That sadly is what makes our system of punishment so questionable. How can you get say 20 years for a robbery offence (great train robbery etc) but only get 10 or so for say taking a life. AJ could get a similar sentence for what he has been found guilty of to that of the Hatton garden gang. It really must be a night mare for judges!
Didn't the train robbers take out a guard or driver, so there was violence involved. The Hatton robbers didn't use violence so could only get a maximum of 7 years. Can't believe a murder would get 10 years, that would be 30. So you must be thinking of a manslaughter in your example.
I was still referring to the taking of a life in comparison. You are quite right I did forget the violence involved.
Manslaughter can be even less. The guy who killed my pal got 7years (served 3 n 1/2) Said earlier in thread that our sentencing guidelines are a bit of a joke and imo is where our justice system fails.
I knew someone who killed his wife who was convicted of manslaughter. He also got 7 years and was out in 3.5. Maybe that's the normal sentence although he wasn't a threat to anyone else.
Yeah I think that is around an average, though I remember another example of when I was young that other people might remember. I remember it well as grew up in the area. Ignore the BBC saying it was Lordshill though, it was Lordswood. This guy was told to serve minimum of 3 years http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/5378886.stm http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/939..._Loader___s_killer_could_serve_for_his_death/
Most crimes have a range of sentences, so some variation is down to the different judges. They've seen all the facts and have details about the guilty person (including any mitigating circumstances) so that explains some of the variation in apparently similar crimes. They may also be under pressure to reduce the number or length of prison sentences because of pressure on the prison service....which is only going to get worse. Don't think I don't agree about some sentences being too short. I do get angry about some criminals receiving a normal sentence for a crime when they are recidivists. A man with a history of attacks on women unknown to him will not change and should be taken off the streets for life....he is not the same as someone (however nasty) who attacks one woman he knows. The judge should consider the threat posed by the criminal in the future. All murderers and rapists are not the same. Also applies to repeat petty thieves (to a lesser degree)....may not be in the major league and are more likely to be repeat offenders (probably drug driven), but a year inside will at least give the local community (often as poor as him) a rest. This looks like my week for rants...should return to talk of biscuits and penguins.
Exactly what I was saying. Without knowing the circumstances, I could see why a short sentence would be suitable if he had no history of violence and launched one attack that he regretted. A world of difference between a violent man who killed his wife after years of abuse....and sometimes people like that get short sentences as well. The only worrying factor is that the law accepts that a man can act in rage, so gets a shorter sentence than a woman driven to the end of her tether who because of her physical weakness has to kill her husband in his sleep. One is excused as a 'moment of madness' and the other is planned....difference between manslaughter and murder. A minefield.
Sorry to be picky but not strictly true - there doesn't have to be any 'planning' for the crime to be considered murder. There doesn't even have to be an intent to kill. I'm pretty sure the definition of murder is something like "At the time of the incident the defendant wanted to kill OR seriously harm the victim." Of course, a pre-meditated murder would likely get a larger sentence, and rightly so in my book.
There were mitigating circumstances (obviously didn't excuse what he did) and he did try suicide after so I assume this had some bearing on the sentence. Perfectly law abiding and a nice bloke before he flipped.
Yeah the guy I mentioned wasn't. Something like 25+ previous convictions. So maybe it's not an average but depends on the judge on the day I suppose.
It doesn't sound like they should have got the same sentence so I think you are right there. A bit like refs, you never know what the decision will be. It all depends on their view.
It just shows why there can be mitigating circumstances and sentencing can vary, so shouldn't be too rigid. America has more of their population in jail than any developed country because they give massive sentences with very high minimums....so dreadful criminals can get the same sentence as some poor mush who got caught up in something and will never do it again. All deaths are tragic**, but circumstances vary. **Me being PC....some deaths aren't tragic...just relief all round.
I was slow off the mark I was just about to relate the same story. (I used to live at Lordswood) An old neighbor of mine back in the very early 60s. Mounted a pavement and killed a young mother. If memory serves me correctly he got nothing for the manslaughter. He did get 2 years for being drunk in charge of the car. Not sure when they changed the law so that you now can be done for manslaughter if you did that now?
Think it's callled causing death by dangerous driving? A lad who was in the year below me at school got charged with this recently hitting a woman on Tremona road.
Anyone interested in courts, justice and sentencing should watch 'Prosecutors: Real Crime and Punishment'. It's a three-part series that's been aired on BBC Four over the past few weeks, with three one-hour episodes showing life inside the Crown Prosecution Service for the first time - never documented before, apparently. Found it really interesting and insightful.
Watched a clip of that and seen the part where a 11y old boy was killed in his mums car by being hit head on by a red Porsche .....obviously don't know the ins and outs but the driver only got 12 months community service with a further 150 hours of unpaid work............doesn't seem enough for taking a child's life.
Clearly no intent on the drivers part in that instance then. I don't know that case, but let's assume alcohol was involved. Other than the levels of alcohol consumed, the crime is the same whether a child is killed, someone gets injured or the car hits no one and ends up in a ditch. Removing the emotion of the outcome, how much punishment should someone get for this level of irresponsibility?
How did you deduce clearly no intent on the drivers part from that! And lets assume alcohol was involved! I'm pleased with the debate that has been created here as it has got people taking lots about emotive subjects, but at times its clearly best not to let the facts get in the way of a good story!!! In the above instance it is entirely relevant if the killing of a child is intentional, caused by neglect ie through drinking or a complete accident...when considering the outcome of a verdict and or sentencing.
