Worse than Murder?

[Deleted member 28]

No you weren't. You were pulled up for effectively calling everyone on council estates scumbags. Your memory is very selective.

'effectively' I was living on the very same estate as were my parents and grandparents you fool.

 

[icowden]

'effectively' I was living on the very same estate as were my parents and grandparents you fool.

So you were calling all council estate residents scumbags, including your parents and grandparents?

 

[icowden]

GBH with intent, carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment not 16 years.
s18 Offences Against the Person's Act 1868
The Judge sentences according to the Sentencing Guide, which is detailed and available online to anyone to read here

Yes, that was what I read. I missed the bit at the top and just looked at the offence range of 2 to 16 years and the category range. Obviously the Judge didn't feel that factors were extreme enough to go outside of the category range.

 

[AuroraSaab]

I still can't get my head around the question of "Worse than Murder?"

I took it to mean that victims of such an assault might be left with injuries so severe that they have no quality of life. The article doesn't expand on the consequences of the assault in this particular case though. I think Beebo is probably right. It might well have been treated as an incident between drug gang criminals, rather than an assault on an 'innocent' person and as such garnered a lower sentence for that, and for the reasons icowden outlined. Not much consolation to the victim though.

 

[Deleted member 28]

So you were calling all council estate residents scumbags, including your parents and grandparents?

You clown, I bet having the opportunity to bad mouth people on the Internet was a revelation for the likes of you.

I don't mind playing along though.

 

[AndyRM]

Erm,

I did post the link

Having copied and pasted it into TinyURL first, rather than just link to the Daily Mail article you'd found.

That aside, worse than murder? I can think of a few things.

 

[BoldonLad]

No you weren't. You were pulled up for effectively calling everyone on council estates scumbags. Your memory is very selective.

A lot of weight on that word

 

[Deleted member 121]

I took it to mean that victims of such an assault might be left with injuries so severe that they have no quality of life. The article doesn't expand on the consequences of the assault in this particular case though. I think Beebo is probably right. It might well have been treated as an incident between drug gang criminals, rather than an assault on an 'innocent' person and as such garnered a lower sentence for that, and for the reasons icowden outlined. Not much consolation to the victim though.

I thought that. But in reference to your first sentence, Is that still worse than murder? Even in such instances that say somebody is left beaten where they are brain damaged and feeding through a tube, there is always a chance. Be that medical advancements or otherwise. People have recovered against the odds in many instances. If you are murdered. That's it ay it, no chance... I would still regard murder as the pinnacle of crimes.

 

[AuroraSaab]

So would I but there are certainly people who seem to feel that a very poor or non existent quality of life is worse than dying, otherwise there wouldn't be assisted death in Canada and the Netherlands, or folk who leave instructions for what to do if they end up in an irreversible coma.

Sentencing is obviously a bit more complicated than it seems when you read a newspaper report though. I'm always surprised 'one punch' killers often get seemingly light sentences but there are likely things taken into account that don't make the media reports.

 

[Deleted member 121]

So would I but there are certainly people who seem to feel that a very poor or non existent quality of life is worse than dying, otherwise there wouldn't be assisted death in Canada and the Netherlands, or folk who leave instructions for what to do if they end up in an irreversible coma.

Sentencing is obviously a bit more complicated than it seems when you read a newspaper report though. I'm always surprised 'one punch' killers often get seemingly light sentences but there are likely things taken into account that don't make the media reports.

I get that. But assisted dying is euthanasia and a choice that i think should be offered frankly. But that is a different moral argument. My personal feelings toward the matter, if i suffered years of pain and degeneration due to illness that i was never going to recover from then legal suicide would be a topic of discussion with my family if it was available and i was in a position to make that call. But if i was smashed to bits through no fault of my own, id want to fight for as long as i could as to not let the bastard who caused my situation win. I believe there are different moral arguments to the same levels of suffering depending on its causes and what defines us as civilised humans compared to other less conscious beings shall we say.

I agree that sentencing is a lot more complicated than the simple facts have us believe. Sadly, the media often play this card when looking to rile up their readership. Its basically their form of marketing to get more clicks and papers sold and often with an agenda in mind. We've seen that in the recent elderly cyclist death on the pavement. Also, victim families can often play a part in sentencing, some remarkably showing forgiveness to the assailant which is often left out of media rags that have an agenda.

 

[AuroraSaab]

But if i was smashed to bits through no fault of my own, id want to fight for as long as i could as to not let the bastard who caused my situation win.

If you were in a persistent vegetative state with no brain activity, you wouldn't have that perogative though. Your family could go months or years with you in that state with no hope of recovery. Some people might see this as a living death, and worse than being able to grieve a sudden death and try to move on.

I agree that sentencing is a lot more complicated than the simple facts have us believe. Sadly, the media often play this card when looking to rile up their readership. Its basically their form of marketing to get more clicks and papers sold and often with an agenda in mind. We've seen that in the recent elderly cyclist death on the pavement. Also, victim families can often play a part in sentencing, some remarkably showing forgiveness to the assailant which is often left out of media rags that have an agenda.

Agreed, and of course judges are mostly bound by the sentencing guidelines. I think the introduction of the possibility to appeal unduly lenient sentences was a good move though.

 

[classic33]

If you were in a persistent vegetative state with no brain activity, you wouldn't have that perogative though. Your family could go months or years with you in that state with no hope of recovery. Some people might see this as a living death, and worse than being able to grieve a sudden death and try to move on.

Agreed, and of course judges are mostly bound by the sentencing guidelines. I think the introduction of the possibility to appeal unduly lenient sentences was a good move though.

The first doesn't mean the second is happening.

We do have DNR's in this country though. And done correctly, they are legally binding. I've got one myself, on record, setting out the point at which no attempt should be made to resuscitate should be made. Serious brain injury being the main/primary one.

 

[Deleted member 121]

If you were in a persistent vegetative state with no brain activity, you wouldn't have that perogative though. Your family could go months or years with you in that state with no hope of recovery. Some people might see this as a living death, and worse than being able to grieve a sudden death and try to move on.

If you're kept in that state, you're probably kept alive with machines at the families request. When the family decide to switch them off, usually when medical professionals say there is simply no treatment there, then there is no hope, the assailant then is up for murder provided the police have all the evidence and the case in order.

Surely, the impact on the family varies. Before there is an announcement of death, there is always hope, no matter what. We've seen this in cases in recent years, particularly with parents of children who fight in the courts for the right to keep their children on machines when they are being forced to switch them off in the hope of some sort of medical advancements and in fact, some medical professionals do come forward to try, again we've seen this. Nothing prepares a family for death, even when faced with the reality. However, The judge will surely take the impact of victims and families into consideration as with all cases and will adjust the sentence accordingly but it is still a murder, the unlawful taking of a life, no better or worse...

Just finally, A quick murder is probably every bit as every bit as brutal as a prolonged one which the brutal nature often haunts families for life. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a family of any murder victim that says "at least it was a quick one".

 

[matticus]

Just finally, A quick murder is probably every bit as every bit as brutal as a prolonged one which the brutal nature often haunts families for life. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a family of any murder victim that says "at least it was a quick one".

Of course I can only speculate - I've had sudden deaths in the family, but never due to foul play - but look back at the torture example at the top; if that guy had died of his injuries, wouldn't you wish they had just shot him in the head?

 

[BoldonLad]

A very difficult question, but, to me, the worrying thing is the mentality of someone who can deliberately inflict such suffering on a fellow human being.

Not sure I want such people walking among us.