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

[LettuceAndPotatoes]

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.

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

How much prison time has he served?

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 ?

I don't agree with you either.

Chockbic he got 6 years.

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.

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

Did the jury agree it was self defence ?

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.

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.

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.

*punishment

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.

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.

What molyholy said.

Very sad.

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.

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.

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 ?!

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.

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...

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?

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.

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.

The rules surrounding self-defence are - of necessity - complex. And we should be grateful. Otherwise all a murder need do is tear their clothes, whack their victim with a rock, and claim "self defence".

It's a long-established principle that all other avenues must be exhausted before a claim of self defence can be entered. If that means running away, then so be it.

I'm loath to speculate, but I suspect the crux of this case - the lack of self defence as a defence, plus the severity of the sentence - hinges on the fact that 5 blows were struck. Now we haven't seen the medical evidence, but suppose that showed that the first blow would have incapacitated the father. In fact, supposed it was the first blow which caused the brain damage ? Then the 4 subsequent blows were not necessary and were effectively an assault.

By and large, I think UK law on self defence is quite sufficient - despite various rentagob MPs soundbites. My only concern is when a person is confronted in their own home ... are they expected to run out of their own front door onto the street ? What's the point of having a home, if you are expected to leave it if someone threatens your safety ?