Total Chaos   10 #13 Posted July 31, 2012 "Wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm" Surely stabbing someone 7 times is attempted murder. Whilst they were stabbing him were they thinking "Oh I'll grievously harm this person" or were they trying to inflict as much damage as possible. If they had shot these men instead of using a knife would it still have been wounding with intent?  Depends really,if they shot them in the leg then?or if they shot them in the head? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
woodmally   10 #14 Posted July 31, 2012 You're right, it's the way it works that's warped!  I was just wondering has anyone tried to defend why our legal system is built in this way. What is the point of giving someone a sentence that they will never comit too as they get released early.  Surley the sentence they get should be (if common sense is applied) be the sentence they have. Why are they released early? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Ousetunes   10 #15 Posted July 31, 2012 Lock them up.  See how big these gangstas are on de inside.  Shame being that they will be fed, watered and looked after.  Justice? My arse. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
redfox   10 #16 Posted July 31, 2012 To prove a wounding with intent you need to prove that the individual (or as in this case the group) acted in a way which demonstrated an intention to cause really serious harm - stabbing someone repeatedly in the absence of self defence is a very effective way of causing really serious harm.  To prove attempted murder you need to show an intention to kill - a higher standard than that required to prove murder - it is very difficult to prove and often S.18 is preferred for that very reason. If you shoot someone in the head with and they (because of medical intervention) survive then given the use of a weapon discharged at someones head it may be a good deal easier to prove an intention to kill. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Rupert_Baehr   10 #17 Posted July 31, 2012 Lock them up. See how big these gangstas are on de inside.  Shame being that they will be fed, watered and looked after.  Justice? My arse.   Could be ... but we don't talk about that.  They will, after all, be going to a YOI ... full of young males with lots of hormones.  'Don't you make my brown eye blue ...' Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Eckolad   10 #18 Posted July 31, 2012 I was just wondering has anyone tried to defend why our legal system is built in this way. What is the point of giving someone a sentence that they will never comit too as they get released early.  Surley the sentence they get should be (if common sense is applied) be the sentence they have. Why are they released early?  Lots of legal systems work like this. Can you imagine how it would be be if this wasnt the case, How many extra prison places needed etc etc.  They are released but they are still technically serving the sentence, just in the community,any breach of the licence and they can be put back in side.  I am not defending but just saying how it is Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
HeadingNorth   11 #19 Posted July 31, 2012 I was just wondering has anyone tried to defend why our legal system is built in this way. What is the point of giving someone a sentence that they will never comit too as they get released early.  Surley the sentence they get should be (if common sense is applied) be the sentence they have. Why are they released early?  I've explained it, on numerous occasions, but people never seem to read the explanation. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
redfox   10 #20 Posted July 31, 2012 Its not just the extra places required but how do you think there is any control over people serving a determinate sentence? You get out early if you behave being the main one - can you imagine a prison full of people doing 15 years and that meant 15 years how do you exert any influence at all over how they behave Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Eckolad   10 #21 Posted July 31, 2012 I've explained it, on numerous occasions, but people never seem to read the explanation.  And you soon get bored of repeating yourself..... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Darth Vader   10 #22 Posted July 31, 2012 What can possibly make human beings do such a savage thing like this?  The attack must have been an ordeal for even the jury to hear about, as the judge gave them a 12 year exemption from jury service. So, the damage they have caused stretches even further.  Why aren't the pictures of the other two there for all to see? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
HeadingNorth   11 #23 Posted July 31, 2012 Why aren't the pictures of the other two there for all to see?  I assume that must be an editorial decision - since all three names are in the public domain, there won't be any legal restrictions on publishing pictures of them.  Maybe they didn't have suitably thuggish-looking pictures of the other two? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Total Chaos   10 #24 Posted July 31, 2012 Lock them up. See how big these gangstas are on de inside.  Shame being that they will be fed, watered and looked after.Justice? My arse.  Exactly,if i ended up later in life one of these pensioners that the government have neglected and cant afford heating,food and electric etc.I would get hold of a toy gun,walk into a bank and rob it,walk outside,lay down and wait for the cops.Lay back and enjoy 10yrs of luxuries. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...