-
Posts
-
http://news.uk.msn.com/uk/article.aspx?cp-documentid=148126527&ocid=today
For once i’m with Pete :twisted: :twisted:
Can’t be named for legal reasons! The law stinks!!!!! :twisted: :twisted:
Publishing his name (and address?) in the Media wouldn’t alter the awfulness of what he did. However, it may well allow some people to take the law into their own hands.
BTW this boy’s defence to murder is that he suffered from “an abnormality of mind” such that he wasn’t fully or legally responsible for his actions.
@forumhostpb wrote:
Publishing his name (and address?) in the Media wouldn’t alter the awfulness of what he did. However, it may well allow some people to take the law into their own hands.
BTW this boy’s defence to murder is that he suffered from “an abnormality of mind” such that he wasn’t fully or legally responsible for his actions.
No PB I know it wouldn’t alter the awfulness of what he’s done and ultimately won’t bring that little girl back.I see though that the usual ‘abnormality of mind’ is being rolled out again. Isn’t it getting all too popular to say that he wasn’t responsible for his actions :roll: No abnormality in remembering that he can use that one, convenient eh :roll: :twisted:
the law stinks alright cas…if this lad is found guilty and does his time when he is released he will most likely be given a new identity just like the jamie bulger murderers…those boys were not named prior during or after the murder trial
I agree with you there Cas. this “abnormality of mind” is a classic lawyer’s defence when some violent little hoodlum (or even adult) smashes somebody’s life or even kills them.
But I guess if they weren’t allowed some sort of defence, then we may as well have trial by tabloid newspaper eh? (The Sun ses you done it so you must ‘ve done it yeah? We’ll print yer name & address so the boys can go round and smash you up).
and no abnormality in covering up what hes done!
Prosecutor Howard Bentham QC said: “When her small body was examined by Dr Naomi Carter, pathologist, Dr Carter found 68 sites of injury on that small body.
“We say every one of those injuries were caused by this young man.
“They were all over her body but many of them were to her head and face and Dr Carter drew the conclusion that young Demi had probably been punched repeatedly in the face.”
Mr Bentham told the jury that the defence will argue that their client suffered an abnormality of mind which impaired his responsibility.
Abnormality of the mind or not. 68 sites of injury, punched repeatedly in the face. Abnormality or no abnormality, he knew this was wrong and no one! will convince me otherwise :twisted:@forumhostpb wrote:
I agree with you there Cas. this “abnormality of mind” is a classic lawyer’s defence when some violent little hoodlum (or even adult) smashes somebody’s life or even kills them.
But I guess if they weren’t allowed some sort of defence, then we may as well have trial by tabloid newspaper eh? (The Sun ses you done it so you must ‘ve done it yeah? We’ll print yer name & address so the boys can go round and smash you up).
Quite PB. Yes they should have a defence because otherwise there would just be anarchy as you say about the Sun. (sorry but that one did make me smile :) ).
As Kenty says though, he’ll probably spend some time in a young offenders place somewhere and when he leaves will be given a new identity etc etc., it’s just so wrong.
Yes …. giving him a new identity is quite wrong. His name and address should be published in full, along with his release date, so that anybody can simply pop round and kill him whenever they feel like it.
if someone wants to go round and sort him out thats their business im sure they know what they are doing and know the consequences ,…perhaps they could use the same plea as he did…i dont believe in an eye for an eye but he did wrong…why should he be cushioned from everything just incase?
Get involved in this discussion! Log in or register now to have your say!