Why isn't this manslaughter?

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 2 of 2 << First < 1 2

jamiemartin721 Reading 27 Jul 15 2.27pm
Quote Stuk at 27 Jul 2015 2.18pm Quote legaleagle at 24 Jul 2015 8.57pm Funny old world we live in,but Courts tend to go by what the law actually is rather than a lynch mob mentality. If you do want to blame anyone,blame governments,they pass laws. We can't possibly say on what we know from the link whether there was or wasn't any legal basis to charge for manslaughter.A number of things can come into it,some to do with the particular "state of mind" of the driver. What is interesting is that if they are being charged with dangerous driving,they are not being charged with the offences of "Causing Death By Dangerous Driving" or "Causing Death By Careless or Inconsiderate Driving".Though even then,there can be good reason why not. It's not a good reason, it's their age. The law becomes total s* when the CPS decide someone is a bit on the young, or old, side. Of course it might be a case that their driving wasn't the cause of the death(which is probably when the charge is dangerous driving, not causing death by dangerous driving). I doubt the CPS reduced charges because they were young, or old, that tends to affect sentencing, not charging. Re-reading the original link, that seems unlikely unless the engineers were stood out in the middle of the road or something. Edited by jamiemartin721 (27 Jul 2015 2.30pm) "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 27 Jul 15 2.27pm

Quote Stuk at 27 Jul 2015 2.18pm

Quote legaleagle at 24 Jul 2015 8.57pm

Funny old world we live in,but Courts tend to go by what the law actually is rather than a lynch mob mentality.

If you do want to blame anyone,blame governments,they pass laws.

We can't possibly say on what we know from the link whether there was or wasn't any legal basis to charge for manslaughter.A number of things can come into it,some to do with the particular "state of mind" of the driver.

What is interesting is that if they are being charged with dangerous driving,they are not being charged with the offences of "Causing Death By Dangerous Driving" or "Causing Death By Careless or Inconsiderate Driving".Though even then,there can be good reason why not.

It's not a good reason, it's their age.

The law becomes total s*** when the CPS decide someone is a bit on the young, or old, side.

Of course it might be a case that their driving wasn't the cause of the death(which is probably when the charge is dangerous driving, not causing death by dangerous driving). I doubt the CPS reduced charges because they were young, or old, that tends to affect sentencing, not charging.

** Re-reading the original link, that seems unlikely unless the engineers were stood out in the middle of the road or something.

Edited by jamiemartin721 (27 Jul 2015 2.30pm)

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 27 Jul 15 2.33pm
Quote fed up eagle at 24 Jul 2015 7.45pm Quote Stuk at 24 Jul 2015 3.45pm [Link] Two 16 year old kill a telecoms engineer and are charged with dangerous driving. If you cannot drive, you should not be able to be charged with dangerous driving. You've killed someone with a weapon essentially. Very true and a common sense comment, unfortunately common sense is not used in our penal system, and most judges are away with the fairies and won't convict criminals anymore, just like they won't deport people like captain Hook and that stinking piece of shyte Choudary. Our justice system used to be the envy of the world, now it's the laughing stock of the world instead. Yes, because the legal system should be based around a system that contradicts itself, and follows public opinion and not around fairness and reasonableness. Also, you can only really pursue what you think you can prove. Might be a case that they can put the car in the area or the kids in the car, but not link the two events sufficiently to the accident. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 27 Jul 15 2.33pm

Quote fed up eagle at 24 Jul 2015 7.45pm

Quote Stuk at 24 Jul 2015 3.45pm

[Link]

Two 16 year old kill a telecoms engineer and are charged with dangerous driving.

If you cannot drive, you should not be able to be charged with dangerous driving. You've killed someone with a weapon essentially.

Very true and a common sense comment, unfortunately common sense is not used in our penal system, and most judges are away with the fairies and won't convict criminals anymore, just like they won't deport people like captain Hook and that stinking piece of shyte Choudary. Our justice system used to be the envy of the world, now it's the laughing stock of the world instead.

Yes, because the legal system should be based around a system that contradicts itself, and follows public opinion and not around fairness and reasonableness.

Also, you can only really pursue what you think you can prove. Might be a case that they can put the car in the area or the kids in the car, but not link the two events sufficiently to the accident.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Stuk Top half 27 Jul 15 3.20pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 27 Jul 2015 2.27pm Quote Stuk at 27 Jul 2015 2.18pm Quote legaleagle at 24 Jul 2015 8.57pm Funny old world we live in,but Courts tend to go by what the law actually is rather than a lynch mob mentality. If you do want to blame anyone,blame governments,they pass laws. We can't possibly say on what we know from the link whether there was or wasn't any legal basis to charge for manslaughter.A number of things can come into it,some to do with the particular "state of mind" of the driver. What is interesting is that if they are being charged with dangerous driving,they are not being charged with the offences of "Causing Death By Dangerous Driving" or "Causing Death By Careless or Inconsiderate Driving".Though even then,there can be good reason why not. It's not a good reason, it's their age. The law becomes total s* when the CPS decide someone is a bit on the young, or old, side. Of course it might be a case that their driving wasn't the cause of the death(which is probably when the charge is dangerous driving, not causing death by dangerous driving). I doubt the CPS reduced charges because they were young, or old, that tends to affect sentencing, not charging. Re-reading the original link, that seems unlikely unless the engineers were stood out in the middle of the road or something. Edited by jamiemartin721 (27 Jul 2015 2.30pm) I reckon you can almost guarantee that's what they did. These two have thought it would be a laugh to drive/mess around in a car. Unless an adult has willingly given the key and permission to do just that, then they've gotten away with minor charges for killing someone purely because of their ages. Optimistic as ever
Alert a moderator to this post

Stuk

Top half 27 Jul 15 3.20pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 27 Jul 2015 2.27pm

Quote Stuk at 27 Jul 2015 2.18pm

Quote legaleagle at 24 Jul 2015 8.57pm

Funny old world we live in,but Courts tend to go by what the law actually is rather than a lynch mob mentality.

If you do want to blame anyone,blame governments,they pass laws.

It's not a good reason, it's their age.

The law becomes total s*** when the CPS decide someone is a bit on the young, or old, side.

Of course it might be a case that their driving wasn't the cause of the death(which is probably when the charge is dangerous driving, not causing death by dangerous driving). I doubt the CPS reduced charges because they were young, or old, that tends to affect sentencing, not charging.

** Re-reading the original link, that seems unlikely unless the engineers were stood out in the middle of the road or something.

Edited by jamiemartin721 (27 Jul 2015 2.30pm)

I reckon you can almost guarantee that's what they did.

These two have thought it would be a laugh to drive/mess around in a car. Unless an adult has willingly given the key and permission to do just that, then they've gotten away with minor charges for killing someone purely because of their ages.

Optimistic as ever

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 27 Jul 15 3.51pm
Quote Stuk at 27 Jul 2015 3.20pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 27 Jul 2015 2.27pm Quote Stuk at 27 Jul 2015 2.18pm Quote legaleagle at 24 Jul 2015 8.57pm Funny old world we live in,but Courts tend to go by what the law actually is rather than a lynch mob mentality. If you do want to blame anyone,blame governments,they pass laws. We can't possibly say on what we know from the link whether there was or wasn't any legal basis to charge for manslaughter.A number of things can come into it,some to do with the particular "state of mind" of the driver. What is interesting is that if they are being charged with dangerous driving,they are not being charged with the offences of "Causing Death By Dangerous Driving" or "Causing Death By Careless or Inconsiderate Driving".Though even then,there can be good reason why not. It's not a good reason, it's their age. The law becomes total s* when the CPS decide someone is a bit on the young, or old, side. Of course it might be a case that their driving wasn't the cause of the death(which is probably when the charge is dangerous driving, not causing death by dangerous driving). I doubt the CPS reduced charges because they were young, or old, that tends to affect sentencing, not charging. Re-reading the original link, that seems unlikely unless the engineers were stood out in the middle of the road or something. Edited by jamiemartin721 (27 Jul 2015 2.30pm) I reckon you can almost guarantee that's what they did. These two have thought it would be a laugh to drive/mess around in a car. Unless an adult has willingly given the key and permission to do just that, then they've gotten away with minor charges for killing someone purely because of their ages. If they were sixteen though they'd be charged as minors anyhow, and unlikely to face more than four or five years. It might be the case, but there isn't really any statement that the CPS decided to charge them with a lesser crime because they were young. Edited by jamiemartin721 (27 Jul 2015 3.52pm) "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 27 Jul 15 3.51pm

Quote Stuk at 27 Jul 2015 3.20pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 27 Jul 2015 2.27pm

Quote Stuk at 27 Jul 2015 2.18pm

Quote legaleagle at 24 Jul 2015 8.57pm

Funny old world we live in,but Courts tend to go by what the law actually is rather than a lynch mob mentality.

If you do want to blame anyone,blame governments,they pass laws.

It's not a good reason, it's their age.

The law becomes total s*** when the CPS decide someone is a bit on the young, or old, side.

** Re-reading the original link, that seems unlikely unless the engineers were stood out in the middle of the road or something.

Edited by jamiemartin721 (27 Jul 2015 2.30pm)

I reckon you can almost guarantee that's what they did.

If they were sixteen though they'd be charged as minors anyhow, and unlikely to face more than four or five years.

It might be the case, but there isn't really any statement that the CPS decided to charge them with a lesser crime because they were young.

Edited by jamiemartin721 (27 Jul 2015 3.52pm)

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Sedlescombe Sedlescombe 27 Jul 15 3.58pm
Quote Stuk at 24 Jul 2015 3.45pm [Link] Two 16 year old kill a telecoms engineer and are charged with dangerous driving. If you cannot drive, you should not be able to be charged with dangerous driving. You've killed someone with a weapon essentially. According to your link they haven't been charged with anything yet. They are being "held". The charge will deendo the CPS
Alert a moderator to this post

Sedlescombe

Sedlescombe 27 Jul 15 3.58pm

Quote Stuk at 24 Jul 2015 3.45pm

[Link]

Two 16 year old kill a telecoms engineer and are charged with dangerous driving.

If you cannot drive, you should not be able to be charged with dangerous driving. You've killed someone with a weapon essentially.

According to your link they haven't been charged with anything yet. They are being "held". The charge will deendo the CPS

Alert a moderator to this post

Stuk Top half 27 Jul 15 5.21pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 27 Jul 2015 3.51pm Quote Stuk at 27 Jul 2015 3.20pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 27 Jul 2015 2.27pm Quote Stuk at 27 Jul 2015 2.18pm Quote legaleagle at 24 Jul 2015 8.57pm Funny old world we live in,but Courts tend to go by what the law actually is rather than a lynch mob mentality. If you do want to blame anyone,blame governments,they pass laws. We can't possibly say on what we know from the link whether there was or wasn't any legal basis to charge for manslaughter.A number of things can come into it,some to do with the particular "state of mind" of the driver. What is interesting is that if they are being charged with dangerous driving,they are not being charged with the offences of "Causing Death By Dangerous Driving" or "Causing Death By Careless or Inconsiderate Driving".Though even then,there can be good reason why not. It's not a good reason, it's their age. The law becomes total s* when the CPS decide someone is a bit on the young, or old, side. Of course it might be a case that their driving wasn't the cause of the death(which is probably when the charge is dangerous driving, not causing death by dangerous driving). I doubt the CPS reduced charges because they were young, or old, that tends to affect sentencing, not charging. Re-reading the original link, that seems unlikely unless the engineers were stood out in the middle of the road or something. Edited by jamiemartin721 (27 Jul 2015 2.30pm) I reckon you can almost guarantee that's what they did. These two have thought it would be a laugh to drive/mess around in a car. Unless an adult has willingly given the key and permission to do just that, then they've gotten away with minor charges for killing someone purely because of their ages. If they were sixteen though they'd be charged as minors anyhow, and unlikely to face more than four or five years. It might be the case, but there isn't really any statement that the CPS decided to charge them with a lesser crime because they were young. Edited by jamiemartin721 (27 Jul 2015 3.52pm) They shouldn't be, and it simply shows that age is a massive factor in deciding punishment of a crime. Or in this case which crime to arrest them for (not been charged yet as pointed out). Optimistic as ever
Alert a moderator to this post

Stuk

Top half 27 Jul 15 5.21pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 27 Jul 2015 3.51pm

Quote Stuk at 27 Jul 2015 3.20pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 27 Jul 2015 2.27pm

Quote Stuk at 27 Jul 2015 2.18pm

Quote legaleagle at 24 Jul 2015 8.57pm

Funny old world we live in,but Courts tend to go by what the law actually is rather than a lynch mob mentality.

If you do want to blame anyone,blame governments,they pass laws.

It's not a good reason, it's their age.

The law becomes total s*** when the CPS decide someone is a bit on the young, or old, side.

** Re-reading the original link, that seems unlikely unless the engineers were stood out in the middle of the road or something.

Edited by jamiemartin721 (27 Jul 2015 2.30pm)

I reckon you can almost guarantee that's what they did.

If they were sixteen though they'd be charged as minors anyhow, and unlikely to face more than four or five years.

It might be the case, but there isn't really any statement that the CPS decided to charge them with a lesser crime because they were young.

Edited by jamiemartin721 (27 Jul 2015 3.52pm)

They shouldn't be, and it simply shows that age is a massive factor in deciding punishment of a crime.

Or in this case which crime to arrest them for (not been charged yet as pointed out).

Optimistic as ever

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 28 Jul 15 10.37am
Quote Stuk at 27 Jul 2015 5.21pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 27 Jul 2015 3.51pm Quote Stuk at 27 Jul 2015 3.20pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 27 Jul 2015 2.27pm Quote Stuk at 27 Jul 2015 2.18pm Quote legaleagle at 24 Jul 2015 8.57pm Funny old world we live in,but Courts tend to go by what the law actually is rather than a lynch mob mentality. If you do want to blame anyone,blame governments,they pass laws. We can't possibly say on what we know from the link whether there was or wasn't any legal basis to charge for manslaughter.A number of things can come into it,some to do with the particular "state of mind" of the driver. What is interesting is that if they are being charged with dangerous driving,they are not being charged with the offences of "Causing Death By Dangerous Driving" or "Causing Death By Careless or Inconsiderate Driving".Though even then,there can be good reason why not. It's not a good reason, it's their age. The law becomes total s* when the CPS decide someone is a bit on the young, or old, side. Of course it might be a case that their driving wasn't the cause of the death(which is probably when the charge is dangerous driving, not causing death by dangerous driving). I doubt the CPS reduced charges because they were young, or old, that tends to affect sentencing, not charging. Re-reading the original link, that seems unlikely unless the engineers were stood out in the middle of the road or something. Edited by jamiemartin721 (27 Jul 2015 2.30pm) I reckon you can almost guarantee that's what they did. These two have thought it would be a laugh to drive/mess around in a car. Unless an adult has willingly given the key and permission to do just that, then they've gotten away with minor charges for killing someone purely because of their ages. If they were sixteen though they'd be charged as minors anyhow, and unlikely to face more than four or five years. It might be the case, but there isn't really any statement that the CPS decided to charge them with a lesser crime because they were young. Edited by jamiemartin721 (27 Jul 2015 3.52pm) They shouldn't be, and it simply shows that age is a massive factor in deciding punishment of a crime. Or in this case which crime to arrest them for (not been charged yet as pointed out). Its not about punishment, but rehabilitation, the option exists in certain cases to try them as adults, but there is a definite case for people in their youth doing reckless and stupid things they grow out of rather quickly. I don't really see that punishment serves any real tangible process except as a means towards rehabilitation. I suppose of course it'll depend on what the CPS feel they can prove and charge. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 28 Jul 15 10.37am

Quote Stuk at 27 Jul 2015 5.21pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 27 Jul 2015 3.51pm

Quote Stuk at 27 Jul 2015 3.20pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 27 Jul 2015 2.27pm

Quote Stuk at 27 Jul 2015 2.18pm

Quote legaleagle at 24 Jul 2015 8.57pm

Funny old world we live in,but Courts tend to go by what the law actually is rather than a lynch mob mentality.

If you do want to blame anyone,blame governments,they pass laws.

It's not a good reason, it's their age.

The law becomes total s*** when the CPS decide someone is a bit on the young, or old, side.

** Re-reading the original link, that seems unlikely unless the engineers were stood out in the middle of the road or something.

Edited by jamiemartin721 (27 Jul 2015 2.30pm)

I reckon you can almost guarantee that's what they did.

If they were sixteen though they'd be charged as minors anyhow, and unlikely to face more than four or five years.

It might be the case, but there isn't really any statement that the CPS decided to charge them with a lesser crime because they were young.

Edited by jamiemartin721 (27 Jul 2015 3.52pm)

They shouldn't be, and it simply shows that age is a massive factor in deciding punishment of a crime.

Or in this case which crime to arrest them for (not been charged yet as pointed out).

Its not about punishment, but rehabilitation, the option exists in certain cases to try them as adults, but there is a definite case for people in their youth doing reckless and stupid things they grow out of rather quickly.

I don't really see that punishment serves any real tangible process except as a means towards rehabilitation.

I suppose of course it'll depend on what the CPS feel they can prove and charge.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Stuk Top half 28 Jul 15 2.25pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 28 Jul 2015 10.37am Quote Stuk at 27 Jul 2015 5.21pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 27 Jul 2015 3.51pm Quote Stuk at 27 Jul 2015 3.20pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 27 Jul 2015 2.27pm Quote Stuk at 27 Jul 2015 2.18pm Quote legaleagle at 24 Jul 2015 8.57pm Funny old world we live in,but Courts tend to go by what the law actually is rather than a lynch mob mentality. If you do want to blame anyone,blame governments,they pass laws. We can't possibly say on what we know from the link whether there was or wasn't any legal basis to charge for manslaughter.A number of things can come into it,some to do with the particular "state of mind" of the driver. What is interesting is that if they are being charged with dangerous driving,they are not being charged with the offences of "Causing Death By Dangerous Driving" or "Causing Death By Careless or Inconsiderate Driving".Though even then,there can be good reason why not. It's not a good reason, it's their age. The law becomes total s* when the CPS decide someone is a bit on the young, or old, side. Of course it might be a case that their driving wasn't the cause of the death(which is probably when the charge is dangerous driving, not causing death by dangerous driving). I doubt the CPS reduced charges because they were young, or old, that tends to affect sentencing, not charging. Re-reading the original link, that seems unlikely unless the engineers were stood out in the middle of the road or something. Edited by jamiemartin721 (27 Jul 2015 2.30pm) I reckon you can almost guarantee that's what they did. These two have thought it would be a laugh to drive/mess around in a car. Unless an adult has willingly given the key and permission to do just that, then they've gotten away with minor charges for killing someone purely because of their ages. If they were sixteen though they'd be charged as minors anyhow, and unlikely to face more than four or five years. It might be the case, but there isn't really any statement that the CPS decided to charge them with a lesser crime because they were young. Edited by jamiemartin721 (27 Jul 2015 3.52pm) They shouldn't be, and it simply shows that age is a massive factor in deciding punishment of a crime. Or in this case which crime to arrest them for (not been charged yet as pointed out). Its not about punishment, but rehabilitation, the option exists in certain cases to try them as adults, but there is a definite case for people in their youth doing reckless and stupid things they grow out of rather quickly. I don't really see that punishment serves any real tangible process except as a means towards rehabilitation. I suppose of course it'll depend on what the CPS feel they can prove and charge. I disagree. Initially it is about punishment and there's no real rehabilitation required in this case. They probably wont be that stupid to do something like this again, but you don't just say "oh well, lesson learned. Carry on with your lives." The family of the bloke who's been killed might feel a bit miffed otherwise. Optimistic as ever
Alert a moderator to this post

Stuk

Top half 28 Jul 15 2.25pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 28 Jul 2015 10.37am

Quote Stuk at 27 Jul 2015 5.21pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 27 Jul 2015 3.51pm

Quote Stuk at 27 Jul 2015 3.20pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 27 Jul 2015 2.27pm

Quote Stuk at 27 Jul 2015 2.18pm

Quote legaleagle at 24 Jul 2015 8.57pm

Funny old world we live in,but Courts tend to go by what the law actually is rather than a lynch mob mentality.

If you do want to blame anyone,blame governments,they pass laws.

It's not a good reason, it's their age.

The law becomes total s*** when the CPS decide someone is a bit on the young, or old, side.

** Re-reading the original link, that seems unlikely unless the engineers were stood out in the middle of the road or something.

Edited by jamiemartin721 (27 Jul 2015 2.30pm)

I reckon you can almost guarantee that's what they did.

If they were sixteen though they'd be charged as minors anyhow, and unlikely to face more than four or five years.

It might be the case, but there isn't really any statement that the CPS decided to charge them with a lesser crime because they were young.

Edited by jamiemartin721 (27 Jul 2015 3.52pm)

They shouldn't be, and it simply shows that age is a massive factor in deciding punishment of a crime.

Or in this case which crime to arrest them for (not been charged yet as pointed out).

I don't really see that punishment serves any real tangible process except as a means towards rehabilitation.

I suppose of course it'll depend on what the CPS feel they can prove and charge.

I disagree. Initially it is about punishment and there's no real rehabilitation required in this case. They probably wont be that stupid to do something like this again, but you don't just say "oh well, lesson learned. Carry on with your lives."

The family of the bloke who's been killed might feel a bit miffed otherwise.

Optimistic as ever

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 28 Jul 15 3.21pm
Quote Stuk at 28 Jul 2015 2.25pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 28 Jul 2015 10.37am Quote Stuk at 27 Jul 2015 5.21pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 27 Jul 2015 3.51pm Quote Stuk at 27 Jul 2015 3.20pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 27 Jul 2015 2.27pm Quote Stuk at 27 Jul 2015 2.18pm Quote legaleagle at 24 Jul 2015 8.57pm Funny old world we live in,but Courts tend to go by what the law actually is rather than a lynch mob mentality. If you do want to blame anyone,blame governments,they pass laws. We can't possibly say on what we know from the link whether there was or wasn't any legal basis to charge for manslaughter.A number of things can come into it,some to do with the particular "state of mind" of the driver. What is interesting is that if they are being charged with dangerous driving,they are not being charged with the offences of "Causing Death By Dangerous Driving" or "Causing Death By Careless or Inconsiderate Driving".Though even then,there can be good reason why not. It's not a good reason, it's their age. The law becomes total s* when the CPS decide someone is a bit on the young, or old, side. Of course it might be a case that their driving wasn't the cause of the death(which is probably when the charge is dangerous driving, not causing death by dangerous driving). I doubt the CPS reduced charges because they were young, or old, that tends to affect sentencing, not charging. Re-reading the original link, that seems unlikely unless the engineers were stood out in the middle of the road or something. Edited by jamiemartin721 (27 Jul 2015 2.30pm) I reckon you can almost guarantee that's what they did. These two have thought it would be a laugh to drive/mess around in a car. Unless an adult has willingly given the key and permission to do just that, then they've gotten away with minor charges for killing someone purely because of their ages. If they were sixteen though they'd be charged as minors anyhow, and unlikely to face more than four or five years. It might be the case, but there isn't really any statement that the CPS decided to charge them with a lesser crime because they were young. Edited by jamiemartin721 (27 Jul 2015 3.52pm) They shouldn't be, and it simply shows that age is a massive factor in deciding punishment of a crime. Or in this case which crime to arrest them for (not been charged yet as pointed out). Its not about punishment, but rehabilitation, the option exists in certain cases to try them as adults, but there is a definite case for people in their youth doing reckless and stupid things they grow out of rather quickly. I don't really see that punishment serves any real tangible process except as a means towards rehabilitation. I suppose of course it'll depend on what the CPS feel they can prove and charge. I disagree. Initially it is about punishment and there's no real rehabilitation required in this case. They probably wont be that stupid to do something like this again, but you don't just say "oh well, lesson learned. Carry on with your lives." The family of the bloke who's been killed might feel a bit miffed otherwise. True, some kind of justice is required, but maybe we need to be moving our systems away from just locking people up, with other criminals, and giving them a criminal record that prevents employment just about anywhere for another 7 years. I'm in a funny mood right now, I'd like to see, where suitable, people pay 10% of their income to people harmed for the duration of the sentence, with non-payment resulting in imprisonment and a criminal record. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 28 Jul 15 3.21pm

Quote Stuk at 28 Jul 2015 2.25pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 28 Jul 2015 10.37am

Quote Stuk at 27 Jul 2015 5.21pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 27 Jul 2015 3.51pm

Quote Stuk at 27 Jul 2015 3.20pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 27 Jul 2015 2.27pm

Quote Stuk at 27 Jul 2015 2.18pm

Quote legaleagle at 24 Jul 2015 8.57pm

Funny old world we live in,but Courts tend to go by what the law actually is rather than a lynch mob mentality.

If you do want to blame anyone,blame governments,they pass laws.

It's not a good reason, it's their age.

The law becomes total s*** when the CPS decide someone is a bit on the young, or old, side.

** Re-reading the original link, that seems unlikely unless the engineers were stood out in the middle of the road or something.

Edited by jamiemartin721 (27 Jul 2015 2.30pm)

I reckon you can almost guarantee that's what they did.

If they were sixteen though they'd be charged as minors anyhow, and unlikely to face more than four or five years.

It might be the case, but there isn't really any statement that the CPS decided to charge them with a lesser crime because they were young.

Edited by jamiemartin721 (27 Jul 2015 3.52pm)

They shouldn't be, and it simply shows that age is a massive factor in deciding punishment of a crime.

Or in this case which crime to arrest them for (not been charged yet as pointed out).

I don't really see that punishment serves any real tangible process except as a means towards rehabilitation.

I suppose of course it'll depend on what the CPS feel they can prove and charge.

The family of the bloke who's been killed might feel a bit miffed otherwise.

True, some kind of justice is required, but maybe we need to be moving our systems away from just locking people up, with other criminals, and giving them a criminal record that prevents employment just about anywhere for another 7 years.

I'm in a funny mood right now, I'd like to see, where suitable, people pay 10% of their income to people harmed for the duration of the sentence, with non-payment resulting in imprisonment and a criminal record.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Stuk Top half 28 Jul 15 3.55pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 28 Jul 2015 3.21pm Quote Stuk at 28 Jul 2015 2.25pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 28 Jul 2015 10.37am Quote Stuk at 27 Jul 2015 5.21pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 27 Jul 2015 3.51pm Quote Stuk at 27 Jul 2015 3.20pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 27 Jul 2015 2.27pm Quote Stuk at 27 Jul 2015 2.18pm Quote legaleagle at 24 Jul 2015 8.57pm Funny old world we live in,but Courts tend to go by what the law actually is rather than a lynch mob mentality. If you do want to blame anyone,blame governments,they pass laws. We can't possibly say on what we know from the link whether there was or wasn't any legal basis to charge for manslaughter.A number of things can come into it,some to do with the particular "state of mind" of the driver. What is interesting is that if they are being charged with dangerous driving,they are not being charged with the offences of "Causing Death By Dangerous Driving" or "Causing Death By Careless or Inconsiderate Driving".Though even then,there can be good reason why not. It's not a good reason, it's their age. The law becomes total s* when the CPS decide someone is a bit on the young, or old, side. Of course it might be a case that their driving wasn't the cause of the death(which is probably when the charge is dangerous driving, not causing death by dangerous driving). I doubt the CPS reduced charges because they were young, or old, that tends to affect sentencing, not charging. Re-reading the original link, that seems unlikely unless the engineers were stood out in the middle of the road or something. Edited by jamiemartin721 (27 Jul 2015 2.30pm) I reckon you can almost guarantee that's what they did. These two have thought it would be a laugh to drive/mess around in a car. Unless an adult has willingly given the key and permission to do just that, then they've gotten away with minor charges for killing someone purely because of their ages. If they were sixteen though they'd be charged as minors anyhow, and unlikely to face more than four or five years. It might be the case, but there isn't really any statement that the CPS decided to charge them with a lesser crime because they were young. Edited by jamiemartin721 (27 Jul 2015 3.52pm) They shouldn't be, and it simply shows that age is a massive factor in deciding punishment of a crime. Or in this case which crime to arrest them for (not been charged yet as pointed out). Its not about punishment, but rehabilitation, the option exists in certain cases to try them as adults, but there is a definite case for people in their youth doing reckless and stupid things they grow out of rather quickly. I don't really see that punishment serves any real tangible process except as a means towards rehabilitation. I suppose of course it'll depend on what the CPS feel they can prove and charge. I disagree. Initially it is about punishment and there's no real rehabilitation required in this case. They probably wont be that stupid to do something like this again, but you don't just say "oh well, lesson learned. Carry on with your lives." The family of the bloke who's been killed might feel a bit miffed otherwise. True, some kind of justice is required, but maybe we need to be moving our systems away from just locking people up, with other criminals, and giving them a criminal record that prevents employment just about anywhere for another 7 years. I'm in a funny mood right now, I'd like to see, where suitable, people pay 10% of their income to people harmed for the duration of the sentence, with non-payment resulting in imprisonment and a criminal record. A criminal record doesn't prevent employment really, unless it directly relates. These had best not apply to Enterprise car rentals for example. Nice plan but it's not going to bear much fruit in this case again. No income, and not likely to be one in that time if they're going to be low paid, taxed and fined 10% of take home. Optimistic as ever
Alert a moderator to this post

Stuk

Top half 28 Jul 15 3.55pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 28 Jul 2015 3.21pm

Quote Stuk at 28 Jul 2015 2.25pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 28 Jul 2015 10.37am

Quote Stuk at 27 Jul 2015 5.21pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 27 Jul 2015 3.51pm

Quote Stuk at 27 Jul 2015 3.20pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 27 Jul 2015 2.27pm

Quote Stuk at 27 Jul 2015 2.18pm

Quote legaleagle at 24 Jul 2015 8.57pm

Funny old world we live in,but Courts tend to go by what the law actually is rather than a lynch mob mentality.

If you do want to blame anyone,blame governments,they pass laws.

It's not a good reason, it's their age.

The law becomes total s*** when the CPS decide someone is a bit on the young, or old, side.

** Re-reading the original link, that seems unlikely unless the engineers were stood out in the middle of the road or something.

Edited by jamiemartin721 (27 Jul 2015 2.30pm)

I reckon you can almost guarantee that's what they did.

If they were sixteen though they'd be charged as minors anyhow, and unlikely to face more than four or five years.

It might be the case, but there isn't really any statement that the CPS decided to charge them with a lesser crime because they were young.

Edited by jamiemartin721 (27 Jul 2015 3.52pm)

They shouldn't be, and it simply shows that age is a massive factor in deciding punishment of a crime.

Or in this case which crime to arrest them for (not been charged yet as pointed out).

I don't really see that punishment serves any real tangible process except as a means towards rehabilitation.

I suppose of course it'll depend on what the CPS feel they can prove and charge.

The family of the bloke who's been killed might feel a bit miffed otherwise.

A criminal record doesn't prevent employment really, unless it directly relates. These had best not apply to Enterprise car rentals for example.

Nice plan but it's not going to bear much fruit in this case again. No income, and not likely to be one in that time if they're going to be low paid, taxed and fined 10% of take home.

Optimistic as ever

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 2 of 2 << First < 1 2

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Why isn't this manslaughter?

Site Map

Sponsors