Holly Willoughby - stalker gets life (minimun 15 years) P31

[ChicagoBlue]

I wouldn’t disagree with a lot of that. There will be some grey areas for me though. Which one of the 3 groups does manslaughter go in?

Manslaughter isn’t always a violent offence, but can be a negligent offence. Judges should have some discretion, as always, based on circumstances of each case. However, if you’re in a fight and stomp on a head, that’s both violent and manslaughter…off you go to a Tier 1 facility.

Judges know, full well, the various different standards for voluntary, involuntary and every other stripe of manslaughter. Accordingly, violent intent could be a benchmark.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Manslaughter isn’t always a violent offence, but can be a negligent offence. Judges should have some discretion, as always, based on circumstances of each case. However, if you’re in a fight and stomp on a head, that’s both violent and manslaughter…off you go to a Tier 1 facility.

Judges know, full well, the various different standards for voluntary, involuntary and every other stripe of manslaughter. Accordingly, violent intent could be a benchmark.

I think judges should have discretion on all sentencing within reason and a clear framework.

 

[dronefromsector7G]

The **** will finally be able to get laid now. 10 inches up his ricker every night

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

Manslaughter isn’t always a violent offence, but can be a negligent offence. Judges should have some discretion, as always, based on circumstances of each case. However, if you’re in a fight and stomp on a head, that’s both violent and manslaughter…off you go to a Tier 1 facility.

Judges know, full well, the various different standards for voluntary, involuntary and every other stripe of manslaughter. Accordingly, violent intent could be a benchmark.

If you stomp on a head it's unlikely to be manslaughter, stomping on someone's head would usually cause at least GBH. Same mens rea for GBH and murder. Intention to cause serious harm.

One punch kills (particularly where someone hits a pavement, is a better example of manslaughter)

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

The **** will finally be able to get laid now. 10 inches up his ricker every night

Is he going to be sharing a cell with Black Mamba?

 

[ChicagoBlue]

If you stomp on a head it's unlikely to be manslaughter, stomping on someone's head would usually cause at least GBH. Same mens rea for GBH and murder. Intention to cause serious harm.

One punch kills (particularly where someone hits a pavement, is a better example of manslaughter)

Wasn’t meant to be an all-encompassing treatise on reshaping the British Judicial System, but rather a broad stroke suggestion of treating different types of offenders differently, based on the crime, not necessarily their age.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

Personally, and this will be an unpopular opinion and one Im braced to take pelters for, that man was neither capable nor able of doing any of those things, and while online stings are worthwhile and serve a valued purpose, this whole enterprise was incredibly unlikely to come to fruition or anywhere remotely near. And that isnt to take away from the effect this had on the victim of this be it a telly star or anyone else. Is prison going to do anything for this very sad twat of a bloke or help keep anyone else safe from him? I seriously doubt that, again, with all respect to those impacted by it. Robustly managed, in commumity and police/probation managed conditions and some form of punitive education for this obviously odd bloke would be better. Just my opinion

He was caught on an online forum wasn't he?

Seems like the sting wasn't initially targeted at him and the police in the USA were keeping a watching eye on sickos sharing morbid fantasies and he happened to fall into their net.

He's obviously a very sick and depraved individual who blurs fantasy and reality and clearly a deluded moron, but he did have intent to commit the crimes, researched his intended victim's daily routine and if it wasn't Willoughby it would have been some random woman as it had been before.

I can see your argument about entrapment and encouraging nutters who wouldn't likely go through with their fantasies but the fact that he did do it before diminishes that argument substantially. Even though one of his previous victims said she thought it was absurd, it did frighten her and leave a lasting trauma.

Also worth highlighting that the **** could have met another sicko online who was physically capable and encouraged them to live out their dark fantasies.

This kid is likely to spend most of his life in a secure hospital because he's a threat to the public and he's only a hacker, not a would be rapist and murderer.

Lapsus$: GTA 6 hacker handed indefinite hospital order

Judge says hacker remains a high risk through his skills and motivation to carry out cyber-crime.

www.google.com

 

[Stephen230]

Murder is a premeditated act

Not necessarily.

In fact I’d go as far to say that the majority are probably not.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

It’s worth pointing out that if this offence had taken place thirty years ago (through different means, obviously) then he’d have been looking at about ten years, so out in about six. This guy is going to serve at least twenty.

Society was less violent and unkind back then. It was also more forgiving.

Sentences have been increasing steadily in that time and yet the problems that society faces in terms of serious crime have been increasing throughout that period too. And the calls for tougher and tougher sentences continue. And the cycle continues.

People need to step back and consider what the problem actually is, because it might not be where they think it presently lies.

The desire for retribution is a natural one, but it plainly doesn’t provide all the answers.

And I fear too many people believe it does.

 

[Stephen230]

It’s worth pointing out that if this offence had taken place thirty years ago (through different means, obviously) then he’d have been looking at about ten years, so out in about six. This guy is going to serve at least twenty.

Society was less violent and unkind back then. It was also more forgiving.

Sentences have been increasing steadily in that time and yet the problems that society faces in terms of serious crime have been increasing throughout that period too. And the calls for tougher and tougher sentences continue. And the cycle continues.

People need to step back and consider what the problem actually is, because it might not be where they think it presently lies.

The desire for retribution is a natural one, but it plainly doesn’t provide all the answers.

And I fear too many people believe it does.

The trouble with embarking on a genuine attempt to address the rise in serious crime and to take steps that just might help reduce it, is that no government would be in power long enough to see the rewards.

So why bother with years of hysteria directed at them for going ‘soft on crime’ when they won’t even be around to take the accolades should it be successful?

What I feel odd is whenever there’s debate on law and order, it inevitable leads to calls for us to follow states in America who still have capital punishment. Or take a leaf out of China’s book and have undesirables simply disappear. No need for pesky court cases. Or blocking up prison cells for years.

Yet strangely, you never seem to hear people suggesting we look to countries like Norway who have amongst both the ‘softest’ jails and the lowest crime rates. Also an extremely low rate of recidivism.

I’m not suggesting we should just completely adopt all their policies overnight. We are different people, with different cultures.

But surely if you were looking at how to bring crime down, the first places you’d look at are those countries with the lowest crime rates, to see if any lessons could be learnt?

Never seems to happen though.