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.
Aged 16-25? Share your experience of using the discussion boards and receive a £25 voucher! Take part via text-chat, video or phone. Click here to find out more and to take part.
Options
Murderer
Former 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
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/10509022.stm
0
Comments
I dont support the death penalty, but if I did, it certainly wouldn't be for manslaughter.
The sentencing in this country is something I'll never quite understand.
Well it isn't.
And 11 years seems a bout right to me. That is if he does indeed serve the full term.
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'.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Isn't.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?