Examples?
Cites?
Was the kid asking for it?
Seriously. What fucking defense could a lawyer use to get these two off? Does anyone have any info on what the defense was?
The defence was “I didn’t do it”. That leaves it up to the prosecution to prove that one or other or both of the parents committed a crime. Apart from the injuries to the child there was no further evidence to show that either one or other or both acted in any way that was illegal save for child cruelty.
One wouldn’t even need a lawyer to present that defence- just challenge the prosecution to show how the injuries happenned and who was responsible. They couldn’t do that and so the charges were not proceeded with.
Sad, but the essence of our justice system is innocent until proven guilty. This is the price that we pay for the comforts of the rule of law.
I don’t know what justice system you have where you live, but here, “no evidence” equals “not guilty”.
How do you stop them from parenting any future children?
Surely they could produce children and keep them without any authority knowing about it, until they do something that is noticed by child protection agencies?
What, as opposed the GOOD child absuing bastards?
Tony Martin a farmer shot and killed a burglar breaking into his home.
He was sent to prison for defending his own fucking property which incidentally had been burgled many times before, the guy had had enough.
This thread should be cite enough
You can’t stop them parenting children, but as soon as it becomes obvious that they are in any way responsible for children, they would be forbidden to have that responsibility or the children would be seen as ‘at risk’ and removed from their care.
That’s because the penalty for burglary is jail, not getting shot by a farmer. Also, how is it relevant that the farmer had been burgled before? Was this burglar somehow responsible for the actions of previous burglars?
- You mean the Tony Martin who made continuing racist treats against the gypsy comunity nearby:
*Apart from thieves, Martin’s pet hate was Gypsies. Norwich crown court heard that the farmer had talked of putting Gypsies in the middle of a field, surrounding it with barbed wire and machine gunning them. Fred Barras, the boy he killed, was both of these things: a Gypsy and a thief.
*
http://www.guardian.co.uk/martin/article/0,,214334,00.html.
made public threats to kill some gypsys if they came on to his property, then using an illegally held shotgun:
“In 1994 he had his shotgun certificate revoked after he found a man scrumping for apples in his orchard and shot a hole in the back of his vehicle. After the shooting of Fred Barras and Brendan Fearon, police recovered an old rusty shotgun from Martin’s garage: another gun he should not have had without a shotgun certificate. The guns, Martin said, were for shooting pigeons.”
shot two of them, one in the house one (a child) in the garden in his back as he ran away from the farm whilst pleading with Martin to not shoot him:
Barras had pleaded for his life, shouting: “I’m sorry. Please don’t. Mum.” In panic, Fearon, who was seriously injured, pulled out a rotten window and he and Barras jumped through. It was not until the next afternoon that the teenage boy’s body was found.
Bleak world of the loner who killed | UK news | The Guardian.
He was charged with attempting to murder the first man and murder of the child.
He had a Jury trial and was found guilty of murder by a jury:
“Martin was found guilty of murder by a jury of six men and six women who had earlier given not guilty verdicts on charges of attempting to murder another man, the burglar Brendon Fearon, and of possession of a firearm and ammunition with intent to injure life. He was found guilty of wounding Fearon with intent to kill.”
English law is quite clear that you can use reasonable force to protect your property, but it must be commensurate with the threat that you face. Tony Martin was lucky indeed (the right wing press campaign helped) in that his murder conviction was overturned and that he served only about four years for manslaughter.
Mot a particularly good example when you strip the press hysteria away from it.
What do you think should have been done differently?
- In the current case under consideration, it is obvious that there is inadequate evidence to prosecute these people for murder or manslaughter or anything more than the child cruelty charges. If there was such evidence, then the CPS would have preferred a greater charge. The alleged perpetrators are now protected by the law on double jeopardy.
What do you think should have been done differently?
chowder the basic problems is that a couple of anecdotes don’t make a study. Do you honestly think that if I tried, I couldn’t find a couple of instances of sentences that you would find inappropriately light or heavy if I trawled through every US sentencing decision for the past ten years?
I mean, for a start, do you think OJ was innocent?
Every single day judges in the UK, the US, Australia hand down thousands of sentences. 99.999% of which you never hear about because they are so ordinary. But every now and again, (arguably) the judge fucks up.
And then tabloid journalists pounce on it and scream to the heavens through mouths full of froth that judges are all “soft” and the softheaded public laps it up.
A child my arse, the teenager was a fucking thief who was shitting himself as he ran away having been caught in the act of burglary.
Give it a rest with the child business :smack
Tony Martin should have served no time at all in prison, he was defending what was his.
Remember the man lived alone and a bunch of thieves decided to burgle his home, FWIW I believe he acted in a way that most of us would act when our property is invaded.
WTF does OJ have to with this?
Threats and actions are different entirely, how many times have any of us said “I’ll kill that fucking dog if it shits in my garden again” or anything like that. Did we kill the dog? no we didn’t.
Also Pjen, don’t be so obtuse. You asked for examples and cites, you got them.
Seems to me as if you are one of the bleeding heart liberals who throw up their collective hands in mock horror at anything which you perceive to be an injustice.
The two arsewipes referred to in my post MURDERED a child of a few months old and they got away with it and that disgusts me and many more like minded people.
I live in England, our system is much the same as that of Scotland.
chowder, you seem to make a habit of believing Daily Express-inspired right-wing paranoid cobblers.
Tony Martin, while I have much sympathy for him as a victim of repeated burglary - and the lack of protection afforded by the police to vulnerable people in rural areas is indeed distressing - had booby-trapped his entire house, and shot the burglar in the back as he was running away. The burglar deserved incarceration but got vigilante death instead. Martin was subject to the rule of law in the UK, same as anyone else. We aren’t Texas. He got the sentence he deserved.
Where is your proof that either one or the other murdered the child. The CPS certainly couldn’t find any evidence.
Or do you just want people to be found guilty because “we know you did it but just can’t prove it”?
No evidence equals no proof equals no conviction equals Not Guilty result.
What do you suggest the CPS should have done?
A note that you do not respond to the full facts that I have given about the Tony Martin case.
Again, what do you suggest an alternative outcome might be?
Daily Telegraph if you don’t mind. I don’t read the crap reported in tabloids.
I stick by my beliefs, the burglar got what he deserved unlike the child killers in this OP
First. I have absolutely no intention of discussing the Tony Martin case any further, it bears no relevance to my OP
Second.Peter Murphy QC stated that the child had been battered and neglected.At the hospital the child was seen to be underweight and distressed and her injuries could have been inflicted by a third party. Could have? the kiddie was a few months old, unable to walk so how in Gods name could they NOT have been inflicted by a third party. If that aint proof enough I’ll stand pissing in the sink.
Third. The CPS should have done everything in their power to bring a charge of murder against the two parents (I use the term loosely) but quite obviously they didn’t.
Fourth. I’m fully aware that no evidence=no proof=not guilty, don’t mistake me for a fool
Didn’t see your earlier post, hence my comment above. Now replying to your first reply.
The Children Act which is part of English Law specifies that all persons under the age of eighteen are classed as children. Legally they are not adults. If you want that to change, lobby your MP. Until they change it, a sisteen year old is a child.
The man shot a person in the back and killed them while he was running away after he had burgled his home. That is not and never will be self defence. It might be possible to change the law so that yindividuals are allowed to execute burglars after the event, but first you will need to change the law. Lobby your MP, get it passed by our elected legislature and slide it past the European Convention on Human Rights and I might agree that Tony Martin would then be innocent of unlawful killing. As the law stands then and now (note that no changes have been made in the last six years despite this case) Tony Martin is and should be seen as guilty of the unlawful killing of a child. He is lucky to have got out in under five years- if it wasn’t for a rabid reactionary press and a pusilanimous government putting pressure on the judiciary, his just sentence would be life- for shooting an unarmed man in the back as he ran away.
Threats to kill or harm people are illegal under English Law:
*The Public Order Act 1986 s.4 states:
-
A person is guilty of an offence if he -
a) uses towards another person threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or
b) distributes or displays to another person any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
with intent to cause that person to believe that immediate unlawful violence will be used against him or another by any person, or to provoke the immediate use of unlawful violence by that person or another, or whereby that person is likely to believe that such violence will be used or it is likely that such violence will be provoked.
- An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is distributed or displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the other person is also inside that dwelling.
This offence can be Racially or Religiously aggravated (Crime and Disorder Act 1998, s31(1)(a)
*
Note that Tony Martin’s offence was racially aggravated and so could have attracted a two year sentence.
Under English Law there just wasn’t the proof.
I am pretty certain that the CPS will have done all it can to prosecute these people; the CPS guidelines were tigtened considerably about five years ago. I repeat, they prosecutors were not provided with enough evidence to proceed to trial with a charge of murder against the mother. They may have taken the case to trial for murder against the father (it is difficult to tell from the press reports) but this was dismissed by the court. The prosecutor stated that he could produce no evidence of murder at all:
“It is impossible to say how these injuries were sustained. They might have been inflicted by a third party,” Mr Murphy added.
“There is no evidence against Thomas or Scott to suggest they murdered Chloe.”
Again, I say, just what do you want? Conviction for murder because a few people are outraged. Convictions require evidence. There was no evidence. So there was no conviction.
Enjoy your piss in the sink.
You said:
I asked for cites for inappropriate sentences.
You offered only the Tony Martin case.
I gave a number of reasons why the Tony Martin case was not a good one to quote.
If you want to make broad statements like the above, even in the pit I think you should at least be able to rally a few facts to support those statements.
My assumption was that when you said “I know very little about the English judicial system” that meant you were not from England but (knowing the demographics of these boards) probably from the US. Which is why I brought up OJ.
Anyway, that silly assumption on my part aside, I think by the sound of it you should have stopped right after “I know very little about the English judicial system”. It sounds to me like that is one of the few things you have said that is correct.
“Daily Telegraph if you don’t mind. I don’t read the crap reported in tabloids”
Snerk. So good, it could be a parody. The Daily Telegraph is alarmist tabloid crap in a broadsheet format, for people who regard themselves as being a cut above those who would read a tabloid (“if you don’t mind”), but actually like reading exactly the same crap.