pretty fair I think.
    Weekender Offender 
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote: »
    It's not murder. And the sentance is pretty fair I think.

    Maybe not this time, I was just chucking in my two pence worth. I think 11 years for driving like a fuckwit and killing someone isn't long enough, we all know he'll be out in 6. Maybe if it was 11 minimum.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere wrote: »
    Maybe not this time, I was just chucking in my two pence worth. I think 11 years for driving like a fuckwit and killing someone isn't long enough, we all know he'll be out in 6. Maybe if it was 11 minimum.
    The whole point of the system is rehabilitation from doing a wrong, if he gets out in 6 years for good behaviour, that's how the system works.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    JavaKrypt wrote: »
    The whole point of the system is rehabilitation from doing a wrong, if he gets out in 6 years for good behaviour, that's how the system works.

    But the punishment for unlawfully killing someone is then practically reduced to the same sentence for a 'white collar' crime. How can taking a life be so insignificant?

    If your own mother was killed in such a way, would getting out in 6 years seem reasonable to you?

    This guy didn't have a lapse of judgement and take his eye off the road for a second to change his radio station in the car. He purposely stole a car and then purposely drove it without any regard to anyone else on the road - or the repercussions thereof.
  • SkiveSkive Posts: 15,281 Skive's The Limit
    Teagan wrote: »
    If your own mother was killed in such a way, would getting out in 6 years seem reasonable to you?

    Nothing would seem reasonable.
    That's why we have courts and judges to makes decisions on convictions, so they can give out fair and proper judgements that arn't clouded by personal grief, and that is how it should be.

    If he is rehabilitated, then I dont have a problem with 6 years bird. The Criminal Justice System should be as much about rehabilitation as it is about punishment.
    Weekender Offender 
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote: »
    Nothing would seem reasonable.
    That's why we have courts and judges to makes decisions on convictions, so they can give out fair and proper judgements that arn't clouded by personal grief, and that is how it should be.

    If he is rehabilitated, then I dont have a problem with 6 years bird. The Criminal Justice System should be as much about rehabilitation as it is about punishment.

    Yeah, spot on.

    All this thread does is show why it's judges, and not the general public, who should be in a position to determine the nature of a crime and the appropriate sentence.

    This is only murder if you stretch the meaning of the word "murder" beyond all recognition, which renders the concept useless.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    jamelia wrote: »
    Yeah, spot on.

    All this thread does is show why it's judges, and not the general public, who should be in a position to determine the nature of a crime and the appropriate sentence.

    This is only murder if you stretch the meaning of the word "murder" beyond all recognition, which renders the concept useless.
    Totally agree.

    The death itself was an accident that was an unfortunate consequence of his being an idiot. I think they got the sentence quite right, actually.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote: »
    should be as much about rehabilitation as it is about punishment.

    I don't disagree, I think preventing people from committing crime is just as important as catching them. But is 6 years really enough of a punishment for killing someone during the commission of a crime?
Sign In or Register to comment.