ChatterBank7 mins ago
Another Seemingly Weird Decision By The Courts
Answers
Good lord, is there no deterrent in this country any more against crime and thuggery. Rather than saying a custodial sentence should be a last resort, it should be the first and only resort. Otherwise the violent gutter rats of society have nothing to lose. Our judicial system is warped!
12:30 Thu 20th Jun 2019
//I am sure everyone on here is sick of violent people, and I don't see any 'apologists' for them on here - are you seeing something different? //
My statement is simply what it says. It mentions nothing about anyone or anything that I'm seeing 'on here'.
Any contributor to this thread would either have to be slightly paranoid, or have an over-inflated sense of self importance to construe that it was aimed at them.
My statement is simply what it says. It mentions nothing about anyone or anything that I'm seeing 'on here'.
Any contributor to this thread would either have to be slightly paranoid, or have an over-inflated sense of self importance to construe that it was aimed at them.
I have no idea what their intention was- other than, obviously, to cause serious harm. I genuinely have no idea if they meant to kill her or not. And as it was around a month later that she died, it was probably hard to prove they did.
I remember a case where a driver was jailed (I think for life, but not honestly sure) for killing a 3 year old girl. He was not drunk, on drugs or speeding or otherwise driving carelessly, but went around a blind bend and hit a child in the road.
There seemed to be no thought about why a 3 year old was in the middle of a road on her own or the parents responsibility, or that he had no wish whatsoever to harm anyone... he was punished purely on the outcome.
And yet, people can make deliberate attacks and not be punished, purely because they failed. It is quite irrelevant here, but it is just odd.
I remember a case where a driver was jailed (I think for life, but not honestly sure) for killing a 3 year old girl. He was not drunk, on drugs or speeding or otherwise driving carelessly, but went around a blind bend and hit a child in the road.
There seemed to be no thought about why a 3 year old was in the middle of a road on her own or the parents responsibility, or that he had no wish whatsoever to harm anyone... he was punished purely on the outcome.
And yet, people can make deliberate attacks and not be punished, purely because they failed. It is quite irrelevant here, but it is just odd.
The verdict was centred around the cause of the stroke, in my opinion and that presupposed a pre-existing medical condition, e.g heart problems or cerebral aneurysm and if asked, could she have had a stroke at any time, with or without the traumatic event, then the answer would be ....probably and that word "probably" or even "possibly".......saved them for a lengthy custodial sentence.
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.