Anyone else think these two got off lightly?

[OwlHoot]

.. not knowing that somebody has a weakness should be no defence whatsoever if you kill somebody in an unprovoked attack.

It isn't any defence. In law, "you take your victim as you find them". If you hit someone with a weak heart, say, and they die then it's no defence to argue that a healthy person wouldn't have died in that situation.

[NotAllThere]

...
It seems like a perfectly reasonable principle to me, if someone dies as a result of a crime then they have been murdered...

They have. The crime in England is called manslaughter. What the yanks would call 3rd Degree Murder.

It's been long established in English law that for what we normally call murder, you have to have had an intention to kill. Or at least have behaved deliberately in such a way that death was a very likely outcome.

In this case, what was the crime for which she was sent down? Was it accessory to manslaughter?

[BrowneIssue]

No, I used to box and you fell for my simple ruse.

Nice to see racial stereotypes are still alive and well.

Blimey. All that brain damage and you can still use a computer.

Well done.

Say, where'd you nick the PC, pikey?

Are are you using the prison facilities?

[Cyberman]

Blimey. All that brain damage and you can still use a computer.

Well done.

Say, where'd you nick the PC, pikey?

Are are you using the prison facilities?

WHS !!

[AtW]

In this case, what was the crime for which she was sent down? Was it accessory to manslaughter?

Inciting assault that resulted in a manslaughter.

10-12 years to the guy and at least 5-7 for her would have been by far more appropriate. Maybe the other way around.

[Cyberman]

Inciting assault that resulted in a manslaughter.

10-12 years to the guy and at least 5-7 for her would have been by far more appropriate. Maybe the other way around.

The sentence should definitely have been far tougher. Perhaps there is a right of appeal by the public for a tougher sentence ?
There is no doubt that this guy is a violent thug who should not be on the streets. He is a danger to the public and I am sure that he will offend again.

[AtW]

Perhaps there is a right of appeal by the public for a tougher sentence ?

No there isn't - in the UK or any other country with a half decent justice system.

You can go to live in Iran if you want this kind of "justice".

[the_rangdo]

I still don't get how whatever sentence is dished out is really only half that.

So she gets 18 months, has been in remand for 9 months so may not go to jail

4 years for him is light enough, but that really means 2 - when did half sentences become normal?

[Cyberman]

No there isn't - in the UK or any other country with a half decent justice system.

You can go to live in Iran if you want this kind of "justice".

A person can appeal against the length of a sentence issued against him/herself, so it should only be fair if it could also be the other way round.

[JamieMoles]

4 years for him is light enough, but that really means 2 - when did half sentences become normal?

Half sentences became "normal" around the time the sentencing rules were changed to prevent prison governers adding time onto prisoners sentences for misdemeanours inside. This power was taken away when a prisoner sued the system and his lawyer successfully argued that this was tantamount to sentencing him to further prison time without a trial by his peers for the offence of which he was accused. Sentences were typically alot shorter back then because they could be extended at the authorities whim.

In order to get around this loss of power, the sentencing guidelines were changed so that sentences were longer, but those who behaved got out early - or as near to the length of time they would have served under the old regime - whereas those who didn't could be kept in for the full duration of their sentence or until granted parole if sentence to over 4 years.

So in actual fact sentences are not more lenient than in the past - despite what the Daily Fail and other redtops would have you believe.

At least this is how it was explained to me in the past and seems to make sense.