Professional Footballer Arrested

[BigGibbo]

3 & a half years just because he's a footballer & he's "sowwy"!

[act smiley]

He got 7 years, 3.5 is the minimum of that.

[BigGibbo]

He got 7 years, 3.5 is the minimum of that.

That 7 means nothing theres no chance of him serving all of that! & even that wouldn't be justice!

[Daggers]

Sorry to be pedantic, but recklessness can result in a murder conviction. I won't go into the nitty gritty, but the test is partly objective, and partly subjective (R v G and others). The definition of murder (from Coke) is "the unlawful killing of a person in being, under the King's/Queen's peace, with malice aforethought"; in the absence of a statute this is still the case. So in my mind, he is a murderer.

Ha!

The defense rests, Yurhonour.

[Zingari]

So, one of the world's biggest ever conspiracy theories has been proven to be correct .

Diana and Dodi were indeed murdered , by none other than Henri Paul , while he was driving while drunk at high speed .

and Henri Paul commited suicide around the same time

Al Fayed was right all along ; who would suspect a murder was being commited by a person commiting suicide

its pure genius

[Thracian]

Sorry to be pedantic, but recklessness can result in a murder conviction. I won't go into the nitty gritty, but the test is partly objective, and partly subjective (R v G and others). The definition of murder (from Coke) is "the unlawful killing of a person in being, under the King's/Queen's peace, with malice aforethought"; in the absence of a statute this is still the case. So in my mind, he is a murderer.

Even on the basis of "malice aforethought' I cannot see how he could conceivably be a murderer. He wouldn't even have known these people existed when he set out on his fateful journey. He would have held no malice towards them whatsoever. Reckless killer yes. But if you are in the legal profession and consider that to have been murder then it's no wonder I have so little time for the system.

[Thracian]

You can debate semantics if you want - to me the killing was 'unlawful' and his actions were of a murderous nature. For me it's the equivalent of someone walking into a packed shopping centre swinging a machete.

You can call it what you want - I call it murder.

Yes - we already have a system of community service as an alternative to custodial sentences...but, amazingly, most of society prefer to see someone like this locked away as punishment for his atrocity.

Absolute bollocks.

Show me the evidence to support this conjecture - because there isn't any.

Again, you have absolutely no evidence to substantiate this. Allowing softer sentences for criminals does not aid a healing process for the victims of crime - there is no documented research to support this conjecture.

And the overflowing prison population? What does that prove for the success of the system. Plenty in society wanted this government - it doesn't mean they were right.

[stez]

And the overflowing prison population? What does that prove for the success of the system. Plenty in society wanted this government - it doesn't mean they were right.

to be honest if they let a few of the old grannies, who haven't paid their council tax, out and other such 'non-violent' crimes they prisons wouldn't be as full as they are now

[Guest]

Even on the basis of "malice aforethought' I cannot see how he could conceivably be a murderer. He wouldn't even have known these people existed when he set out on his fateful journey. He would have held no malice towards them whatsoever. Reckless killer yes. But if you are in the legal profession and consider that to have been murder then it's no wonder I have so little time for the system.

'Malice aforethought' doesn't mean the action has to be malicious, it means intention which can be inferred through the defendant's conduct. Recklessness is part of the process.

Simply put, the necessary intention is to kill or cause GBH.

With recklessness, you ask if the person's actions were reckless enough to cause the death, and would that person have been aware that those actions were enough to kill.

It isn't quite as black and white as that, but the explanation should suffice.

Why people can't be made accountable for their actions is beyond me.

But it matters not, as we have the statutory offence of causing death by dangerous driving, for which the bloke has been convicted. I just like the argument.

And the overflowing prison population? What does that prove for the success of the system. Plenty in society wanted this government - it doesn't mean they were right.

The prisons are not full, they are however close to capacity.

Considering the population was nearly 61m in July 2007, that means the current prison population represents less than 0.5% of the total population. I haven't found the data relating to the number of people convicted for an offence (one of my textbooks has it, somewhere), but I would guess significantly more that 0.5% of the population have been found guilty of something. It would also show that prison is not the main way of dealing with offenders, and it would also suggest that the other methods are even less successful.

[Thracian]

'Malice aforethought' doesn't mean the action has to be malicious, it means intention which can be inferred through the defendant's conduct. Recklessness is part of the process.

Simply put, the necessary intention is to kill or cause GBH.

With recklessness, you ask if the person's actions were reckless enough to cause the death, and would that person have been aware that those actions were enough to kill.

It isn't quite as black and white as that, but the explanation should suffice.

Why people can't be made accountable for their actions is beyond me.

But it matters not, as we have the statutory offence of causing death by dangerous driving, for which the bloke has been convicted. I just like the argument.

The prisons are not full, they are however close to capacity.

Considering the population was nearly 61m in July 2007, that means the current prison population represents less than 0.5% of the total population. I haven't found the data relating to the number of people convicted for an offence (one of my textbooks has it, somewhere), but I would guess significantly more that 0.5% of the population have been found guilty of something. It would also show that prison is not the main way of dealing with offenders, and it would also suggest that the other methods are even less successful.

The explanation's fine. Who would possibly believe that the offender 'intended' to kill or injure anyone?

And the fact that he was rightly convicted of causing death by dangerous driving surely bears out my view that the CPS didn't believe he committed murder or that they'd have any chance of securing a conviction for murder.

The offender has been made to account for his actions - something I think should be generally the case in all situation - and in this instance he has faced a court and been sentenced. I just think the sentence is far too lenient and has totally the wrong emphasis. But then I always find it hard to defend nominally Christian values against society attitudes that only really practices Christianity to the degree that it suits them.

I see nothing constructive about the sentence. In fact if Daggers is right about what the guy can expect then we've had one indefensible crime being followed by another. But so long as most members of society think the other way we'll continue to take that route.

Quite why we need more prisons if the prisons aren't full I don't know unless the judiciary has been told avoid imposing custodial sentences if possible to avoid unacceptable overcrowding, a situation which still doesn't suggest the system works effectively.

[The People's Hero]

I wonder if your opinion might be a little different if Levi Porter had been the unlucky, innocent motorist/passenger killed in this incident?

You make myself and many other people sick.

[Thracian]

I wonder if your opinion might be a little different if Levi Porter had been the unlucky, innocent motorist/passenger killed in this incident?

You make myself and many other people sick.

Your trite comments are only to be expected I suppose.

[Guest]

The explanation's fine. Who would possibly believe that the offender 'intended' to kill or injure anyone?

And the fact that he was rightly convicted of causing death by dangerous driving surely bears out my view that the CPS didn't believe he committed murder who that they'd have any chance of securing a conviction for murder.

It's not so much that the CPS didn't think he committed murder, it's just that there is the other offence to use.

A lot of discussion on homicides are theoretical, and with statutory offences in places for some circumstances, it is far easier to get a conviction down this route than it is for the common law alternatives. Unless someone deliberately runs another person down, or some such similar, then nobody is going to be charged with murder; it will always be causing death by dangerous driving. It still doesn't alter the fact that the actions fit the offence of murder.

[The People's Hero]

Your trite comments are only to be expected I suppose.

Who was it who I was trying to explain 'irony' to a few weeks ago?

[Thracian]

It's not so much that the CPS didn't think he committed murder, it's just that there is the other offence to use.

A lot of discussion on homicides are theoretical, and with statutory offences in places for some circumstances, it is far easier to get a conviction down this route than it is for the common law alternatives. Unless someone deliberately runs another person down, or some such similar, then nobody is going to be charged with murder; it will always be causing death by dangerous driving. It still doesn't alter the fact that the actions fit the offence of murder.

To me murder is a considered act. The 'aforethought' if you like. Shocking as his reckless action was I don't think there was any aforethought concerning the victims or anyone else. In fact there seems to have been no 'aforethought' about what he might do to anyone. Perhaps we should simply agree to disagree. Whatever we say people have been killed, families wrecked and nothing will change that.

[Zingari]

its been interesting reading this thread and i can see both sides but still mostly agree with thracian that it can't really be classed as murder

i was reminded of the gary hart case in selby so i looked it up to read about it and was surprised that he was only given 5 years and released after 2 and a half

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selby_rail_crash

[Guest]

To me murder is a considered act. The 'aforethought' if you like. Shocking as his reckless action was I don't think there was any aforethought concerning the victims or anyone else. In fact there seems to have been no 'aforethought' about what he might do to anyone. Perhaps we should simply agree to disagree. Whatever we say people have been killed, families wrecked and nothing we say will change that.

Malice aforethought is one thing, not two. It is intention.

In the sense of 'aforethought' in the literal meaning, yes, we will have to disagree. A bit of 'aforethought' and he would have realised he was not capable of driving in the state he was in, and would have either checked himself into the hotel to sleep it off, or got someone sober and alert to drive him home or wherever it was he was going.

Some, and they may be a little crazy, might even suggest that if he knew he was going to be driving, he would not have touched any alcohol at all, or at least moderated the amount he had to ensure he wasn't still twice over the legal limit a few hours later.....

[Daggers]

Club fines 'handcuff' footballer

That David Norris is such a lovely man, I do hope his wedding preparations weren't in any way put out by his friend's arrest and subsequent conviction.

[Guest]

Club fines 'handcuff' footballer

That David Norris is such a lovely man, I do hope his wedding preparations weren't in any way put out by his friend's arrest and subsequent conviction.

I heard his celebrations were "not well thought out, and probably a misjudgment on his part" by one reporter.

Are we allowed to give Norris the "coffee bean shake" type gesture? In support of his total lack of respect?

[JakeShingler]

Anyone seen the celebratiom?

[Thracian]

I heard his celebrations were "not well thought out, and probably a misjudgment on his part" by one reporter.

Are we allowed to give Norris the "coffee bean shake" type gesture? In support of his total lack of respect?

If he were a member of my team he'd be sent home and never picked again. But while the likes of Hughes and Barton pull shirts on I guess it's to be expected.

[Guest]

If he were a member of my team he'd be sent home and never picked again. But while the likes of Hughes and Barton pull shirts on I guess it's to be expected.

I wish his team-mates had had the sense and decency to say something to him.