Killer rapist gets life

[GrannyMac]

Or not.  This thing who raped an unconscious young woman was found guilty of causing her death.  He's got life, with a minimum of 10 years. I'd like to think if he survives that long he's kicked back to Somalia.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0rn187prg4o

[Alex]

Only 10 years  ?

[klondike]

That is a minimm term and a lifer is always out on licence. Still doesn't seem long for taking a life.

[dextrous63]

Do you think that maybe using different terms/vocabulary may be more appropriate?

So, for example, IMHO this bloke should have been "awarded a permanent cessation of activity" outcome.

[Cassandra]

Only 10 years  ?

Mens Rea yet again I'm afraid. The plea was in this case Involuntary manslaughter, which is the killing of a human being without intent of doing so, either expressed or implied. It is distinguished from voluntary manslaughter by the absence of intention. It is normally divided into two categories, constructive manslaughter and criminally negligent manslaughter

Unlawful act manslaughter is charged when death occurs due to a criminal act which a reasonable person would realise must subject some other person to at least the risk of some physical harm. It doesn't matter whether or not the offender knew that the act was unlawful and dangerous or whether harm was intended. This is by far the most common type of manslaughter with around 100 offenders being sentenced annually. It often involves deaths that come about as a result of assaults, a typical scenario being the so-called "one punch" manslaughter. These can vary enormously in the planning and intention of the offender. There could be a situation not far from being an accident such as a minor argument between friends where one pushes the other who unexpectedly falls and suffers fatal injuries.

In another situation, someone with a history of violence may go out looking for a fight and hit a stranger as hard as possible in an unprovoked attack. The harm is the same, but the culpability of the offenders in these situations is very different. It could be argued that specifically here the accused was so lost within the desires to satiate his filthy lustful pursuit, that he never considered 'death' to the victim by a heart attack, neither was it his intention before the rape started to encite such a heart-attack. The Judge therefore probably considered reluctantly that a 'medium culpability' to be an applicable constituent in sentencing.

These are Cases falling between high and lower blame, not limited to where death was caused in the course of an unlawful act, which involved an intention by the offender to cause harm (or recklessness as to whether harm would be caused) that falls between high and lower culpability.

Sentences between 6 and 9 years would therefore have been applicable here. So the beak went over the maximum and the convicted may well successfully gain 12 months reduction upon appeal, especially in these woke times of a supine Government.

It seems that as the UK population swells with immigrants of certain religious persuasion whose considerations towards women is far less than that of the indigenous population; we need to have a Judicial review on this subject. Ten years, out in five for such a revolting filthy act upon an unconscious mother of three, to me constitutes life imprisonment with a minimum term of 25 years.

Clearly loss of life can be designated as a clear corollary to the heathen circumstances involved, and should therefore be taken into account when passing sentence.

[Ashy]

What worries me is that an Englishman might have been charged with murder and advised to plead guilty. I am convinced that some of the sentencing we have seen since July has resulted from people with no experience of the law pleading guilty (on some advice) to serious offences they may not have committed, there being a range of lesser charges which would have covered the point.

[JBR]

OK, it may be regarded as manslaughter, despite the fact that the perpetrator claimed that it was consensual.  Nevertheless the poor woman died because she was killed whilst being raped.  I see no excuse for this evil man's actions.
So 10 years (out in 5) for ending an innocent's life is acceptable, is it?  Not in my book.

Personally, bearing in mind that we now have scientific means of determining guilt compared to what was available in the days of capital punishment, I see no reason why we should not restore hanging for murder when there is absolutely no doubt of guilt.  Just my opinion, of course, though I'm sure shared by many others.

Certainly, I see imprisonment for five years for ending someone's life (plus rape of course) is nothing less than encouragement for other evil, like-minded people to try their luck.

[dextrous63]

For me, the rapist made a decision to commit an act which should really have attached to it a cessation of his life, in the same way that if I decided to chain an anvil round my throat and leap off Tower Bridge into the Thames at high tide, I would expect not to come out of it alive.

Why I might choose to do this is for the birds.  Likewise, why the rapist chose to perform his act is of no interest.  

[Scrumpy]

Horrible, horrible man.. 
He was watching and prowling then he attacked.. He knew exactly what he was doing..
 The poor woman never stood a chance.. 
I would have no hesitation of killing him had she been my daughter.. 
I hope he gets the 'treatment' in the prison..

Sam and the boys at the station came up with this one..
Balls injected with an anesthetic then smashed with a hammer.. 
Then  gradually the anesthetic wears off..

[Mups]

I've always said at the very least they need castrating -  NOT a vasectomy,  that won't stop him re-offending,  but Castration.  Then imprisonment.

Most men value their tackle, and so it would be a pretty good deterrent,  as well as making him incapable of reoffending.

People do it to their dogs without giving it a second thought,  even though they have done nothing wrong!