Hang on, they want to make it LONGER?

[BoredBloke]

Indeed, but there is also a huge difference between intending to kill someone, and punching them. It is unreasonable to expect that punching someone would kill them.

The fact that he may not have intended the end result has no bearing on things - all it means is that he doesn't get done for murder orr attempted murder.

Anyway my question is - if the victim had not been killed or seriously injured, what should have happened? For instance:Are you arguing that the same sentence would be appropriate if things turned out differently?.

If he hadn't killed the bloke then he wouldn't have been facing the charge he was - probably GBH/ABH. I thought GBH carried a longer max tarrif than 4 years.

But I didn't ask what the law said, I asked what it should say, as a topic for discussion.

What it should have said was that the guy probably didn't mean to kill him, but his actions led directly to his death and as such the penalty should equate to this. Effectively what English law does say.

[expat]

Death of the victim aside I still think 4 years (remember he will be out in 2 and less with good behaviour) isn't really enough for what he did. Taking a suckerpunch at someone when you are not involved with the ferocity he did should have serious ramifications regardless of the outcome of the punch. The sentence is supposed to be a deterrent, punishment and in theory rehabilitation of the offender. If people think they can punch others that hard I would say the offender is a problem and needs a tough sentence. You just can't go round thinking you can do that. IMO 4 years wouldn't have been enough even if the guy hadn't died.

In the US you can be tried for assault with a deadly weapon for punching and stamping on people. A gun can injure as well as kill and conversely a punch/stamp can kill as well as injure. Looking at the ferocity of that punch it's likely he would have been tried under that which would have got him more than 4 years.

Indeed. Death of the victim may not have been the intended consequence, and might not even be the most probable consequence, but it is a foreseeable consequence of a punch like that, which is why the crime is one involving death. And why you shouldn't punch people like that.

[SpontaneousOrder]

The fact that he may not have intended the end result has no bearing on things - all it means is that he doesn't get done for murder orr attempted murder.

Just as a drink-driver doesn't intend to kill anyone. 4 years for a DUI death would seem lenient to most - this guy had intent to harm.

[vetran]

I thought GBH carried a longer max tarrif than 4 years.

The judge used the lesser penalty because he believed there was provocation. (not quite sure what he thought it was but I didn't hear all the evidence) and the suspect plead guilty.

[OwlHoot]

I used to think Sasguru was a bit harsh on d000hg, but after reading this thread I'm not so sure now.

[socialworker]

No - In English law you take your victim as you find them.

If you thump someone, and they drop down dead as a result for no apparent reason, that's just your hard luck and in times past you could and would have been hanged for it.

I think you might be conflating civil and criminal law. The eggshell skull principle is civil, for murder you must have intent to kill, for manslaughter it is more complicated but basically it is recklessness. Fwiw I think this bloke needs locking up for avery long time, it was a vicious unprovoked blow, he is a very dangerous individual.

[oscarose]

this violence is very poor form. however, when society glorifies violence who can be surprised? all actions have consequences.