To feel sorry for (and think the punishment is too long) for the 18 year old who threw the fire extinguisher in the protests

[LaurieFairyonthetreeEatsCake]

2 years, 8 months in jail

here

That's a looooong time. Is the reasoning supposed to be that it's a deterrent?

There are people with asbo's who cause no end of trouble and don't get sentences like this.

I don't think throwing a fire extinguisher is comparable to taking a gun to a demo and firing it.

But I am not interested in punters' opinions. I'd be interested in the legal view of it, that's all.

And I don't remember hearing of a first-time drunk driver who caused no damage or injury being jailed for 2 years.

Gun - minimum sentence of 5 years so no, not comparable in terms of sentencing.

Drink driving - maximum sentence is 6 months.

Well it is a serious offence which warrents a harsh sentances. Yes there are worse crimes and yes they should get harsher sentances, tbh the legal system is all a joke.

LDNmummy - again, why is it ridiculous to sentence on the basis of what could have happened. That is what the assessment of the level of criminality is all about - foresight, intent, recklessness - all the mental elements of an offence. It's not really about "what could have happened". It's about "what he intended/foresaw could have happened."

How else do you think we should deal with criminal actions which, by a massive stroke of luck, avoid causing harm? If someone tries to shoot someone and misses do we say "oh well, no harm, no foul."?

I would assume that the judge also thought there was a risk of this man doing something similar again and that he showed no remorse, otherwise why the long jail sentence.

If there is no evidence that he might commit a similar crime again and if he did show remorse, then it seems to be a ridiculous sentence.

Legally, sentences should be imposed, primarily, to reflect the level of criminality involved rather than the consequences of the criminal act.

However, there is a process to follow in sentencing offender which includes looking at the sentencing guidelines for the offence and paying due heed to the five purposes of sentencing:

-the punishment of offenders;
-the reduction of crime (which includes general deterrence;
-the reform and rehabilitation of offenders;
-the protection of the public;
-the making of reparation by offenders to persons affected by their offences

When setting the sentence (or type of sentence), the court must take into account factors such as
?the seriousness of the offence
?the offender?s previous convictions;
?aggravating factors e.g. particularly vulnerable victim;

?mitigating factors
?personal mitigation
?plea of guilty

I think it is the emphasis on this sentence as a deterrent sentence first and foremost which makes it unplatable and too long.

The judge has used an 18 year old of impeccable character who admitted his responsibility for a grossly reckless act (thus saving police alot of time) which, fortuitously, did not result in injury, to send a message to others who may do the same.

This boy had only just turned 18 (significant for sentencing purposes) at the ttime of the incident and was involved in a dismally poorly policed demonstration where chaos reigned.

Prison, perhaps, for what might have appened. Two and half years? over the top.

linksandsmileys the voice of reason

Two points:

1. You are wrong about being sentenced on 'what could have happened'. Each offence has an actus reus (the act) and a mens rea (the mental element) which has to be proved. The mens rea varies according to the crime - it may require intention, recklessnes, or both. This man was charged with violent disorder. The mens rea is an intention to threaten violence. That is what he pleaded guilty to. That is what he is sentenced for.Built in to the seriousness of the charge is an understanding that violent disorders are likely to cause harm to others. However, although the fact that no one is injured does not alter the mens rea or guilt, it does alter the mitigation.

1. The man gave himself up, pleaded guilty, was of good character, with excellent character references and there was no evidence he was likely to reoffend

But how can we estimate accurately what someone's intentions were in that moment? Unless there is a method of jumping through time and into the thoughts and emotions of another human being that has been invented then surely its not possible. And I think his turning himself in is a bigger show of character than the actions portrayed at an incredibly heated protest. I am not denying he was wrong, of course there should be a penalty for his actions, incredibly dangerous and harmful behaviour should be punished. But the sentence is far too long for the circumstance in my opinion. Unless a psychological evaluation can prove that he is a further risk to the public then it is excessive in my view.

"could easily have led him to be charged with attempted murder so he was actually very lucky to be charged with a lesser offence."

The mens rea of attempted murder is an intention to kill. Not cause GBH or death (as with murder itself). It is the toughest mens rea to establish and this was an act based on recklessness not intention.

So, no, it wasn't luck that he wasn't charged with att. murder - just the law.

Who is wrong? There have been a lot of different comments on that issue.

I am not entirely sure I understand your point about "what could have happened." You accept that the issue of potential harm is part and parcel of the offence - that is the point that I have been trying to make. You can't negate an offence simply because the potential harm wasn't actually realised. And as far is it altering the mitigation is concerned - do you mean that it is a mitigating feature of the offence in terms of the sentencing exercise, or do you mean that it should actively form part of his mitigation? I am not convinced that it could be said to be a mitigating factor to be honest - more of a lack of a that particular aggravating feature. While it is relevant, of course, I am not sure I would be jumping up and down to say "Well, Your Honour, no-one was actually hurt." I would think that that way lies shouting, glaring and ignoring anything else said.

Anyway, interesting discussion everyone. Sick of law now - spent all day doing it, sat down for 2 hours this evening to write about it and then got sucked back into this discussion about it.

I'm lawed out.

Night.

At 19:27:56 saggarmakersbottomknocker asked "Did he intend to kill?"

This video shown on with the trajectory of the extinguisher makes death or injury appear to be part of the intention, as it wasn't just dropped but thrown deliberately in one direction.

However, whether the intent was not to kill or injure, the likelihood of doing so was high, given the unpredictability of what may happen once the extinguisher hit the ground.

I only heard about it from the radio, I was not following TV news coverage nor did I seek to find out what happened.

I was motivated to find a video clip tonight, to see for myself whether it was thrown in a deliberate way or simply dropped into a gap.

Has anyone seen any clips of it actually hitting the ground, if so, please post a link...

I don't think, after seeing that video, many could argue his intention was not to seriously frighten, if not actually injure someone.

Sorry, haven't read any other comments so this might be irrelevant/repeated/annoying but just googled average sentencing for rape and came up with "The average sentence for criminals convicted of rape in the United States (and released in 1992) is 117 months. The average time served is 65 months, which equates to 56 percent of the actual sentence served.

Read more: wiki.answers.com/Q/What_would_the_average_jail_time_for_rape_be#ixzz1As2XZrTY

I know this is old data etc but I would imagine current statistics, if I looked enough for them, wouldn't be too different. I think it's all about the relative sentences that makes it all seem so unjust to me

I believe there is a video on BBC here

Not sure that in the heat of the moment, he really thought about his actions. Like the lad that climbed the Cenotaph. 18 months is, I think too long for a single act. The minute it left his hand, I'd bet he had second thoughts.

Given the degree of awfulness compared to muggings of old ladies and worse and the fairly light sentences handed out to complete bad yins, He should have got a suspended sentence.

pointydog wrote "... otherwise why the long jail sentence"

Long in what context ? Long compared with some examples given earlier in the thread, perhaps.

However, if the maximum sentence is 5 years, ie 60 months, then 32 months (of which it is unlikely he will serve even 30) would appear to me to have taken into account some aspects such as pleading guilty, and having no past record. I don't know of any cases where someone has been sentenced to 5 years, but whether one describes it as a "moment of madness" or not, what he did was risking life and limb.

If someone had been injured or killed, then the sentence would have been higher, with a different charge, but it is unlikely we are going to agree anything as we seem to have diametrically opposed views.

Thanks for the link, Kaloki. Seems to me some of the police were almost unaware of the fact it was coming down, or had nerves of steel and could somehow feel sure it was going to miss them !

Obviously from the sound of the crowd it was seen to be on its way, but if I had been one of the group of police with my back to that I guess I would have been blissfully ignorant of the possibility of it coming down on my head.

I think many of the mum's posting on here that he deserves such a long sentence would not be so sure had it been thier 18 year old child no offence, just sometimes it is good to put yourself in anothers position when trying to analyze something like this

LDNmummyI think most people here are imagining there children as the innocent protesters down below who could have been hurt. Because despite the coverage the vast majority of the protesters were peaceful. People like this guy were the minority. Why is that? Because at 18 most people know risking other's lives for their own amusement is wrong at worst wrong and potentially lethal and at best going to get them in a lot of trouble

I think until you are parent to a teenager who has done something reckless and criminal but is not a bad person or a threat to society its very easy to pass black and white judgment. Its not the same as dealing with a cute baby or a chubby toddler but its part of life. It doesn't make criminal action ok and I have no objection to people being held responsible for their actions (in fact I think its right whatever the age) but I still the sentence in this case was OTT and all about making this guy a scapegoat/setting an example which I have a problem with.

I still find the passionate defending of this sentence on this thread odd and hypocritical given the lack of such a response to the DAILY lenient sentencing of more dangerous criminals in this country. It smacks of media manipulation to me that this guy attracts so much more attention.

'I think until you are parent to a teenager who has done something reckless and criminal but is not a bad person or a threat to society its very easy to pass black and white judgment. '

Nonsense! Plenty of people are professionals in fields in which they have no personal experience, for example, male GYNs will never have a vagina, that doesn't mean their experience is any less valid.

Absolute patronising tripe.

And again, this is not about sentencing for other crimes. A solicitor has been on here explaining in great detail how that works and how if you are concerned about light sentences for other crimes, lobby about it! Get on the horn to your MP for starters.

I was responding to Evildead's response to LDn expat. Clearly a mother is not going to be the right person to sentence!

I do get the sentencing thing and think linksandsmileys expresses my view on this much better than I can.

I agree with Linksand smileys - it was a wildly reckless and dangerous act, idiotic, no excuse for it.

But 2.5 years? If punishment is about letting people know they have done wrong, giving them a nasty experience to emphasise the fact, with the ultiate end of rehabilitating them as wiser more responsible citizens, then over-draconian punishment is conter-productive. There is a scene in Mutiny on the Bounty, based on real diaries, where the Capt remonstrates with Fletcher (I think) for flogging a man where it is an excessive punishment for the crime -on the grounds that flogging ruins the man as a sailor, bitterness undermning team effort etc.

This guy is presumably intelligent to know how easily he could have caused a death, and to be have made truly sorry and wiser about entering into disorderly behaviour and mob rule. He could have been convicted and given lots of community service.

However, although he isn't likely to be a danger to the public he is now locked up at great expense for a very long time and unless he is of extraordinary humilty he may reflect upon his experience at the hands of the establishment and compare it to establishment / corporate figures who get away with taking no personal responsibility for huge human tragedies, posh old drunk peers of judges who drive around putting people at risk and all the other examples on this thread.

Justice makes no sense to anyone unless it fits the wider context.