Talk

Advanced search

To think that he should serve his time like everyone else?

(27 Posts)
LettuceAndPotatoes Thu 08-Jan-15 15:29:35

Article Here

It's a mirror link about a man who attacked his father for abusing his mother, very sad circumstances and horrible for both him and his Mother.

However, I would understand if he hit his father to get him away from his Mother but he got a hammer, hit him 5 times in the head resulting in a deformity and brain damage.

There is a petition to release him for protecting his Mother but at the end of the day he has physically ruined another persons life and I believe that he shouldn't get any special treatment for being able to do that to another human being.

I'm very interested in hearing others opinions on this as my family do not agree with me at all and think that he deserves to be released.

londonrach Thu 08-Jan-15 15:35:41

Self defence and reasonable force. Difficult one. Would his father had killed his mother?

chockbic Thu 08-Jan-15 15:36:51

How much prison time has he served?

LurkingHusband Thu 08-Jan-15 15:36:56

Just a headsup that the poll isn't asking about early release, but whether he should have been jailed in the first place , in case there's any confusion.

I find it very very hard to every believe that any crime of violence should not carry some form of custodial sentence.

In this case, the guy had a trial, and that would have been the place to introduce a defence, if it existed, so the jury can hear it.

It's worth reminding ourselves that when people get found guilty in a crown court (i.e. for serious offences) then unless they have pleaded guilty, it will be because a jury - 12 people like you and I - found them guilty. They heard all the evidence, and made their decision, which should be given the utmost respect.

The ongoing Ched Evans debacle is worrying because it's another attempt to try and undermine a jurys decision, with some X-Factor style phone vote of "the people" to flog more newspapers.

What's the point of juries, if we can all second guess them ?

Sn00p4d Thu 08-Jan-15 15:37:13

I don't agree with you either.

LettuceAndPotatoes Thu 08-Jan-15 15:38:27

Chockbic he got 6 years.

JohnQuig Thu 08-Jan-15 15:40:20

Nope, self defence and he was pushed to breaking point after obviously years of drunken abuse.

But, then again, if we allowed it to happen we're basically saying violence is fine.

chockbic Thu 08-Jan-15 15:40:44

I think six years is too long, given the circumstances.

LurkingHusband Thu 08-Jan-15 15:41:15

Did the jury agree it was self defence ?

youareallbonkers Thu 08-Jan-15 15:42:03

So you are saying women should just endure years of violence and abuse and if they finally do snap and kill their abuser they should go to prison? Same rules apply.

molyholy Thu 08-Jan-15 15:45:46

This attack on his father came after years of domestic abuse to both him and his mother and was decided not to be premeditated. I am not condoning his actions of an attack but can understand how he could have snapped after his father was threatening not only his mother, but others in the house. It is a toughie but as it was agreed he would not be a danger to others, I thunk his punushment could have been better served in community service, working with victims of lasting injuries sustained through violence or something along those lines. Of course that is only MHO.

LettuceAndPotatoes Thu 08-Jan-15 15:46:16

I think that any act of physical harm to another people deserves prison time.

If we let this man leave without serving a sentence what's to stop this happening in every case? 'It was self defence' would be used in every case and it would be very difficult to overcome this.

I trust the courts decision, I don't think x amount of signatures from anyone would make them doubt themselves.

molyholy Thu 08-Jan-15 15:46:54

*punishment

firesidechat Thu 08-Jan-15 15:47:43

I haven't read the story, but I can easily imagine doing something like this to protect someone I loved. I don't know how I would feel about attacking my own father, but a stranger? I could do that. I'm not a violent person, by the way.

6 years sounds quite long.

firesidechat Thu 08-Jan-15 15:51:38

The thing is that the jury may have had no choice but to find him guilty and maybe extenuating circumstances had to be ignored. Add in the fact that some verdicts have a minimum sentence and you have someone in prison for 6 years.

I will read the story now.

wickedlazy Thu 08-Jan-15 15:53:38

What molyholy said.

firesidechat Thu 08-Jan-15 15:55:31

Very sad.

pumpkinsweetie Thu 08-Jan-15 15:59:04

This country has gone mad, 6 years for being pushed to the brink.

I take my hats of to him tbh, in this day and age it's no wonder people are forced to take the law into their own hands, when quite simply the original perpertrator gets away with a lot worse.

If you had nothing to lose, i'm sure you would do anything to protect and stick up for your loved ones.

This post is like hug a hoodie crap, sorry but his father was evil.

kali110 Thu 08-Jan-15 16:03:57

Think 6 years is too long.
He gave his father brain damage and wrecked his life? The father has wrecked the mother and sons life.
What the son did was wrong yes but he was pushed to the brink.

Namechangeyetagaintohide Thu 08-Jan-15 16:09:13

I do NOT agree that any act if physical harm is worth a prison sentence.

So if someone is trying to kill you or rape you and to defend yourself for example you stab them or harm them you should be punished ?!

LurkingHusband Thu 08-Jan-15 16:19:23

Namechangeyetagaintohide

So if someone is trying to kill you or rape you and to defend yourself for example you stab them or harm them you should be punished ?!

In those cases, you would have the defence of "self-defence" available to you, in the event you were charged. If the judge allows it, and the jury accept it, then you would be acquitted - found not guilty.

For whatever reasons the defence of "self defence" was not made at the original trial. Why, we can only speculate on.

Courts are very wary of the defence of "self defence", since it is effectively a get-out-of-jail-fee-card - even if a death occurs as a result.

There have been many cases where people have killed other people in self defence, and either not faced charges, or been acquitted by a jury. If you are interested, google "Kenneth Noye" - a real villain who managed to kill a policeman and walk away.

creampie Thu 08-Jan-15 16:25:45

For whatever reason, he didn't use the defence of "self-defence" at trial. This may be telling in itself.

The prosecution would have argued that there were many alternative ways of protecting yourself from long standing abuse,that wouldn't have inevitably led to a man's death, and that he should have utilised one of those.

It looks like the extenuating circumstances have been taken into account as his sentence has been commuted from 12 years to 6. This is still a lengthy sentence for a person who would be unlikely to be a threat to the general public.

I suspect there is a lot more to this...

lljkk Thu 08-Jan-15 16:35:12

I think that any act of physical harm to another people deserves prison time.

Any act? ANY Act? What, a woman slaps a child's hand away from the biscuits & that deserves a prison visit? And self-defence is never acceptable defence?

firesidechat Thu 08-Jan-15 16:37:42

Excuse the pun, but he probably was guilty of overkill, but I can understand people snapping after a lifetime of abuse.

When my children were little I would imagine what I would do to someone if they tried to harm them. It would not have been pretty.

BatteryPoweredHen Thu 08-Jan-15 16:42:01

The problem here is that the (partial) defences of provocation and diminished responsibility are only defences to murder, not attempted murder or any other violent crime.

Although these are not full defences (as self defence is) provocation would probably have been accepted by the court and lessened his sentence.

This is why lawyers wryly observe that if you ever plan to retaliate against a violent husband, make sure you definitely kill him, as you will likely have a better outcome in court.

Madness really, AFAIK, this is the only area of law where this is the case.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now