Sentencing

S

supamerz

New member
I think, more than likely, I'd be happier if they just doubled most sentences.



That particular case doesn't correspond to my idea of what an accident is.
Accidentally peircing a gas pipe and then turning the light on without realising the house was full of gas is an accident.
And that's not what happened there.
 
P

Poolmanjim

New member
No it's not what happened, but he did not intend to cause an explosion. He is going to prison because he did something extremely stupid (by cutting the pipes deliberately). Given that is all he did, which is itself not a crime (although it might be, I'm not sure) and given that he suffered serious injuries himself, I think that is a good sentence.

Although I agree that in a lot of cases, current sentencing is a joke.
 
N

NathanH

Member
So...set someone on fire and kill them....3 and a half years?
Probably out in 2?
I know it's the daily fail but come on...that should be a 10-15 stretch surely?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2297053/Yob-killed-autistic-teenager-setting-18th-birthday-party-teasing-gay.html

I'd go as far as calling that a hate crime.
 
T

Tweek

New member
From the article the boys were just playing around and meant no harm. This makes them stupid at best, but nothing to indicate a hate crime. Manslaughter is serious though and 3 1/2 yrs seems light. I wonder what a drunk driver who is convicted of manslaughter would get?
 
J

JustForFun101

Member
Generally playing around and meaning no harm doesn't involve touching a lighter to someone and killing them.
What did the bloke think was going to happen when he set light to someone?
That's not someone I want out on the streets.

Nothing to indicate a hate crime?
What about writing gay-boy on him?
What if a black person had "ni**er-boy" written on him and was then set on fire?
Would that be a hate crime?
 
J

j_carlos31j

New member
Adolescents often use words like gay or fag to tease each other. From the article this seemed to be the case. I'm not saying they are blameless, just thoughtless idiots.
I agree with you the sentence seems light.
 
B

Bry

Member
This kind of attitude is why I don't like the idea of citizens having an input on sentencing



Agree with this though. Writing gay boy on someone at his age doesn't mean its a hate crime at all.
 
E

evil_navel

Member
He's the same age as you.
This isn't some children mucking about. This is an adult human being writing gay-boy on someone and then setting them on fire.
As I said...if this was a black person with "coon" on his head or someone from India with "paki" on his head would you dismiss it in the same way?
Hate crime against people with special needs or differing sexuality (the victim was both in this case) needs to be as effectively countered as hate crime against race or gender IMHO.
 
F

freepress005

New member
And I call things gay still and call myself a fag occasionally when I do something wrong. And I assure you I'm not homophobic in the slightest. I'm arguing against the idea that that saying that automatically makes it a hate crime because it doesn't in my mind. Not unless the guy actually was gay. Looking at all the comments I don't doubt the guy was homophobic generally, but that he set the guy on fire for being gay? No.

To take your other examples its impossible to know without context. For instance if I got into a row with a black person I would most likely use the N word to insult him. Not because I'm racist but because its the most obvious insulting thing to say. Could argue that would then be a hate crime but I wouldn't agree with it personally.

Anyway back to this case. Holding a lighter to him is obviously stupid but I'm guessing the guy wasn't the smartest person ever and trying to light peoples' hair on fire on the bus was pretty standard practice at my secondary school. Maybe I'm jaded by that I dunno. Plus its a party. I can't remember from the top of my head if the article said he was drunk or high or anything but its a fair assumption.

Its another case of the guy being a complete fricking idiot and its a tragedy for the poor guy who died, but I can't in good conscience condemn the lighter guy the same way I would a pre meditated murderer. Or even a murderer who acted in anger. This was a guy acting like a colossal boob and it tragically went too far and resulted in someone's death. It happens. That might be a very callous thing to say but its how I view it. To take a different example in the same vein, what would you want to happen to the guy who was messing around practicing chokeholds on his cousin at a party and accidentally wound up killing him? Or people who mess around prcticing pro wrestling moves in their back garden and someone ends up with a broken neck?

If you feel the same about those as you do with this case then cool. We just have a different moral outlook on these thing I suppose and that's unlikely to be changed. But, all three of those are pretty much the same thing to me.
 
K

kick_ass_cowgirl_1982

New member
I agree with Southpaw that terms like 'gay boy' often get bandied about by teenagers, and while use of terms like that might very well be hurtful to gay people, it frequently isn't really 'hate speech' by any means.

Writing it on someone's skn takes it to another level though, even more so when the person on the receiving end has a disability.

Top it off by setting the person on fire, even if it was down to stupidity rather than malice, and you really do have to question whether any part of the whole sorry business was ever meant as a 'joke'.

Someone so stupid as to think that bringing a naked flame close to someone who you have covered in a flaofftopicble material will not have a really bad outcome should be locked away for the safety of society at large. I don't buy the 'horsing around' line. It's either mental deficiency or else pure malice. The perpetrator should be looking at either a hefty stretch in prison for manslaughter, or else an indefinate stay in a secure psychiatric facility. This sentance seems ridiculously light to me.
 
J

Jocelyn

Member
Appologies all. My post was not intended to be a support or advocate of that type of behavior by the incarcerated or anyone else.
The winky smiley was meant to emphasis the suggestion of what kind of friends they would be. I sometimes find it difficult to get my point across with typed words alone.
 
F

fitzy_dude

New member
Not really relevant, because in that case both parties agreed to do something phenomenally stupid, with full mutual consent. If you volunteer for a piledriver from the top of a ladder, your consented to it.

Otoh, if you light someone on fire against their will, that places the burden of responsibility squarely on your shoulders alone, and it should be treated much harsher.
 
Top