Radical Muslims who attempted to murder get just 2/4/5 years (UK)

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

1.Criminal shows intent to commit a crime, and MENS REA

2.the criminal comes dangerously close to successfully completing the crime but somehow does not complete all of the required elements. ACTUS REUS

I POSTED for the entirety of this thread that reckless disregard for human life results in a charge of attempted murder.

Recklessness if a form of mens rea. So once again, when you say that recklessness can result in a charge for attempted murder you only further confirm my original point that you cannot have attempted murder without both an actus reus and a mens rea.

Ninja-Hippo

Just stop.

If you feel you have proven the case that you can hit someone over the head with a pipe and be charged with attempted murder despite there being no mens rea then well done, you just changed the foundations of the english legal system. I don't know why i ever enter into a 'debate' with you expecting anything less than this. Ninja-Hippo

While your arguments are perfectly fine, the life of that man is ruiined. In his case i would buy a gun and cripple all 4 of the attackers without hestitation.

Furtheremore attempted murder has always been a troublesome and crappy law, because intent is somethat that you can't grasp.
IMO these guys deserved alot more jailtime, especially with the complete lacks of regret.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1391166/Four-Muslims-battered-man-teaching-RE-girls-jailed-danger-extreme-religious-beliefs.html

"Armed with a metal rod and a brick, they punched, kicked and attacked Mr Smith, leaving him unconscious and covered in blood on the pavement"

"Mr Smith suffered multiple injuries, including lacerations and bruising all over his body, has a permanent 12cm long deep scar across his left cheek, and how the whole of the facial part of his skull was broken"

"doing it for the sake of Allah."

"His injuries have left him unable to be the active and healthy man he once was and he has had to give up his passion for martial arts.

He suffers from depression and anxiety and 'is unable to enjoy life and lives in constant fear of being attacked again'"

'This is the dog we want to hit, to strike, to kill.'

CannedWorms

why are all your threads about muslims?weezyfb

[QUOTE="Inconsistancy"][QUOTE="Blue-Sky"]

Isn't attempted murder typically 5 years?

mattbbpl

Sideshow Bob? :P

The topic title is very misleading considering one of them got an indeterminate sentence, and the others are only having their sentences reviewed after 5 years. Hell, one of them is being deported.Danm_999

.. Yeah I agree with that, having read it.. That is the minimum sentence.. Based on the brutality and the fact they are zealots.. There is no way in hell they are going to get a minimum 5 years, inless they radically change their outlook in life.. Which I highly doubt that will be the case.

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"]

[QUOTE="Inconsistancy"] Why isn't the punishment for 'attempted' murder the same as murder, if the intent is th e same.. it's just as bad.chessmaster1989

Sideshow Bob? :P

Thats not a really good comparison though.. If your pulling out a gun which you were leveling at some ones head until some one tackled you.. It can be pretty certain that you were attempting to murder a person.. Or if your stopped from detonating a bomb that would have taken out a whole building full of people.. I am pretty sure its a legitimate reason to murder a people..

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="CannedWorms"]It's an indeterminate sentence with a minimum of five years, so yes, they will be out of jail in 5 years, providing they don't do anything really stupid while in jail. Mind you it really takes something special for a prisoner to not get released on license in the UK.CannedWorms

LOL, we've seen a good example of how you cannot learn law simly through google. I think the concept of intent is lost on a lot of people. I also feel that some here are being intentionally 'ignorant' bordering on trolling because Ninja-Hippo has clearly outlined the Law as it stands continously. With Law, there is no room for debate on facts. The court determines intent which come through admission of guilt or through trial/and or overwhelming conclusive evidence. The act by itself is just that, and act. The nature of the intent behind it determines what kind of act it was and that further has weight in determing the length of the sentence.

The bottom line is that thisw was not attempted murder, at least according to the information that is available to the court. You have to understand that there will be multplie forms of evidence, reports and documents provided by various agencies that have been analyised and processed. The newspaper can only condense informationn available to the public which is a small part.

I think some might find useful the analogy whereby someone hits another person with a baseball bat over the head. The victim suffers head injuries. He denies it was his intent to seriouslyn harm the victim and that he acted on the spur of the moment in a rage fuelled by alcohol. What would then be determined in Court was whether there was indeed intent which would determine the type of offence it was he committed. There would be an array of possible options most likely resulting in GBH/Wounding with intent etc.