 You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
[url= http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/may/07/four-year-jail-lewis-gill-andrew-young-aspergers-not-unduly-lenient ]http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/may/07/four-year-jail-lewis-gill-andrew-young-aspergers-not-unduly-lenient[/url]
this bloke killed a shop keeper near me in similar circumstances.
he got 18 months.
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-13647541 ]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-13647541[/url]
problem is the trouble with proving what the persons intent was which affects the charges that are brought and then the designated tariffs for the crime they are convicted/plead guilty to.
It stinks, frankly.
What's normal for manslaughter in these circumstances?
If someone called the 'Skull Crusher' (or was it Skull Cracker?) gets to stay in an open prison, despite having a rap sheet filled with violent offences, then there's evidently no hope for the British justice system.
What I find interesting with sentencing like this is that the difference between common assault and manslaughter isn't to a meaningful way in the hands of the offender - if you punched someone once in the face and that was it, common assault, if they go down and crack the back of their head on the kerb and die, manslaughter.
Same with dangerous driving - fall asleep at the wheel and drift into a hedge - dangerous driving, a few points and a fine. Fall asleep at the wheel and drift off the road onto a railway line, causing a train crash that kills people, you're off to prison, but the offence committed was exactly the same, the outcome was down to luck, so the offender is basically being penalised for being unlucky..
Ridiculous, kill someone and get months, get found out you touched up some groupie girls or botched being a svengali and you go down for 8 years..
What is going on?
[i] the offender is basically being penalised for being unlucky.. [/i]
which is why the sentences for 'one punch' manslaughter tend to be at the lower end of the scale.
- fall asleep at the wheel and drift into a hedge - dangerous driving, a few points and a fine.
You'd be let off. You can pretty much crash your car with impunity if you don't injure anyone...
What's the victim's Aspergers got to do with the price of rice? Do we give out heavier sentences if you kill someone with a disability now?
Do we give out heavier sentences if you kill someone with a disability now?
No, but it generates more moral outrage!
Maybe we should introduce a "2nd Degree Murder" charge like the yanks and leave Manslaughter to cases that don't involve assault.
This seems sensible
First-degree murder is any murder that is willful and premeditated. Felony murder is typically first-degree.[6] The definition of 1st-degree murder is similar under Canadian law.Second-degree murder is a murder that is not premeditated or planned in advance.[7]
Voluntary manslaughter (often incorrectly referred to as third-degree murder), sometimes called a "Heat of Passion" murder, is any intentional killing that involved no prior intent to kill, and which was committed under such circumstances that would "cause a reasonable person to become emotionally or mentally disturbed." Both this and second-degree murder are committed on the spot, but the two differ in the magnitude of the circumstances surrounding the crime. For example, a bar fight that results in death would ordinarily constitute second-degree murder. If that same bar fight stemmed from a discovery of infidelity, however, it may be mitigated to voluntary manslaughter.[8]
Involuntary manslaughter stems from a lack of intention to cause death but involving an intentional, or negligent, act leading to death. A drunk driving-related death is typically involuntary manslaughter (see also vehicular homicide and causing death by dangerous driving for international equivalents). Note that the "unintentional" element here refers to the lack of intent to bring about the death. All three crimes above feature an intent to kill, whereas involuntary manslaughter is "unintentional," because the killer did not intend for a death to result from their intentional actions. If there is a presence of intention it relates only to the intent to cause a violent act which brings about the death, but not an intention to bring about the death itself.[9]
An unprovoked attack should be considered as murder rather than manslaughter.
If there had been an dispute between a middle class cyclist with a salary of say.. 120k and a dutty yoot (who's worth was nil) about cycling on the pavement
Say the cyclist had punched the youth in a similar manner to that shown in your link but the victim escaped any serious injury - would you still be outraged by the leniency of a four year sentence?
What's the victim's Aspergers got to do with the price of rice? Do we give out heavier sentences if you kill someone with a disability now?
Don't know enough about Asperger's to comment, but if a person has a disability that makes it unlikely they were provoking or threatening the killer, maybe there's an argument that the crime is worse.
quite.
It can be simpler, and more intuitive, to proceed on the basis of vulnerability but an inappropriate focus on vulnerability risks enhancing an already negative image of disabled people as inherently "weak", "easy targets" and "dependent" requiring society's protection. Instead, the focus ought to be on enforcing the victim's' right to justice and scrutinising the offender's behaviour, prejudices and hostility so that the case is properly investigated and prosecuted for what it is.
Disgacefull.
As I understand the original sentence reflected the facts 1) he pleaded guilty and 2) it was a single punch
@devash + 1 also
An unprovoked attack should be considered as murder rather than manslaughter.
Why?
The intention was probably just to bloody his nose, not to kill him. Unless you have evidence otherwise?
Punching folk and all physical assault should be treated as a much more severe crime than it currently is..
I'm all for a good dust up but both parties should be consenting
Punching folk and all physical assault should be treated as much more severe crime than it currently is..
Yes. Punching people should be viewed as something that can kill, not something that most likely gives a bloody nose.
The intention was probably just to bloody his nose, not to kill him. Unless you have evidence otherwise?
There was no heated discussion, no pushing and shoving so it's not in the same league as you and I getting into a barney in the boozer after a few ales. The latter shows a lack of maturity and an excess of beer, punching someone on a footpath with no warning demonstrates a personality inflicting injury for amusement.
There's no reasonable belief that Lewis Gill hit Andrew Young for any form of defensive reason, just he wanted to punch him. Yes, he didn't intend to kill him but the punch and then walking away from the unconscious victim hardly suggests he didn't want to inflict serious injury.
Given that in the vast majority of cases a single punch does not kill the victim, you would need additional evidence to convince the CPS / a jury that they could get a murder conviction as the key issue is intent not the outcome.
He knew there was going to be no fight back too. It was all about inflicting as much damage as he could, quickly.
So, the general consensus is that you can do what you want, as long as afterwards you say "I didn't mean to". Seems my daughter was right all along, and I was wrong for punishing her for not thinking through the consequences of her actions.
[i]Seems my daughter was right all along, and I was wrong for punishing her for not thinking through the consequences of her actions. [/i]
I suspect you were trying to teach her a moral lesson, not a legal one.
Everyone agrees the bloke who got 4 years is a total shit. The problem is that it's not illegal to be a total shit and the crime he was convicted of has limited sentencing options.
What's the victim's Aspergers got to do with the price of rice? Do we give out heavier sentences if you kill someone with a disability now?
Perhaps it was reasonably obvious unless you were thick as mince that his social skills might not have been capable of coping with a discussion/argument, so walking away was the only option.
Rather than punching him in the face.
I had a similar discussion/argument with a chap with some similar issues (Aspergers / autism, I didn't ask to see a statement) where he was convinced to the point of physically intervening that I couldn't ride my bike up a bridleway. I didn't feel any requirement to punch him at any point. Doesn't exactly qualify me for sainthood.
So, the general consensus is that you can do what you want, as long as afterwards you say "I didn't mean to".
If you mean by that he was charged with the crime which best fitted his actions and sentenced accordingly then yes.
One thing that is missing from the Guardian link is that the Lewis Gill was not just throwing a punch to give the victim a bloody nose. Lewis Gill was also a boxer who will have know what damage his punch could do in the safety of boxing match with gloves, headgear, padded rings and wooden floor. Nevermind the potential damage of a punch without gloves from someone who has been trained in the street where this no protection for someone head as they fall who has been knocked out.
I think it goes beyond manslaughter as the Lewis Gill wasn't defending himself but assaulting another person.
Watch the video and you will see that Andrew Young doesn't even speak to Lewis Gill. Lewis Gill claimed he felt threatened by Andrew Young but as you see the victim doesn't even move his hands never mind be a threat. Andrew Young's death wasn't an accident. He was unaware and then hit so hard by someone who knew what he could do with his fists that the outcome was going to be a lot more than a fat lip or bloody nose.
I hope Lewis Gill has a very painful time in prison and on his release finds a vengeful bigger bully to remind him of his killing of an innocent man.
[i]"So, the general consensus is that you can do what you want, as long as afterwards you say "I didn't mean to"."[/i]If you mean by that he was charged with the crime which best fitted his actions and sentenced accordingly then yes.
Clearly I don't. He was sentenced (apparently) on the basis that he was justified in assuming a "best case" outcome for his actions, without regard for that fact that there was a clear non-negligible potential for a much more serious outcome.
Do we need to see a video of someone dying as a part of this thread?
We all know it happened.
He was sentenced (apparently) on the basis that he was justified in assuming a "best case" outcome for his actions, without regard for that fact that there was a clear non-negligible potential for a much more serious outcome.
I would assume that is because that is what the law requires.....
I would use 'most likely' rather than 'best case'. In the vast majority of cases a single punch does not kill.
What a cowardly cxxx
I hope the xxxx has something really bad happen to him in jail.
Footflaps, had he wanted to give him a bloody nose, as you said earlier, then a quick jab would have been sufficient even though not justified. The right he throws was total overkill. That would not have been enough for Lewis Gill though as you can clearly see he is already attempting to through another as Andrew Young falls to the road.
There was no "best case" outcome for the victim and the "most likely" outcome would have been serious injury or death.
Agreed this highlights the problem with current penalties for unprovoked assault. Any attack could kill someone, there is no excuse. Growing up in the 70s and 80s it was still a normalised activity for boys to beat ten barrels out of each other, and at the smallest 'provocation' (being red-headed, working hard at a school project, daring to speak out of turn or criticising someone's behaviour etc etc), men would beat each other senseless outside and inside of pubs also.
Cultural attitudes towards this kind of violence are still in their infancy.
There was no "best case" outcome for the victim and the "most likely" outcome would have been serious injury or death.
Well you obviously know a lot more about this than the CPS, medical profession, 1st judge and jury and the appeal court...
I am amazed by the OPs link, do people actually read "the guardian"?
Sentencing should have taken into account that the killer was a boxer. The sentence is an utter piss take for the victim's family.
The sentence is an utter piss take for the victim's family.
Possibly people would have liked more, but it was fair within the legal frame work set down by Parliament.
If you want manslaughter to carry a longer sentence, then you need to change the law....
[quote=enfht ]Sentencing should have taken into account that the killer was a boxer. The sentence is an utter piss take for the victim's family.
...and that he threw a punch with the clear intention to knock the man down, as he would have known that to be the likely outcome. That information really does change things significantly.
[quote=footflaps ]Possibly people would have liked more, but it was fair within the legal frame work set down by Parliament.
If you want manslaughter to carry a longer sentence, then you need to change the law....
Manslaughter does carry a longer sentence - you can get life IIRC. It's the judiciary in this case which may have got things wrong, not the lawmakers.
The intention was probably just to bloody his nose, not to kill him. Unless you have evidence otherwise?
http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/involuntary-manslaughter-overview.html
In the US it would still count as 2nd degree murder as most people should know that hitting someone carries the risk of killing them.
As noted above, involuntary manslaughter is the unintentional killing of another human. This differs from first or second degree murder in that the killing is accidental -- resulting from recklessness, criminal negligence or in the commission of a misdemeanor or low-level felony. However, an unintentional killing committed in the commission of an "inherently dangerous" felony, is treated as first degree murder in most states. - See more at: http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/involuntary-manslaughter-overview.html#sthash.Q5hnTcVa.dpuf
and
The term assault is categorized as the unwanted violation of a human being's personal space. Simple assault is any inappropriate violation of this personal space, even without the explicit intent to injure, and is usually deemed a misdemeanor. Felony assault is more drastic in nature and requires four elements to be deemed felony assault: ability, attempt, intent, and action. The umbrella of this charge can cover any number crimes and does not always involve a weapon. Depending on the state in which an individual resides, the definition and criteria for being charged with felony-level assault differs as well.
Can it be appealed again?
If you want manslaughter to carry a longer sentence, then you need to change the law....
Yes, it should along the lines of Austrialia's mandatory eight-year prison terms. That is for those under the influence of drink. In this case were there is no clouding of judgement through alcohol then it should be classed as murder. There have been many instances of these one punch deaths in the media for everyone to know what the outcome could be. The CPS and judges may then get the sentence for the crime committed by this cowardly scum.
From: http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/involuntary_manslaughter/
Single punch manslaughter cases:R v Furby [2006] 2 Cr.App.R.(S.) 8 - guideline case
Appellant and deceased were good friends. For a reason that the court regarded as an explicable reaction, the appellant struck a single punch of moderate force to the right cheek, the deceased collapsed to the ground and died due to a subarachnoid haemorrhage. Appellant of good character. Sentence reduced to 12 months imprisonment. Case law cited confirms that if there are aggravating circumstances[b] the sentence could be as high as four years.[/b]
Footflaps, that quote is so far away from Andrew Young's death that it only compares with the tragic outcome.
Andrew Young and Lewis Gill were not "good friends". Lewis Gill did not throw a "punch of moderate force".
Footflaps, that quote is so far away from Andrew Young's death that it only compares with the tragic outcome.
However I guess it is the case law used in this case, given the sentence was exactly 4 years.
The Manslaughter sentencing manual is where you'd start if you wanted guidance on a sentence for manslaughter...
In that case Lewis Gill should not have been charged with manslaughter but murder. There was no accident about the vicious attack. It wasn't heat of the moment, he was stood there until his mate moved on then attacked Andrew Young. He knew the potential outcome of his attack unless he thought the headgear is used in boxing was for fun.
I know you are trying to defend the sentence given within the guidelines. In this case the CPS should have charged Lewis Gill with murder and then the judges could have given a sentence that fitted the crime. The justice system has let down Andrew Young and his family. I only hope that justice finds Lewis Gill the most painful way in prison. I would feel no remorse if this person died in there.
Pleading guilty = lower sentence-didn't have much choice when he was shown the video did he? I wonder what story the killer would have come up with if there had been no CCTV no doubt backed up by his pals ?
These sort of horrible crimes are far too commonplace.Before the days of CCTV the thugs involved usually denied even being there and so the Police had a hell of a job trying to prove their case.At least now CCTV helps nail them.
You'd have to prove premeditated intent for a murder conviction, which would be unlikely in this scenario.
NB I'm not saying I agree with the outcome, just that blaming the judge is miss-placed. Due process was followed by all. You need a change of sentencing guidelines to get tougher sentences for this case, which, as there is case law in existence, would need an act of parliament to over rule the case law (AIUI).
.Murder is an offence under the common law of England and Wales. It is considered the most serious form of homicide, in which one person kills another with the intention to unlawfully cause either death or serious injury
Under the definition above surely with Lewis Gill's boxing background and the force of the attack not be enough of an intention cause "unlawfully cause either death or serious injury".
nope.
You have to prove intention beyond reasonable doubt. Can't see how you'd manage that.
As I keep pointing out, punching someone does not normally end up killing them!
Which is exactly why we need a 2nd degree murder charge. He undertook a course of action which he must have known carried the possibility of killing the man.
I don't usually go all Daily Mail and scream about injustice or British law, but in this case I really think it is lacking.
Mods, can you please remove the video please? I saw an edited version on the news this morning and made me physically feel sick...
The guy should be locked up for far far longer.