12 months for strangling grandpops

[longrunsthefox]

This is a case for electronic tagging.

What use would that be? Unless he stays under house arrest. Sure his Granda only lived down the road from him.

[nrico2006]

Nope, the judge reckoned he didn't mean to kill him and the judge described the strangling action as 'foolhardy.' Oh! and yer lad Coyle also stabbed the Grandfather in the neck... sure the report says that.
Pints, I know we have clashed on rehabilitation of young offenders before but even the Fox appreciates this is crazy. This boy gets out in  a few weeks.

Madness, it seems to me judges are so far removed from real life.  Let me call a spade a spade here, murdering someone should mean that the offender goes to jail for 30 years.  If you take a life, the state should see to it that you repay it with you being incarcerated until an independent board of assessors think that you are fit to be rehabilitated.  No exceptions for any reasons.  No out clauses.

I don't agree with this whole craic that someone should be locked up until they are rehabilitated or no longer a danger to society.  Nowadays it seems that when someone commits a crime that the main focus of a person's sentence is to rehabilitate them.  I do see the importance of trying to rehabilitate someone, but as much focus (if not more) should be placed upon the punishment.  At the end of the day, nobody really ever knows if someone is rehabilitated truly.

It also seems that everyone who commits a serious or heinous crime in today's society has some form of mental condition.  I think that its too common and easy for people to class themselves as having this, that or the other illness with the aim of getting a reduced sentence.  People who commit terrible crimes simply have badness in them, and if you delve enough into their personality I am sure you could classify them as having some condition but that should not influence their judgement or the length of their sentence.

Manslaughter seems to be common these days, even in cases where it seems that murder is the only charge that should be applied.  In this case, how did the fella beat the murder charge and get the manslaughter one?  I know one of the focal points of any murder charge is whether or not the crime was pre-meditated, and in this case I presume that the fella did not have a plan to go and kill his granda but the fact is he did.  It is murder as at some stage he decided to kill his granda, and if the judge is so far removed from reality that he believes that the culprits actions (stabbing and strangling) were carried out with any other intention other than to kill the granda then the judicial system is more screwed up than I thought it was.

There are so many cases in Northern Ireland and the UK that really confuse and anger me, cases where people are murdered yet the culprits get off on manslaughter charges – it seems to be common practice.  The one below is another crazy one, how was beating and throwing a schoolboy (of the same religion) of a block of flats a crime that resulted in the killer getting out as part of the Good Friday Agreement after only 3 years in jail?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2006/apr/16/uk.northernireland1

[ardmhachaabu]

nrico, I used to be of the opinion that anyone could be rehabilitated if they wanted to.  These days, I tend to agree with you.  f**k rehabilitation, let them rot in jail.  I only mentioned it as I was thinking of the likes of Jimmy Boyle.  The way I envisage it, it would take a hell of a lot of convincing to let them out of jail, even after serving a 30 year sentence

[longrunsthefox]

This teeanger has not yet admitted strangling his grandfather. He pleaded guilty to manslaughter on the grounds that he found him dead and was negligant by not calling for an ambulance. Instead he went off for a night's drinking. The judge however said he definetly strangled Grandpops. So in effect he still denies it... and is no remorse or admission watsoever. He is still lying. I do believe in a chance for rehabilitation and have got hammered on the board for that in the past. But to serve no time and still deny doing it is no starting point.   

[Rav67]

For a murder charge, you do not need to show that the perpetrator intended to kill the victim, you just need to show that they intended to cause grevious bodily harm.  Surely stabbing and strangling are evidence of that at least.  Some judges are mental.

[tyrone girl]

When murder Mens Rea should be coming into play - malice forethought. As someone said above u can be tried for murder if u had a malice forethought to either kill or cause gbh. Then theres direct intent and if that couldnt be proved what about oblique intent - recklessness or criminal negligence in relation to it all them things should be in play. Beyond me how this wasnt murder.