Knife crime, do kids really not know the consequences?

[embee]

The fact that he killed the totally innocent person without pre-meditation makes it even worse in my opinion, it means he's a completely unpredictable danger to anyone and everyone. It was complete luck the other guy didn't die. Next time it could be me, you, or the judge's daughter. At least if there is pre-meditation, for whatever reason however unjustifiable, then the danger is likely to be a known issue in some way. There is a difference between accidentally killing someone and doing it deliberately on the spur of the moment.

There is also the consideration of "joint enterprise". This item strangely cites as an example a scenario which could be a direct description of the filmed incident. As for the "intent to kill" aspect, well in my book anyone sticking a knife or other sharp object into someone else once or four times isn't doing it for any reason other than to kill. If they don't understand that then they are stupid as well as evil. All 3 deserve to be put away for ever, no-one is going to convince me that they were all saintly choirboys who did this one act out of character.

On the issue of "intent" to commit an offence, that's something which I've always thought to be completely ignored in cases (trivial in comparison I know) such as "inadvertent" speeding, i.e. didn't notice or register a change in speed limit (and goodness knows the current trend is for limits to change numerous times in a short stretch). You still get done for it regardless, even if it was a genuine "mistake".

The States know where it's at. Capital punishment aside, they're very good at that whole 'life without the possibility of parole' business. We need more of that here.

What is even more ridiculous are the countries that don't allow multiple life sentences regardless of murders committed. Joke!

Embee, Yes it does seem odd that a random assault with a deadly weapon on a stranger gets less. I think the wording is more intended for the situations where something unexpected happens. For example (making this up, not an actual case or based on any kind of case law) if a crim were to pistol whip someone during a robbery intending to knock them out, but didn't know that the other person had a cracked skull and it killed them. They would still be done for murder (or possibly manslaughter) but there would be mitigating circumstances in their sentencing. This can be used, alongside Mens Rea (perhaps) saying that the attackers in this case were not capable of making the connection. I am entirely speculating here.

I have absolutely no sympathy for these scum, I doubt its even slightly out of character and I am not trying to defend them in the slightest. More that recently I have been looking at how the law works, yes mostly because my Girlfriend is a lawyer (not a criminal barrister though) but also partly because its a bit of a black box to me, also interested to see other peoples views.

One conclusion I have come to is that they are trying to limit any spread and collateral crimes. If the other man had died the starting point for sentencing would have been a whole life sentence (CPS Sentencing Manual).

The guy was just out of prison, that no doubt gave him all sorts of 'rep' in his ****hole of existence. He's come out ignorant to the punishment and feels like a minor Celeb... Why would he fear going back in?

I honestly believe that in examples like this where the Evidence is inescapable and the defendant has priors for victim type crimes then put them to permanent sleep.
Like simon said we do it for dogs without a second thought, **** we even put down bad breeds BEFORE they hurt anyone.

[BanannaMan]

Originally Posted by Red Herring

If you want an analogy how about the other thread where we have been discussing excess speed and the dodgy police stop. If a rider makes a mistake and rides to fast for the conditions, and as a result he has a crash and kills somebody do we expect him to be treated the same as if he had deliberately aimed him motorcycle at someone and run them over?

Mens Rea, or "guilty mind" is a crucial part of British law. If we accept that the youth involved in this stabbing didn't fully appreciate the consequences of his actions then it is right that is taken into consideration.

Right?
Might be the law but that does not make it right.

Comparing stabbing someone to death with innocents killed in a crash is further injustice to the victims and their families.
What consideration was given to the victims??

Not like he stabbed them once or twice and ran off. Repeated multible stabbings. Coming back to inflict further damage, intent on killing.

The second round attack bit would get him the life sentence in the US.





Death penalty debate in the news here this week.

The family of a Ohio man executed earlier this week are suing the govenment because it took 15 mins for him to die and he may have suffered.

The barsteward raped and then stabbed to death a pregnant women, making sure he stabbed the baby to death as well.

I hope each second of that 15 mins. was excruciating.
If anything Lethal injection is too good for the likes of him.

I like the hanged, drawn and quartered idea for the whole lot of them.
Display their head on a pole as well.
Now that's real crime deterrant.

[Red Herring]

Please don't misunderstand my post. I was offering a view as to why the sentence may have seemed less than might have been expected, not trying to justify what he did. Personally I have no problem with taking him round the back of the nick and putting him down permanently, unfortunately (or maybe fortunately...) our judicial system considers more than just our feelings of what should and shouldn't be justice.

Some "innocent" killed by somebody being an idiot in a vehicle is just as dead as somebody killed by someone with a knife, and their family's loss just as great. Sometimes when we drive our cars or ride our bikes we don't fully understand the consequences of what might happen, and all I was trying to suggest was that maybe this idiot didn't fully appreciate that his target might die from what he did to him.

Which is what i was asking in a roundabout way in my op.

I think in this particular case, the guy knew exactly what he was doing.

It is perhaps a case for the three strikes rule they have in california (i think it is.)