Accidental death - punishment?

[Ry_B]

Read this

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lancashire/7693...

What do we think?

It's quite clear she didn't intend to kill her partner, but what should her punishment be as 9 times out of 10 this would not result in the other person dying?

[BigLepton]

It wasn't an accident, she attacked him with a pair of scissors resulting in his death. If she had fallen accidentally and stabbed him, fair enough, but this was an attack that went wrong, not an accident.

[rabw]

I guess she ought to be done for ABH or something, not manslaughter...

I don't really see the point in locking people like her up, not like she's a threat to society?

ETA:

article said:

...had a history of violent arguments with her partner. She was jailed for two years and four months.

Seems about right?

Edited by rabw on Monday 27th October 18:32

[robinhood21]

BBC said:

Whilst the prosecution accepts that Ms Triplett had no intention to kill Mr Simpson, the fact that he died from a relatively minor initial wound serves only to underline the danger of using sharp instruments of any sort in an argument.

This is why she should be punished.

[Nolar Dog]

rabw said:

ETA:

article said:

...had a history of violent arguments with her partner. She was jailed for two years and four months.

Seems about right?

No.

I think she should serve life.

She killed someone whilst using a weapon with intent.
She should be severely punished.

[BigLepton]

rabw said:

I don't really see the point in locking people like her up, not like she's a threat to society?

What did her partner do to be classed as not part of society?

[Deuteronomy]

She didn't intend to kill him when she stabbed him, but he DID die as a result of the stabbing that she did.... she should be done for manslaughter, she should be sentenced to what ever manslaughter carries... 2 years seems too little, I suggest at least 10 years

[Buster Bakdorzin]

Nolar Dog said:

rabw said:

ETA:

article said:

...had a history of violent arguments with her partner. She was jailed for two years and four months.

Seems about right?

No.

I think she should serve life.

She killed someone whilst using a weapon with intent.
She should be severely punished.

Intent to kill and intent to cause harm are incomparable.

Surely a mere glance at any headline news articles these days, tells a clear story that our justice system hasnt yet learned to successfully incorporate intention with eventual outcome.

In this instance, the sentence seems more or less appropriate.
Its hardly a case of murder in the first degree.
Or are you saying both should warrant a life term in a 'correctional facility' ?

[Ry_B]

Nolar Dog said:

rabw said:

ETA:

article said:

...had a history of violent arguments with her partner. She was jailed for two years and four months.

Seems about right?

No.

I think she should serve life.

She killed someone whilst using a weapon with intent.
She should be severely punished.

Yeh but the intent wasn't to kill it was to hurt/injure

[King Herald]

Deuteronomy said:

She didn't intend to kill him when she stabbed him, but he DID die as a result of the stabbing that she did.... she should be done for manslaughter, she should be sentenced to what ever manslaughter carries... 2 years seems too little, I suggest at least 10 years

So, she only meant a little affectionate stab, rather than a big fvck off stab?

I see your point. Really, I do....

[soprano]

If there is an intention to kill, or alternatively an intention to cause GBH and the outcome of death was forseeable then murder is appropriate. There should be no distinction in the punishment of those who have not killed due to sheer luck. Take an example of an individual being repeatedly hit around the head with an instrument which is likely to cause death. The attacker should in my view face the same punishment whether the victim lives or dies. S/he should not benefit from the sheer luck that the victim has survived.

It seems here there is an intention to cause harm, but is that harm grievous? and is death really forseeable? Its arguable I guess but on the facts given manslaughter seems appropriate. Its difficult to know for sure without more details about the circumstances and the seriousness of attack/injury.

[tinman0]

King Herald said:

Deuteronomy said:

She didn't intend to kill him when she stabbed him, but he DID die as a result of the stabbing that she did.... she should be done for manslaughter, she should be sentenced to what ever manslaughter carries... 2 years seems too little, I suggest at least 10 years

So, she only meant a little affectionate stab, rather than a big fvck off stab?

I see your point. Really, I do....

well said that person.

[miniman]

What would people be saying if this was a case, for example, of a thug beating the crap out of a random punter outside a pub, resulting in death? He didn't intend to kill the punter. He was drunk so acting arguably out of character. But he intentionally beat the st out of someone and they died. I would suggest that people on here would be calling for him to be strung up.

How do we teach people that actions have consequences if we say "ah well you stabbed him but you didn't mean to kill him so we'll let you off"?

[Nolar Dog]

Ry_B said:

Nolar Dog said:

rabw said:

ETA:

article said:

...had a history of violent arguments with her partner. She was jailed for two years and four months.

Seems about right?

No.

I think she should serve life.

She killed someone whilst using a weapon with intent.
She should be severely punished.

Yeh but the intent wasn't to kill it was to hurt/injure

Quite. But she (as should anyone) be accountable for her bloody actions.

She killed someone whilst attacking him with scissors.
Did she not consider it "might" kill him?

See post by King Herald (above) for more of my thoughts on this as it's beyond comprehension to me that people think it's okay to kill someone because she didn't mean it.

Jesus Christ.

[soprano]

miniman said:

What would people be saying if this was a case, for example, of a thug beating the crap out of a random punter outside a pub, resulting in death? He didn't intend to kill the punter. He was drunk so acting arguably out of character. But he intentionally beat the st out of someone and they died. I would suggest that people on here would be calling for him to be strung up.

How do we teach people that actions have consequences if we say "ah well you stabbed him but you didn't mean to kill him so we'll let you off"?

But she's been convicted of manslaughter and has been sentenced to 2 years in prison or whatever it was... that is a consequence though you may disagree with the length of that sentence.

[miniman]

soprano said:

miniman said:

What would people be saying if this was a case, for example, of a thug beating the crap out of a random punter outside a pub, resulting in death? He didn't intend to kill the punter. He was drunk so acting arguably out of character. But he intentionally beat the st out of someone and they died. I would suggest that people on here would be calling for him to be strung up.

How do we teach people that actions have consequences if we say "ah well you stabbed him but you didn't mean to kill him so we'll let you off"?

But she's been convicted of manslaughter and has been sentenced to 2 years in prison or whatever it was... that is a consequence though you may disagree with the length of that sentence.

Ah yes, killing someone = 2 years, out in 1 with good behaviour. Big consequences. Really big.

[soprano]

miniman said:

soprano said:

miniman said:

What would people be saying if this was a case, for example, of a thug beating the crap out of a random punter outside a pub, resulting in death? He didn't intend to kill the punter. He was drunk so acting arguably out of character. But he intentionally beat the st out of someone and they died. I would suggest that people on here would be calling for him to be strung up.

How do we teach people that actions have consequences if we say "ah well you stabbed him but you didn't mean to kill him so we'll let you off"?

But she's been convicted of manslaughter and has been sentenced to 2 years in prison or whatever it was... that is a consequence though you may disagree with the length of that sentence.

Ah yes, killing someone = 2 years, out in 1 with good behaviour. Big consequences. Really big.

Like I said you may disagree with the level of sentence, the point that I make is that there is a consequence. I would suggest that she is less culpable than someone who had intended to kill, and thus should receive a lesser sentence and the conviction of manslaughter rather than murder.

[Ry_B]

Nolar Dog said:

Ry_B said:

Nolar Dog said:

rabw said:

ETA:

article said:

...had a history of violent arguments with her partner. She was jailed for two years and four months.

Seems about right?

No.

I think she should serve life.

She killed someone whilst using a weapon with intent.
She should be severely punished.

Yeh but the intent wasn't to kill it was to hurt/injure

Quite. But she (as should anyone) be accountable for her bloody actions.

She killed someone whilst attacking him with scissors.
Did she not consider it "might" kill him?

See post by King Herald (above) for more of my thoughts on this as it's beyond comprehension to me that people think it's okay to kill someone because she didn't mean it.

Jesus Christ.

TBH I've done things in the past (fights etc) that *COULD* have killed somebody, like a one in a million chance if they had a sudden heart attack etc, that's like saying if you drive your car and someone walks out infront of you, because you were driving, irespective of it being the pedesetrians fault, you should still get done for murder as you were driving

it wasn't the woman's fault that her partner's leg became infected.

I'm not sure what I'd do, someone needs to be punished but I'm not sure what good it will do for society by placing her in prison.

[shadowninja]

There was a case in Epsom recycling centre when an argument broke out between two drivers. One driver got out yanked the arm of another driver on the sill of the car window and broke his arm. In hospital, the injured driver needed an operation and he died on the operating theatre table due to complications (weak heart or something). The guy who broke his arm was sent to prison IIRC. I can't find the article online, though.

Last year(?) some guy punched some other guy in a queue in Asda or something similar. Guy collapsed and died. Attacked got done for killing, too. http://news.scotsman.com/latestnews/Father-killed-...

Looks like in the second case, the attacker shouldn't be allowed out in public.

Edited by shadowninja on Monday 27th October 19:48

[Nolar Dog]

Ry_B said:

...that's like saying if you drive your car and someone walks out infront of you, because you were driving, irespective of it being the pedesetrians fault, you should still get done for murder as you were driving

No. It's not like saying that at all.

If someone steps into my path whilst I'm driving it's hardly "murder" is it?

If however I deliberatley mounted the kerb and "attacked" someone with my car (the "weapon" in this case) then yes, I should accept that death is possible and I should be severley punished.

I don't get in my car with the intention to harm someone. However if I picked up scissors and attacked you...