Not justice to me.

NoQuarter wrote: »

We'll agree to disagree then but I'll leave it by asking a rhetorical question. What difference to the accused would an extra year or two in prison have made? Rehabilitated him more or perhaps made him that extra bit more sorry than he already is for his stupid action?

Why do people assume the difference to the accused is all that matters? I'm more worried about future would be thugs seeing this laughable sentence and deciding that they too can do something like this and get away with it.
The purpose of a harsh sentence is not to punish the accused, it's to scare the sh!t out of anyone who might be thinking of following them.

HondaSami wrote: »

How do you know this? could it not just be a spur of the moment thing on the night of the incident?

Poor choice of words with 'went out' admittedly. I didn't mean to say that he left his house with the intention of attacking someone, rather then when he decided to do so, his intent was to cause harm.

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

The sentencing on these type of crimes is flawed. I see some people are saying the guy who killed that poor man life is ruined.

His life is ruined because he decided to launch an unprovoked vicious assault on a total stranger. While i do agree it was manslaughter, it was wilful manslaughter. To hit someone around the head is dangerous and can inflict serious injury if not death. To me there is a distinct line between wilful manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter.

He wilfully set out to inflict pain and damage to that poor man. His intent was to cause damage and pain. Ofc he has shown remorse, so would you if you were going to prison. I suspect he is only remoreful because he was caught and has to pay for his crimes (unless ofc he handed himself in to the guards).

Whether his life i ruined or not, he has through his direct actions taken a life of an innocent man. I hear stories and read about people happy slapping because they think its funny, i think a strong message needs to be sent out to these scum that you will pay and pay dearly if you are caught.

I also suspect he has no previous convictions because he was never caught doing anything that could provide a conviction. You dont wake up one day and become a violent offender.

His sentence is to light. The man in the ground does not have a life to be ruined.

I tried very hard in my original posts to be clear when I said his life is ruined to qualify that by saying and so it should be. He did kill someone after all and everybody here accepts that. But 90% of us have been in a fist fight at some point in our lives and I would imagine 89.99% of us have zero intent to kill the other person when we do it. Yet these strange events can occur.

Now hitting him for no reason was a scumbag thing to do, no question, but I think that is reflected in the sentence. You mention a line drawn between two types of manslaughter, well the law draws that line too namely "assault manslaughter" an "criminal negligence". Both are manslaughter and it is obvious which was considered here.

If it was a negligent car accident, the sentence would have been a lot lighter and even though someone may have been carelessly driving, you have to symphatise with them that no death was intended. Jumping from assault or reckless driving to accusing someone of wilfully killing someone is a huge jump. So allowances must be made for the accused intent.

Let me just reiterate, so I'm not taken up wrong, that I believe he did a disgraceful thing, cowardly and scummy with the worst result possible. But that, in my opinion, is reflected in the 5.5 year sentence. 3.5 years in a prison is a long long time for someone who never actually intended to kill someone. His intent was to assault someone, I doubt he wanted to kill someone with one punch, and for that assault, which of course was wrong, his life is ruined and he is locked up and disgraced for 3.5 years. That's why I think it fits.

caustic 1 wrote: »

I still disagree

This isn't a dig at you but if you have an interest in this you should do some research on sentencing and the value of it and how the courts work in relation to why time can be knocked off sentences to encourage guilty pleas thereby saving time and money etc etc and research on the differences between offences such as murder and manslaughter and the different categories of manslaughter and especially have a look at "mens rea". It's so so important.

It may just change your mind somewhat.

caustic 1 wrote: »

Thank you I will, it will take a lot to change my mind though. May I ask you don't need to answer if you don't wish to. Does your work involve law?

Yes, it does. Not criminal law though, but I do have a full understanding of it.

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

I don't understand why anyone would think that because he didn't plan the attack he's less responsible for the mans death than if he had planned it. If anything the fact that he just suddenly decided to attack someone for no reason should be more of a reason to lock him up for as long as possible so he can't harm the next innocent person that just happens to walk past him.

Is this what happened? Don't seem to have the full details of the case in that link? Did he just punch somebody for no reason or was there a disagreement or some perceived slight? Not saying it justifies a punch, let alone a punch that causes somebody to lose their life, just wondering about the details of the situation in light of how a few posts have portrayed it.

caustic 1 wrote: »

Story

How dignified and restrained of the brother to say what he did - that no sentence will bring his brother back & that the other mans life is ruined.

Shows a huge amount of humanity and
Compassion to respond that way to such a terrible event.

I don't think I'd be able to. It was an unprovoked violent assault on a total stranger, serious enough to kill him with one blow.

I hear Eugene was a gentleman & a really lovely guy. RIP