Bit close for comfort

Maybe on a subconscious level he was thinking like that, I would much prefer he wasn't given the choice!

I think for hardened crims like this we need to look at the US for a model. Why the hell should we pay all the taxes we do in this country if we aren't guaranteed to be protected from the nutjobs we have already paid the Police, courts etc to put away?!

 

I'm afraid this situation is not a one-off. Check this out.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-27305157

Basically, some lad punch a man in the face hard enough to kill him. The man hit the deck, and didn't get up. The lad that did it just casually walked away. He got 4 years for manslaughter.

The powers that be challenged his sentence, saying it was too lenient. The court decided it was not too lenient at all, and the 4 year sentence still stands, so the perpetrator will probably serve maybe 30 months, for killing a man in a totally unprovoked attack.

So apart from saying that 4 years is not lenient for such sick brutality, what about the actual crime that he was convicted of. Manslaughter. When I was a kid, I was taught that manslaughter is when you accidentally or negligently cause someone's death through an act of stupidity that was not meant as hostile. Murder is when you commit a deliberate hostile action that results in someone's death. It used to be that if you hit someone, and they died within 1 year and 1 day, and there death was found to be in the most part caused by the attack, then it was still murder.

No matter how you look at it, if you attack somebody for no reason, and they die as a direct result of you attacking them, you have murdered them. It is not manslaughter, it is murder. Yet this lad got 4 years, and even when that sentence was challenged for being too lenient, another court ruled that 4 years was fine, for murdering someone in cold blood, in broad daylight, for no reason.