http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-13247583,00.html

A teenager who killed his mother's alleged rapist is due be sentenced.

Mark Bick, who was 16 at the time of the assault last December, attacked 40-year-old Derek Duffet with a cricket bat.

Mr Duffet, a neighbour, suffered a fatal head injury, and died three days later.

Taking the information at face value and the details within the story - what would people give as a punishment to this person (if at all).

Discuss...

if she told him purposely, knowing what hed do, then she should be "done" - hes only 16 and thats taking advantage of a child and how spontaneous their reactions are.
he did go round there with intent - he had bat, so he knew he was gonna do something.
saying all this, GOOD ON HIM as sex offenders make me sick and should burn in hell

If he was an adult I would say probably 10 years imprisonment.

As he was 16 at the time, he should not be dealt with according to the same standards that apply to adults.

He's killed someone, so it would have to be a custodial sentence.

I'd get reports from the shrinks - if he's unlikley to do it again I'd be tempted to give him as lenient a sentence as I'd be allowed to under sentencing rules, bearing in mind that there was preparation and pre-meditation, but falling back on the old 'balance of mind being disturbed' and the extenuating circumstances of wanting to protect his mum.

I'd also want to have a very close look at exactly what was said between mother and son. If there was any sign of incitement then obviously there might be issues there.

Also, why didn't she report her neighbour for rape, or did I miss that bit in the report?

It's a tough one, though. Just as well we don't have compulsory death penalties for murder, really.

Joe

I think it is a very very long time since anyone who was 16 at the time of their offence was sentenced to death in this country.

An eye for an eye.

I can honestly say that if i found out my mother had been raped and i knew who had done it i would do the same.

Obviously a message has to be sent out that this cannot be done, else everyone would just kill people and make claims of rape etc against them. However i think a suspended sentance should suffice.

The kid did what alot of people would do in his position.

eye for an eye yes, so what would happen to the boy then? what about the rapist family? are they allowed to do the boy in? maybe they know why the offender did what he did, maybe he has mental problems? im saying this for discussion as id kill anyone that hurt my family

I really don't think you can make a decision based on whats in the article - it just doesn't give enough background information - was the rape reported? does the boy in question have a background of violence etc. All I can say for sure is I am REALLY glad I'm not on the jury for that case...

dirk did say "at face value", good discussion though

i suppose we have 2 key peices from the quote.
1 is definitely a crime, you can't go around killing people.

the mitigation being offered is an alleged crime against a family member.

I'd say that he should have a custodial sentence in the mid range allowed.

Yeah definately, as cyclone pointed out it was an 'alledged' rape. If the lad had caught the guy raping his mum at the time I'm sure he wouldn't have been hauled infront of the courts.

Really though the lad and/or his mum should have gone to the police, why didn't they? I'm sure that'd be a question that the prosecution would ask.

Why didn't they go to the police?
I suppose that comes down rational thought at the time.

If your mum has been crying for days and vomiting and she tells you because such and such a neighbour raped her, what would your instant reaction be?

I suppose it depends on your nature.
Personally law wouldn't come into it for me, I'd have probably been round there with a bat to do some damage to this guy myself.

Remorse? Well I'd probably be remorseful about the crime itself (causing death) but not for killing the individual.

That's taken at face value of the story - obviously other factors involved in the case may cause judgement to differ.

your lucky it wasn't you then, as you'd be in the dock now instead of this boy.

if you're going to go for the revenge, plan it, make sure you can't be caught. Haven't you heard the saying about it being a dish best served cold?

Caught in the act would have been a different story, although he probably would still be in court. It's covered by self-defence, but using a cricket back would be seen as execessive force i expect (especially if you had it with you for any reason other than playing cricket).

Originally posted by NATALIESHEFF
GOOD ON HIM as sex offenders make me sick and should burn in hell

Do you really think it is good for someone to go and murder someone who is only alleged to have committed a crime? We don't know whether or not he was a rapist.

I think the killer should be locked up for life, unless some evidence comes to light to prove that the victim was a rapist.

Patchy did you not manage to read this portion of my original post???
Taking the information at face value and the details within the story - what would people give as a punishment to this person (if at all)

Originally posted by Dirk Diggler
Patchy did you not manage to read this portion of my original post???

I did read it, but it seems the victim was only an ALLEGED rapist.

the face value of the information is that the man killed was alledged to be a rapist, nothing more, nothing less, an unsubstantiated allegation.

Ok...a few more 'facts'. Due to being off work sick a couple of weeks ago I had the pleasure of watching 'this morning'. The woman involved was a guest (side from the fact that she was clearly very emotionally upset and was badly advised to go on the programme).

The son found out that his mum had been raped (OK alleged) by a neighbour a few weeks prior. Loads of reasons why she didnt report this straightaway - emotional, guilt, not wanting to upset her children, not wanting to have to talk about this over and over again at the police,,,

Rumours started to spread about these 2 people (they were already friends) and if something was going on so the woman involved told her children what had happened.

Obviously the son reacted very badly and said he was going round to 'have a go' (or something) at the so-called man who had done this. He apparently had not intended to kill him - just shout and push a bit. The cricket bat was taken with him as that was apparently 'to hand' when his mum told him what had happened

In this case Cyclone's point about revenge best served planned and not to get caught just didnt apply cos of the emotions involved. I'm not sure that cos he didn't have the intent to kill this man means the sentence is affected..I think it should (as does in other types of cases)
And yes I know this is only one side of the sorry tale..

he could have probably argued for manslaughter, but i think that taking a weapon with him will probably mean that the charge stays as murder.

The case has been dropped to manslaughter.

He got 3 years. His mum is in the daily star saying how proud she is.