News1 min ago
Gang who 'stoned man to death' get off?
A gang of youths who stoned a father to death whilst playing in a park with his son have had their convictions quashed. The boys' actions included throwing 'half a brick', wood and stones. The man collapsed with a heart attack and died in a pool of blood. The five schoolboys were charged with manslaughter but after debate yesterday the Lord Justice agreed that the man's death could not be placed on the boys. It was argued that the youths could not be held responsible as it could not be established which, or if any, of the boys' actions caused the man to have a heart attack. His family are angry and upset that these boys will be free before Christmas. What do you think? Is this fair? Should all of the boys conclude their two year sentence? Is this justice for the dead father's family?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by AB Asks. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
This incident happended in an area close to where I live, in fact it was at my local gym.
The area itself is rough and predominantly council housing the kids in this area have little disciplin, poorly educated and no respect for authority. There are still groups of 'hoodies' sitting outside this sports centre throwing verbal abuse at a number of people entering the gym. The police do nothing about it and they are not even visible in the area after dark.
Letting these murderers get away with such a savage and pointless attack just confirms to all the other gangs in the areas that its ok to act that way. If it was the otherway around and someone had killed their Dad I'm sure they'd agree their quashed conviction is far from justice for taking another humans life.
Again the criminal justice system in the UK has just allowed another victory for the criminals of this country and 'fingers up' to the victim and his family.
These kids will be back on the streets of Erith before Christmas and Ernest Nortons family will be spendin their first chrsitmas with their Dad...Merry Christmas.
The area itself is rough and predominantly council housing the kids in this area have little disciplin, poorly educated and no respect for authority. There are still groups of 'hoodies' sitting outside this sports centre throwing verbal abuse at a number of people entering the gym. The police do nothing about it and they are not even visible in the area after dark.
Letting these murderers get away with such a savage and pointless attack just confirms to all the other gangs in the areas that its ok to act that way. If it was the otherway around and someone had killed their Dad I'm sure they'd agree their quashed conviction is far from justice for taking another humans life.
Again the criminal justice system in the UK has just allowed another victory for the criminals of this country and 'fingers up' to the victim and his family.
These kids will be back on the streets of Erith before Christmas and Ernest Nortons family will be spendin their first chrsitmas with their Dad...Merry Christmas.
BBC
"At a hearing before the appeal judges on Thursday, Mark Wall QC, challenging the safety of the manslaughter convictions, argued that it could not be established which of the allegedly "unlawful or dangerous" actions, if any of them, had contributed to Mr Norton's heart attack.
The judge, at the end of the legal argument, announced that the court was allowing the appeals against conviction.
The boys, who cannot be named for legal reasons, have been bailed and their sentences for violent disorder offences will be considered by a trial judge at the Old Bailey."
"At a hearing before the appeal judges on Thursday, Mark Wall QC, challenging the safety of the manslaughter convictions, argued that it could not be established which of the allegedly "unlawful or dangerous" actions, if any of them, had contributed to Mr Norton's heart attack.
The judge, at the end of the legal argument, announced that the court was allowing the appeals against conviction.
The boys, who cannot be named for legal reasons, have been bailed and their sentences for violent disorder offences will be considered by a trial judge at the Old Bailey."
Djerba: imagine this scenario. You are with a group of your friends, you are 12 and your friends roughly the same age. You are involved in an argument with some man in a park. Your friends start shouting at the man, and throwing things at him, rocks and the like. (I know you would not do this, but imagine for a moment you are involved). You notice the man has a wicket set up, so you pick up a piece of wood you find at your feet, and throw it at the wicket. Just as you do so, one of the rocks thrown by your friends hits the man on the head. He falls to the ground, has a heart attack, and dies.
You are prosecuted for manslaughter, along with 5 of your friends. Since you were all involved in throwing things at the man, and one of the thrown objects which struck him probably led to the raised blood pressure which caused the heart attack which killed him, you yourself are convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to 2 years detention.
How would you feel about this? Justly treated? Well served by the law? Would you seek an appeal?
You are prosecuted for manslaughter, along with 5 of your friends. Since you were all involved in throwing things at the man, and one of the thrown objects which struck him probably led to the raised blood pressure which caused the heart attack which killed him, you yourself are convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to 2 years detention.
How would you feel about this? Justly treated? Well served by the law? Would you seek an appeal?
Meredith101...what is it you're exactley asking of djerba? What a rubbish arguement! 12 year olds that can not behave responsibly shouldn't be allowed out.....and if they choose to follow or be part of a crowd then they should expect equal punishment....anyway....you lost all credability when you asked if you should breastfeed your kitten as far as I'm concerned.
http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/Animals-and-Nat ure/Question473079.html
These 'children' are nothing but thugs and I hope they move to a place near you real soon.
Much love
Lisa x
http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/Animals-and-Nat ure/Question473079.html
These 'children' are nothing but thugs and I hope they move to a place near you real soon.
Much love
Lisa x
oh dear Meridith...
"Your friends start shouting at the man, and throwing things at him, rocks and the like. (I know you would not do this, but imagine for a moment you are involved). You notice the man has a wicket set up, so you pick up a piece of wood you find at your feet, and throw it at the wicket."
sounds liike thuggery to me!
"Your friends start shouting at the man, and throwing things at him, rocks and the like. (I know you would not do this, but imagine for a moment you are involved). You notice the man has a wicket set up, so you pick up a piece of wood you find at your feet, and throw it at the wicket."
sounds liike thuggery to me!
Yeah but the fact that my point goes right over your pretty little head makes we wonder if it's worth trying to make myself clear once more. If you are unable to grasp and manipulate abstract ideas and logic, just let me know.
One last time:
Are they thugs: YES
Did a bunch of them throw stones and rocks at him? YES
Did one of them throw a rock the size of half a brick that hit him on the head? YES
Did this lead to the heart attack that killed him? PROBABLY
Were all of the 5 accused of manslaughter definitely trying to hit the man with stones and rocks? YOU TELL ME. IF YOU CAN'T TELL BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT, YOU CANNOT CONVICT THEM OF MANSLAUGHTER. This is the LAW.
In some countries, eg Scotland, there is a legal concept called 'acting in concert'. If 5 people throw large rocks at someone's head, 4 miss, one hits and kills, all 5 get done. This is justice. The 4 should not get off because they are a bad aim. YOU CANNOT PROVE THAT THIS WAS THE CASE HERE.
I think you are confabulating your anger with their thuggery with a desire to see them locked up for as long as possible, whether due legal process can prove it or not. This makes you a philistine. They had a disregard for the law. But so do you......
One last time:
Are they thugs: YES
Did a bunch of them throw stones and rocks at him? YES
Did one of them throw a rock the size of half a brick that hit him on the head? YES
Did this lead to the heart attack that killed him? PROBABLY
Were all of the 5 accused of manslaughter definitely trying to hit the man with stones and rocks? YOU TELL ME. IF YOU CAN'T TELL BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT, YOU CANNOT CONVICT THEM OF MANSLAUGHTER. This is the LAW.
In some countries, eg Scotland, there is a legal concept called 'acting in concert'. If 5 people throw large rocks at someone's head, 4 miss, one hits and kills, all 5 get done. This is justice. The 4 should not get off because they are a bad aim. YOU CANNOT PROVE THAT THIS WAS THE CASE HERE.
I think you are confabulating your anger with their thuggery with a desire to see them locked up for as long as possible, whether due legal process can prove it or not. This makes you a philistine. They had a disregard for the law. But so do you......
I'm not the one shouting here, you seem to be getting very angry because I do not join in the standard, "did they mean it?" argment.
Tell you what I don't care if they meant it or not, and I do understand your point about what is the law, however the law is an ass.
There is too much trying to understand this sort of thuggery, too much trying to determine intent. If a group is throwing missiles then we should assume they are intending for those missiles to land. If someone suffers death either directly or otherwise then that's at least manslaughter. If we started locking up lowlife scum like this then it would deter others.
Don't bother with the standard deterent doesn't work argument, it does, not 100% of course but it does. The "acting in concert" law would be useful as well.
The problem is that even if convicted of manslaugther they'd do 3 years in Butlins with a playstation and snooker tables anyway.
I suggest enacting a controversial suggestion, lets punish criminals, do you think that might catch on?
Tell you what I don't care if they meant it or not, and I do understand your point about what is the law, however the law is an ass.
There is too much trying to understand this sort of thuggery, too much trying to determine intent. If a group is throwing missiles then we should assume they are intending for those missiles to land. If someone suffers death either directly or otherwise then that's at least manslaughter. If we started locking up lowlife scum like this then it would deter others.
Don't bother with the standard deterent doesn't work argument, it does, not 100% of course but it does. The "acting in concert" law would be useful as well.
The problem is that even if convicted of manslaugther they'd do 3 years in Butlins with a playstation and snooker tables anyway.
I suggest enacting a controversial suggestion, lets punish criminals, do you think that might catch on?
I've not seen this reported and I'm loathe to form an opinion based on Ab Asks' Daily Mail leanings. But....
What if only one of them was throwing things? Do you convict all five of manslaughter because you're not sure which one it was?
What if four of them were throwing paper planes and the fifth threw a brick? Do you convict all five because they were all throwing things?
What if one of the five was your son? Would you be happy to see him jailed because he associated with one person who was an aggressive thug?
What if only one of them was throwing things? Do you convict all five of manslaughter because you're not sure which one it was?
What if four of them were throwing paper planes and the fifth threw a brick? Do you convict all five because they were all throwing things?
What if one of the five was your son? Would you be happy to see him jailed because he associated with one person who was an aggressive thug?
Mrs T, in the UK a person is innocent until proven guilty. It is the job of the criminal justice system to prove that person guilty, and prove it beyond all reasonable doubt. Think about what that means.
In your last suggestion on quinlad's scenario, the system you are recommending is: "guilty until you grass on your mate". The justice system does not need to prove your guilt, we assume your guilt, but will let you off if you tell us who did it. Would you be happy to be dragged up in court in such a scenario? It's not limited to analogies of the original post. You were thumped in a pub brawl. You have a victim's blood on you. You are guilty and will be sent down unless you tell us which of your mates threw the first punch.......
In your last suggestion on quinlad's scenario, the system you are recommending is: "guilty until you grass on your mate". The justice system does not need to prove your guilt, we assume your guilt, but will let you off if you tell us who did it. Would you be happy to be dragged up in court in such a scenario? It's not limited to analogies of the original post. You were thumped in a pub brawl. You have a victim's blood on you. You are guilty and will be sent down unless you tell us which of your mates threw the first punch.......
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles4 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles9 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles11 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles19 mins ago
Is It Safe To Take Paracetamol
How it Works30 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.