I'm Going To Kill You All

Reebok Trotter wrote:He should have been sentenced to 15 years imprisonment which is the maximum term for manslaughter.

Why should he get the maximum sentence for manslaughter? Is this the worst possible manslaughter you can imagine? Punching someone once in a takeaway?

largehat wrote:

Lets be honest, if you were in a takeaway late at night, sat waiting for your food to be ready, and you heard someone moaning and having a go at the staff about their own food, would you really get involved? Nobody was being threatened from what I can gather. If the guy had minded his own business he'd probably still be alive.

Brilliant, blame the victim

Your post sums up society. Someone tries to do the right thing and you think he's an idiot.

I trust if you were being gang-raped in the street you'd expect me to walk on by.

The bottom line is that the punishment does not fit the crime. Life is precious and sacrosanct. The accused had previous for assault so it's not as if it was the only time in his life that he has thrown his weight about.

i was once in a takeaway in leyland and the bloke in front was demanding a receipt for his burger. the staff kept repeating they didn't do receipts which just made this guy louder and angrier.

at this point my boyfriend at the time stepped in and asked the guy to leave, but this tosser took a swing at him but missed. my boyfriend chinned him knocking him down. the guy left the shop and less than 3 minutes later came back with two cops saying my boyfriend had assaulted him. in the end there were enough witnesses to convince the police there was nothing to answer for, but the point is this: until we make an example of these pissed up idiots nothing will ever change. and for largehat to try and say the victim should have been more sensible is a ludicrous thing to say.

Natasha Whittam wrote:
Brilliant, blame the victim

Your post sums up society. Someone tries to do the right thing and you think he's an idiot.

No not really, I'm just saying, the guy intervened in an argument that had nothing to do with him, no crime was being committed, do you not think that was a bit foolish in this day and age?

These paltry sentences just go to show what the CJS really thinks about good Samaritans. What if some chav was beating up his girlfriend and a passer by intervened ? It's no different. Until the law comes down hard on feckless knuckleheads they will continue to behave in a truculent manner.

Reebok Trotter wrote:The bottom line is that the punishment does not fit the crime. Life is precious and sacrosanct. The accused had previous for assault so it's not as if it was the only time in his life that he has thrown his weight about.

I agree the punishment doesn't fit the crime, but I don't think it warrants the maximum sentence either. I'd day someone should spend about 5-7 years in prison for that under the current system.

The accused having previous for assault is totally irrelevant as far as sentencing is concerned, unless they are no probation.

largehat wrote:

No not really, I'm just saying, the guy intervened in an argument that had nothing to do with him, no crime was being committed, do you not think that was a bit foolish in this day and age?

That fact even you, an intelligent guy, thinks this scares the hell out of me.

A crime was being committed by the way, the guy was shouting and swearing about his cheesy chips. Public order offence.

Natasha Whittam wrote:
That fact even you, an intelligent guy, thinks this scares the hell out of me.

A crime was being committed by the way, the guy was shouting and swearing about his cheesy chips. Public order offence.

No not at all, you should pick and choose your battles in life, I'm not particularly interested ins an argument over melted cheese. Don't give me your public order offence shite. Half your posts are bloody public order offences.

Please pm me your address, you're first on my list.

largehat wrote:
The accused having previous for assault is totally irrelevant as far as sentencing is concerned, unless they are no probation.

It does at the moment. Previous character cannot be mentioned to a jury and can only be revealed once a person has been found guilty.

Moves are afoot to change this. It cannot be right in this day and age that someone can have numerous convictions for assault and been sent to prison several times without a jury being made aware of this when he is up on a new but identical charge.

The defendants Modus Operandi should be made available to the jury so that they can make an informed opinion based on any kindred offences that that defendant had been convicted of in the past.

Reebok Trotter wrote:
It does at the moment. Previous character cannot be mentioned to a jury and can only be revealed once a person has been found guilty.

Moves are afoot to change this. It cannot be right in this day and age that someone can have numerous convictions for assault and been sent to prison several times without a jury being made aware of this when he is up on a new but identical charge.

The defendants Modus Operandi should be made available to the jury so that they can make an informed opinion based on any kindred offences that that defendant had been convicted of in the past.

No, it really shouldn't. It's the jury's job to determine whether the accused is guilty of an offence, based on all the evidence.

I'm no issue with sentencing being affected by prior convinctions in some way, but the burden of proof relating to guilt should be the same for someone whether it is your first offence or your last.

You make the mistake of most Daily Mail readers, in assuming that everyone brought before the courts is guilty, it's a pretty backward point of view, you lot just don't believe in rehabilitation.

[quote="largehat"]

Reebok Trotter wrote:

You make the mistake of most Daily Mail readers, in assuming that everyone brought before the courts is guilty, it's a pretty backward point of view, you lot just don't believe in rehabilitation.

Who mentioned the Daily Mail ? I will have you know that I read The Sun today! I always thought that the REAL purpose of imprisonment was punishment. Prison officers are custodians not teachers. If these people want education then they should have gone to school more often. If they really want rehabilitation they should volunteer to go and work for The Red Cross in third world countries.

Reebok Trotter wrote:
Who mentioned the Daily Mail ? I will have you know that I read The Sun today! I always thought that the REAL purpose of imprisonment was punishment. Prison officers are custodians not teachers. If these people want education then they should have gone to school more often. If they really want rehabilitation they should volunteer to go and work for The Red Cross in third world countries.

By rehabilitation I'm talking about the general principle that once someone has served their sentence for a crime, they shouldn't be punished for it for the rest of their lives. There shouldn't be this automatic assumption they will always reoffend, there shouldn't be this automation assumption that if they are accused of the same offence they must be guilty, and that they should have less rights in a criminal trial than someone with no criminal record.

Ok. I know what you mean. I am just nipping out to buy a copy of the Daily Telegraph. I may be some time.

Its nice to see this board has a moral compass in largehat.

mark leach wrote:Its nice to see this board has a moral compass in largehat.

I suspect Largehat is only taking this stance because someone once undercooked his cheesy chips.

I take this stance because it's like the bloody nineteenth century on this forum whenever anything to do with crime comes up.

largehat wrote:I take this stance because it's like the bloody nineteenth century on this forum whenever anything to do with crime comes up.

You make a dick of yourself because you always appear to stick up for criminals. Can't you just accept that some people are bad and will never change?

Natasha Whittam wrote:
You make a dick of yourself because you always appear to stick up for criminals. Can't you just accept that some people are bad and will never change?

I don't recall sticking up for the paedo rapist teacher who abused his place of trust to pursue a relationship with you when you were a child. I recall you sticking up for this person though.