Manslaughter vs Murder

[joshwa]

How is it that, this chap:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/6704727.stm

Gets 2 years for "Manslaughter" when he murdered someone by kicking them to death?

Sentanced to 4 years, but apparently out after 1 year after already serving 1 year in custody.

This countries justice system is blatantly broken.

[Agent]

Feels like all you have to say is "I didn't mean to do it" and you'll get Manslaughter.

[BEANFro Elite]

...Yeah, he ran into my foot seventy times, I swear .

LOL, rediculous, of course the reason behind this lesser sentence is because our prisons are grossly over crowded and they can't be arsed to build more, instead the let the vermin run free to commit more crimes.

[arbitor]

As im sure he didnt really mean to kill him did he..

You dont hit people to kill them.. people kick people in the head all the time, most of the time they dont die..

the bloke is an arsehole but im sure he didnt have the intent of killing the kid did he

[vicar]

Originally Posted by arbitor

As im sure he didnt really mean to kill him did he..

You dont hit people to kill them.. people kick people in the head all the time, most of the time they dont die..

the bloke is an arsehole but im sure he didnt have the intent of killing the kid did he

Really???

[arbitor]

wake up, people get beatings.. some are planned some arent.

This was one that went wrong i find it highly unlikely he meant to kill him..

A guy i knew at school died when someone punched him in the face with a key in the hand, went through his eye into his brain dude got manslaughter, i hate the bloke, but at the end f the day he didn't want to kill him it just went wrong... hence man slaughter

[badass]

That said, manslaughter can also carry a life sentence - so a judge does have the option to actually appropriately punish the kind of scum that "accidentally" beat people to death whilst only meaning to commit GBH.

[iranu]

Similar thing happened here (incidentally in the town I grew up in and continue to visit)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/o...re/6684627.stm

What is sickening is that anyone who knows this part of town will know that for this man to be agressive he would have had to have been an awful lot closer to the takeaway than where he was found/punched/kicked. I drove down that street in the morning and the tented, sectioned off crime scene bit was someway up and across the road from the shop so there is no way that he would have been the aggressor going back down the road to confront the louts with take away in hand.

They got away with it because no one can prove the kick or the punch or his head hitting the ground killed him along with one juror believing that the victim was the original aggressor.

Manslaughter can carry the life sentence. For a sentence of murder then I believe that intent has to be proven.

This country's justice system is indeed well and truely screwed. The police do the best they can but it's the sentencing that's the problem. We really need massive penal, sentencing and police reform in this country.

[Kezzer]

Same thing happened back in Guernsey in a way. A girl was speeding in a car, didn't see the zebra crossing ahead and slammed into a guy walking home killing him instantly, she got something like 3 months in jail for it and was on probation for 18 months. So for her stupidity, she only gets 3 months? Terrible world, I would've put her inside for a good few years at least.

[Fabula]

I know someone who was sentanced for 4 years despite not doing anything.
Someone they knew did a similar assault, and he witnessed it. Defense, prosecution and all agreed he had nothing to do with it.
Unfortunately, he lied in court about having seen it, thinking "I had nothing to do with it and I don't want them to think I did". They found out the lies.

So commit a violent assault and kill someone, you get 3 years.
See someone commiting the assault, run away and lie about seeing it, get 4 years.

Justice has its problems.

[DeludedGuy]

My uncle did a year for manslaughter in 1991, when everyone felt he should have had a suspended sentence.

He withdrew some money from a cash point in Brixton and two guys followed him into a quite street, they then pulled a knife on my uncle and stabbed him below his shoulder, in the scuffle my uncle got hold of the knife and stabbed one of them in the chest, killing him.

The other guy ran away and then became a witness against my uncle, fabricating a story about how my uncle started the fight.

The justice system in the country is a bunch of crap. If they can spend £6 billion on the olympics why cant they spend money on prisons?

[BEANFro Elite]

Originally Posted by DeludedGuy

The justice system in the country is a bunch of crap. If they can spend £6 billion on the olympics why cant they spend money on prisons?

Sorry to hear about your uncle, but the Government isn't here to serve us, our best interests or even to help us, it exists solely to make money for it's own dubious ends.

According to the government, The Olympics will apparently bring in long term revenue for the UK as well improve the image of the country and the level of employment.

At current, the olympics has been said to cost more than £15 billion and is said rising

Being a sparky I'm going to be in a good job for a while, but in the long run, how many years will it take to reclaim the £15+ billion?

I just don't think the justice system is flexible enough as DeludedGuy's story outlines. I know it is just one incident but I've heard of many similar cases

[Saracen]

Originally Posted by joshwa

Gets 2 years for "Manslaughter" when he murdered someone by kicking them to death?

I know where you're coming from (and I tend to agree) but as a matter of fact, it wasn't murder. Murder is a legal term requiring specific elements (most notably "intent") to be proven for an event to be murder, and as he'd already been acquitted of murder, then it can't have been murder.

However, I would point out that the judge was there, saw the evidence and has all the facts at hand. We don't. That makes it hard to second-guess him based on news reports.

Originally Posted by arbitor

As im sure he didnt really mean to kill him did he..

You dont hit people to kill them.. people kick people in the head all the time, most of the time they dont die..

the bloke is an arsehole but im sure he didnt have the intent of killing the kid did he

The irony is, though, you don't have to intend to kill for it to be murder.

If you intend to cause really serious harm (i.e. the mens rea for GBH), but your victim dies, you can still be convicted of murder even without there being any necessity to prove you intended to kill.

And, arguably, a good kicking in the head could be intended to cause really serious harm.

The logic goes like this: if you intend to cause really serious harm, then the difference to the victim living or dying may depend on the strength of their constitution, the speed of response of an ambulance, traffic levels or a number of other such factors. So, if you intend to cause really serious harm, then it must be presumed that you must be aware that death resulting is a distinct possibility and yet you chose to inflict that harm anyway. That shows a level of callous indifference to whether the victim lives or dies that it qualifies as murder.

[chuckskull]

You come up behind someone and give them a beating you should take the consequences IMO. If it had been a fair fight gone wrong then maybe manslaughter, but not in this case, he came up behind him, beat him to the ground and then stamped on him til he was dead, If that's not murder what is?

It was pre-meditated, cold and calculating, not some punch up gone wrong.

[Saracen]

Originally Posted by chuckskull

You come up behind someone and give them a beating you should take the consequences IMO. If it had been a fair fight gone wrong then maybe manslaughter, but not in this case, he came up behind him, beat him to the ground and then stamped on him til he was dead, If that's not murder what is?

It was pre-meditated, cold and calculating, not some punch up gone wrong.

It might be pre-meditated, cold and calculating, but did he intend to kill? Or did he intend to cause serious injury?

Bear in mind that the maximum available sentence for manslaughter, as badass pointed out, is "life". The judge could have imposed that, if he felt it was appropriate, but it seems he didn't, especially in light of current sentencing guidelines.

Part of the problem is in interpreting exactly what the offender's intention was. Can a jury infer from Cowie's actions that he actually intended to either kill or inflict really serious injury? Well, much will depend on EXACTLY what happened. If you thump someone and then kick them when they're down, does the fact that the kick hit the head PROVE you were aiming at the head, or is it because it was a wild but unlucky kick? Death was actually caused, apparently, by a ruptured artery. Could he have intended that? Could he have been "almost certain" that it would result?

Murder is just about the most serious offence that can be committed, and both it and the punishment for it are intended to reflect that, so it is quite intentional that the bar the prosecution have to jump to actually prove murder is set high, and whether we like it or not (and I don't, much), the jury acquitted Cowie of murder. Why? We don't know, and probably never will.

But bear in mind that they will have deliberated under very carefully stated instructions as to whether they are convinced to the standard that used to be referred to as "beyond reasonable doubt" that all the LEGAL criteria for murder have been met. That isn't just whether the accused is the one that administered the fatal kicking, but whether the case for murder (presumably, the degree of "intent") has been proven, "beyond reasonable doubt".

Anyone that's done jury service knows that the discussions in the jury room can be very onerous, because if you convict, someone is facing what is potentially serious consequences, and in this case, a mandatory life sentence. So you find yourself asking if you're sure to the point of "beyond reasonable belief", and are prepared to be responsible for doing that to someone? Because it might be YOUR vote that makes the difference between conviction and acquittal. It's a heavy burden, IMHO.

Those judges instructions I mentioned will have laid down exactly what it is that you need to satisfy yourself about, and that will include what Cowie "intended". Can you be sure that he intended to kill (or cause really serious injury). If you can't be "sure", you must acquit. It's the way the system is set up, risking letting the guilty go free (or get off lightly) to avoid the risk of convicting the innocent.

Letting cowardly <bleeps> like Cowie off lightly is the price we pay for that stance.

Also, I've not seen anywhere that's said he "stamped on him 'til he was dead". Each report I've found said he punched him once then kicked him, and nothing makes it clear that there was more than one, albeit very hard, kick. But without seeing court transcripts, it's hard to be sure exactly what actually did happen in terms of kicking. There is, in my view, a marked difference between one kick, albeit fatal as it happened, and "stamping on him 'til he was dead". One would certainly appear to demonstrate clear intent, but the other may not.

[chuckskull]

If you come up behind someone and give them a beating, your intention is certainly to seriously hurt them and anyone with all their mental faculties knows that a common side effect of being seriously hurt is dying. He had to know when he landed the first punch that there was a chance the guy could die. Despite knowing that he still went ahead and gave him a beating, that's the difference between coming up behind someone and just getting drawn into a fight IMO. You have time to consider your actions and the consequences of them, if despite all that you still go ahead with it, then you should take the punishment. The defendants true intentions will never come out in court anyway, as soon as he see's a police officier it will all be a huge mistake etc etc.

Should the courts make exceptions because someone was easier to kill than the defendant thought they would be?