Reply to: Hang on, they want to make it LONGER?

[oscarose]

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

[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.

[OwlHoot]

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[mudskipper]

Jailing Gill, from Sutton, Surrey, judge Keith Cutler said that Young did not represent a threat to him, adding: "You are a powerfully built young man.

"You must have known that it was going to cause a significant injury and, very sadly, it did."

That sums it up.

[vwdan]

The guy took a full on swing at a unexpecting guy who wasn't even looking at him. Perhaps you've never been decked in a fight, but that scenario is just a whisker shy of attempted murder in my judgement.

Longer.

I think the Hollywood Effect sometimes has a lot to answer for here. Getting punched properly hurts (a lot), and if you've ever seen someone crack their head off the pavement (For any reason) you really get a feel for the forces involved.

There was a similar, and equally tragic, case near me where a man punched his best friend for having an affair with this wife (Or something along those lines).

[SpontaneousOrder]

The guy took a full on swing at a unexpecting guy who wasn't even looking at him. Perhaps you've never been decked in a fight, but that scenario is just a whisker shy of attempted murder in my judgement.

Longer.

[mudskipper]

Edit: Off-topic post removed.

[northernladuk]

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.

[vetran]

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.

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?



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

with a punch like that it is unlikely he would have got away without serious injury,
Wounding or Inflicting Grievous Bodily Harm - maximum sentence 5 years.

Factors indicating greater harm :
Injury (which includes disease transmission and/or psychological harm) which is serious in the context of the offence (must normally be present)
Victim is particularly vulnerable because of personal circumstances
Sustained or repeated assault on the same victim

entirely conjecture but if the victim had got up I suspect the perpetrator would have hit him again.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/...s_bodily_harm/

So he got the same as GBH.

Manslaughter - Provocation max sentence Life.

Low degree of provocation: Sentence Range: 10 years - life
A low degree of provocation occurring over a short period Starting Point - 12 years custody

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/...r_provocation/

so no a different sentence is required if he survived. Say 5 years.

you have to have scary consequences for dangerous activities. This wasn't a bar fight, or some one stabbing an abuser, it was broad daylight, they were already in the wrong and there was no indication the victim was any threat. Not sure how you can say this is anything other than one of the worst cases you are likely to see.

[vwdan]

So if you violently assault someone and they are seriously injured rather than killed, what should happen? What if they are not injured at all?

Saying it's likely they could die isn't resolving the debate... should you be punished based on what could be reasonably expected to happen, or what did happen?

You're punished on BOTH - it's not either or.

If I push someone out of the way and nothing happens, then I'm not going to go prison.
If I push someone out of the way and they fall down the stairs, breaking their neck, then I'm going to be answering to a court.
If I accidentally trip someone up and they crack their skull open, then I'm probably not going to get arrested.

(Let's assume all of the above are on HD CCTV with lots of honest witnesses)

Did you read the links I posted or Google the cases? These principles aren't new to law - it's all about looking at the intent AND the end result.

With regards to your exact question - a violent assault is still a criminal offence, despite injury. This is why we have a variety of offences ranging from common assault, gbh, abh, attempted murder etc.

[OwlHoot]

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

It should say and do exactly that. Otherwise you could go around thumping anyone, from 5 year olds to 95 year olds, and if they died, which they very likely would, just shrug it off as an unfortunate accident resulting from a mere assault.

Someone who strays seriously outside the law opens themselves to all kinds of risks, and that's as it should be and society has no obligation to make allowances or excuse them.