Steve Crook

Ask a Boy Scout. Is whittling to be equated with attempted murder? What about someone practising for the modern pentathlon in the Olympics? They use a gun in that. Let's try them for attempted murder

Steve

Steve Crook

And there I was thinking that we were living in the 21st century.
Giving prisoners hard labour was stopped for a good reason. It turned more people against society than it ever reformed.

Unless you want a population of sociopaths of course

Steve

earlb

Presumably you have hard evidence to back this up?

I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous.

Chevyman

These two little loves won't have time to do any hard labour.
BBC NEWS | England | Northamptonshire | Boys sentenced over trucker death
The crime? Killing a truck driver by toppling a 44lb concrete block from a bridge onto his cab his cab.
Time of crime 03.45
The charge? Murder commuted to manslaughter prior to trial
The punishment? 40 months for one. 12 months and a training order for the second.

If I wasn't meant to drive that fast, the pedal would stop half way!!

davidb

if you hurl a concrete block off a motorway bridge onto moving traffic you know its very likely to kill someone .we have charges for that sort of offence [ murder ] yet i bet they havent been used here

Chevyman

No they weren't, as I mentioned, the charge of murder was commuted to manslaughter prior to trial
BBC NEWS | England | Northamptonshire | Murder charges on boys dropped

If I wasn't meant to drive that fast, the pedal would stop half way!!

earlb

In other words they did an obscene deal - typical.

I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous.

Chevyman

Ain't it just? No reason was ever given .......... officially but you and I, in our way funded an excellent brief for them.

He argued that they only wanted to drop the block onto a truckbed to observe it bounce and even though it took two of them to lift the block onto the parapet they were, initially, in control of it. it was only after a passage of time that they "lost control" of it

The post mortem showed that the driver was killed instantly due to "massive chest injuries". His rig took over half a mile to come to a halt having collided with the central crash barrier.

All this took place just prior to 04.00. I hope the little dears weren't late for school or work ............ if they've heard of either

If I wasn't meant to drive that fast, the pedal would stop half way!!

Jackdaw

It seems that we are continually being asked to believe that teenagers are unable to recognise the correlation between cause and effect, even when it is as obvious as in the case quoted.
Time and again the courts accept reduced charges and mitigation pleas where it is obvious to the ordinary citizen that the miscreant acted with malice aforethought.
A gallon of petrol through the letterbox followed by a lighted newspaper, a person pushed into the path of a moving train, a person run down by a car, a person stabbed in the abdomen with a 7" knife: all these types of offences attract manslaughter charges because the perpetrator "did not intend to kill".
This is a complete nonsense to everyone bar members of the legal profession and social workers.
Those two boys are completely responsible for that man's death, and their sentences should reflect our abhorrence of their actions.
Certainly, within my memory, this type of offender would have been at risk of spending a very long time in Rampton or similar, in order to protect other members of society from their activities.

batman

You have given a contradictory viewpoint there Jackdaw. Rampton (among others) is a secure hospital for mentally disordered offenders (people who have been sectioned under the Mental Health Act 1983 because they are not responsible for their actions due to mental illness). If these boys, and/or others like them, are responsible for their actions they will go to prison, not a secure hospital.

I wish I had claws.

DB7

So you believe they deliberately set out to kill someone? Those who drive a car whilst over the limit know they might kill someone as a result but they'll only get a few years behind bars - if that.

Jackdaw

I think we are at cross purposes here, Batman.
My point ,is that in the past, people who were unable to comprehend cause and effect in relation to their actions, were sent to places like Rampton because they were de facto a danger to the public.
If the two boys in question are unable to make a connection between pushing a heavy stone onto a vehicle from height, and the death of the vehicle driver, then they are a clear and persistent danger to society.
If that is the case, then they should be detained in a mental facility; if, on the other hand, they are merely wicked bastards, they should be treated as common murderers and sentenced accordingly.
I would not dream of disputing your knowledge of mental illness and its legal position, but in my youth and long before, places like Rampton, or criminal lunatic asylums as they were then known, had a heavy population of rock-droppers, fire-raisers, petty poisoners and the like, and sadly, some folk who were merely inadequate rather than criminal.
I don't wish to return to the days when simple women who had given birth in adolescence, or simpleton petty thieves were left to rot until middle-age, but I feel that our judicial system giving too much sympathy to the wrong quarter in this type of case.
I have a horrible feeling that, even though these boys know nothing about cause and effect, that in itself does not not render them liable to the 1983 Act.
Please tell me I'm wrong!

batman

I'm afraid you're not wrong with regard to the above quote. The ability to know 'right from wrong' or 'cause and effect' is only one factor/criteria for assessing their mental health. To be detained under an MHA section a team of doctors and social workers have to agree that a recognised 'illness' is diagnosed or that a period of assessment (usually 28 days under a section 2) is required to determine this. If they initially agree about a diagnosis the person can be detained on a Section 3 for a period of treatment. If criminal activities are involved there are several different sections of the act which cover the various scenarios which could arise. If these lads appear in court and are deemed to be suffering from a mental illness they can be detained on a hospital order indefinitely in a secure hospital (depending on the success of any treatment and regular reviews). If they are not found to be mentally unwell they should go to prison (or suffer whatever sentence is handed out). If they become unwell in prison they could then be transferred to a secure hospital where it is possible they could remain for longer than their original sentence, dependent of course on their mental health status. I hope that makes sense.

With regard to your previous post I now understand what you were trying to say and you are right in most of what you said.

I wish I had claws.

Chevyman

At that time of day.............who knows? But they weren't taking bus numbers or taking in the night air

If I wasn't meant to drive that fast, the pedal would stop half way!!

DB7

Certainly weren't, but I suppose for a murder trial you've got to prove intent. I'd imagine it's quite common to go for the lesser charge rather than risking the whole case collapsing.