Simon San death - Youth gets 5 years. Reactions?

[IndieHibby]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-11533171

I don't really want to express my reaction. But please offer yours....

[khib70]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-11533171

I don't really want to express my reaction. But please offer yours....
Five years for a man's life. My reactions are not suitable for a family forum. Rob a bank and you're guaranteed to do more time than that. The little ratbag will be out in three years and be strutting about like some kind of local cult hero.


"Reid is from Edinburgh and was described as having a "troubled background".

:rolleyes:

[EH6 Hibby]

If this had been a first offence then I could maybe understand the judge showing a bit of leniency, but this boy had already been involved in a violent incident and was still on licensce for this incident, he clearly has not learned his lesson, I can only hope that he does this time, but mixing with other boys with the same mindset in Polmont is probably on going to make him worse.

[Phil D. Rolls]

I hate to sound like a bleeding heart liberal so I won't. Feral child or not, poor background or not, this little coward and those who egged him on need to spend a year living in their own faeces. They gave up any human rights they may have had by showing no humanity whatsoever.

That child will never be a man, he doesn't have what it takes. Jeez, I'll be buying the Daily Mail next. (I've already found myself sneaking a look at discarded copies at work).

[easty]

5 years isnt enough but at least he was sent down for it...

Not like these 3, I still can't believe they walked! Judge should be sacked.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1319575/3-evil-bullies-tortured-autistic-boy-17-walk-free-Manchester-court.html

[heretoday]

Life's not fair is it? Or death for that matter.

[hibsbollah]

Ridiculously lenient.

[SlickShoes]

Very sad, he will be out no doubt by the time he is 19 and have plenty of time to live his life.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Five years is shocking!!!

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

Its ridiculous, but, is anyone really surprised?

[Twa Cairpets]

As he pled guilty to culpabale homicide, is 5 years the maximum tariff? Just trying to understand if it was the judges choice of sentence or the guidelines that govern what he can hand down is to blame for what does seem to me to be a very lenient sentence.

[EH6 Hibby]

As he pled guilty to culpabale homicide, is 5 years the maximum tariff? Just trying to understand if it was the judges choice of sentence or the guidelines that govern what he can hand down is to blame for what does seem to me to be a very lenient sentence.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2004/12/20339/47562#13

Section 4.12 states that the maximum sentence for culpable homicide is life but this is rarely given.

[Golden Bear]

Its ridiculous, but, is anyone really surprised?

:agree:

Exactly.

It's time the Government accepted that there really is a lot of bad bassas out there and the answer is to build more prisons if only to give the public a break from the misery they heap on honest folks lives.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Solicitor advocate Jim Stephenson said: "Mr Reid accepts responsibility for the death of Mr San. He has expressed regret for his actions and says it was not racially motivated.

Hardly sounds like he's in bits about it.

[Hibbyradge]

Hardly sounds like he's in bits about it.

To be fair, even though the culprit doesn't merit it, those are his solicitor's words, not his.

5 years for an innocent man's life does seem too lenient, but I'm glad I don't have to pass sentence on people.

Such a responsibility would truly drive you mental. It obviously does.

[.Sean.]

Sad state of affairs when the taking of a decent, honest family mans life is deemed to be worth only 5 years. I'd have gave the **** life. I couldn't give a toss about tough backgrounds and harsh upbringings, the guy took a life he had no claim on and for that he should rot. ****bag.

[New Corrie]

In this country, 5 years seems about right for murdering a hard working, law abiding, family man.

Keeps the apologists happy, I suppose.

[Toaods]

Regardless of sentence, I'll harbour a guess that his card will be marked by the Asian gangsters and 5 years inside will be anything but easy for him.

Mind out for those cups of boiling hot tea when the guards looking the other way.

[Phil D. Rolls]

To be fair, even though the culprit doesn't merit it, those are his solicitor's words, not his.

5 years for an innocent man's life does seem too lenient, but I'm glad I don't have to pass sentence on people.

Such a responsibility would truly drive you mental. It obviously does.

I'm just guessing that is the best his lawyer could come up with. Lawyers usually use words like "deep regret", "shame" and "sorrow" when they are trying to get their client a lighter sentence.

Mind you, in this case he didn't really have to.


In this country, 5 years seems about right for murdering a hard working, law abiding, family man.

Keeps the apologists happy, I suppose.

I presume the sentence would be apt if the victim had been an unemployed homosexual social worker? :cool2:

[--------]

I'm still trying to work out how a man can be the victim of an unprovoked and extremely violent attack, as a result of which attack he dies, and it comes out CULPABLE HOMICIDE?

Read much more like racially-aggravated deliberate murder to me. :rolleyes:

[s.a.m]

I'm still trying to work out how a man can be the victim of an unprovoked and extremely violent attack, as a result of which attack he dies, and it comes out CULPABLE HOMICIDE?

Read much more like racially-aggravated deliberate murder to me. :rolleyes:

Is it possible that they went for the Culpable Homicide option because they felt they had a better chance of securing a conviction?:dunno:

[Expecting Rain]

Life is cheap according to the judicial system it seems.

[easty]

I'm still trying to work out how a man can be the victim of an unprovoked and extremely violent attack, as a result of which attack he dies, and it comes out CULPABLE HOMICIDE?

Read much more like racially-aggravated deliberate murder to me. :rolleyes:

Dunno if I'd say it was racially-aggravated. I think you get bunches of little ****ers like that lot all over the place who are happy to cause trouble and assault people regardless of their skin colour.

I don't know, but even if they were shouting racist abuse at the boy I'd still have my doubts that it was a racially motivated/aggravated attack.

[--------]

Is it possible that they went for the Culpable Homicide option because they felt they had a better chance of securing a conviction?:dunno:

Then the law needs to be changed. The ned was clearly guilty of a criminal offence in that he assaulted Mr San. So the law should be clear - commit a criminal offence that leads to a death, and you face a possible life sentence - a real one, not the pretendy sort the British judicial system specialises in.


Dunno if I'd say it was racially-aggravated. I think you get bunches of little ****ers like that lot all over the place who are happy to cause trouble and assault people regardless of their skin colour.

I don't know, but even if they were shouting racist abuse at the boy I'd still have my doubts that it was a racially motivated/aggravated attack.

I don't know if they were shouting racial abuse at Mr San. But I suspect they wouldn't have been so quick to attack him if he hadn't been Asian. It's the 'difference' that makes the difference, I reckon - if you can perceive someone as 'different' or 'other' it becomes that much easier to target them, and a lot less likely that you'll stop before you do serious damage.

So whether the victim's autistic, or Vietnamese, or a traveller, or a different religion, whatever, it makes violence more acceptable to low-life like these neds.

(That's a hypothetical 'you', btw - not a YOU 'you', if you see what I mean? :wink:)

[s.a.m]

[QUOTE=Doddie;2606061]Then the law needs to be changed. The ned was clearly guilty of a criminal offence in that he assaulted Mr San. So the law should be clear - commit a criminal offence that leads to a death, and you face a possible life sentence - a real one, not the pretendy sort the British judicial system specialises in.


I agree (although I might be completely mistaken about the reason for pursuing the CH charge....) - I'm just suggesting a possible explanation for the extremely short sentence.

[--------]

[QUOTE=Doddie;2606061]Then the law needs to be changed. The ned was clearly guilty of a criminal offence in that he assaulted Mr San. So the law should be clear - commit a criminal offence that leads to a death, and you face a possible life sentence - a real one, not the pretendy sort the British judicial system specialises in.


I agree (although I might be completely mistaken about the reason for pursuing the CH charge....) - I'm just suggesting a possible explanation for the extremely short sentence.


Sorry - you were referring, of course, to the negotiations betwwen the Procurator Fiscal and the defence agent prior to trial. During which the PF goes all gooey and sentimental and lets the wee low-life plead 'guilty' to a ridiculously lesser charge?

Yup, that ticks me right off too. :agree:

Kinda went off the deep end there. These cases make me angry - in effect it's the judicial system writing off a decent man's life as of no account.

[Killiehibbie]

Not in any way saying it's right but the law states that for a murder charge to be made it has to be pre meditated. The culpable homicide charge was made because death occured because of his actions but was not the intention. He got a reduction of 2 1/2 years for pleading guilty, if that had been taken off 15 years it would be more appropriate.

[--------]

Not in any way saying it's right but the law states that for a murder charge to be made it has to be pre meditated. The culpable homicide charge was made because death occured because of his actions but was not the intention. He got a reduction of 2 1/2 years for pleading guilty, if that had been taken off 15 years it would be more appropriate.


Sounds to me as if we need a charge of "criminal homicide" carrying a much heavier penalty covering a death like this which results from a deliberate criminal action.

He would have got a longer sentence in some states of the US for animal cruelty.

[PiemanP]

big big problem are gangs and youths attacking at random and at will.

most cases wont end up in a death, and as such go under the radar. but there is a big youth/gang problem in areas of Edinburgh and probably a lot worse elswhere in the UK.

This s**m should have had the book thrown at him, but the problems lie a lot deeper than this one case, and before we start putting out some serious sentences (I'm talking 10 years+) for gang assualts on innocent hard working people, it isnt going to stop....

[bigstu]

i agree Pieman, most would go under the radar & to many they would be seen as just another assault. Regardless of whether it results in a murder or just a guy getting a cut lip these people have to be taught that you cannot just go out with the intent of causing bother & humiliating people. apparently in this case the gang went out with the intent of robbing someone that night but didn't get that far as they decided to pick on this man as he was different.

i rue the day that respect was a word that vanished out of our dictionary. nobody is respected these days & this stems from the adults of today. Even at events like the football a lack of respect is witnessed by kids, in the past if a policeman asked you to sit down you did it but apparently now it's fine to call him all the names under the son & tell him he can't make you etc, lack of respect. in school in previous years if a teacher gave you a punishment your parents would also punish you & tell you off but these days the first thing the parent does is run to the school to tell them how unfairly their kid is being treated.

I know attacks like this one have always happened but i feel they are more frequent these days as the youngsters (i know i'm sounding old when i'm not!) have no respect for anyone & anything & they just think they can do what they like!

[Twa Cairpets]

Not in any way saying it's right but the law states that for a murder charge to be made it has to be pre meditated. The culpable homicide charge was made because death occured because of his actions but was not the intention. He got a reduction of 2 1/2 years for pleading guilty, if that had been taken off 15 years it would be more appropriate.

A number of years ago I was on the jury in a muder trial. The judge informed us that in order for a verdict of guilty of murder to be passed, if an act is carried out with sufficient recklessness as to make death likely then it does not have to be pre-meditiated. Dont quite know if this would have been the case here though.

[heretoday]

Vigilantes - trained and equipped.

It'll happen if this sort of thing continues and the police are cut further.

It'll be like Clockwork Orange.

[--------]

big big problem are gangs and youths attacking at random and at will.

most cases wont end up in a death, and as such go under the radar. but there is a big youth/gang problem in areas of Edinburgh and probably a lot worse elswhere in the UK.

This s**m should have had the book thrown at him, but the problems lie a lot deeper than this one case, and before we start putting out some serious sentences (I'm talking 10 years+) for gang assualts on innocent hard working people, it isnt going to stop....



:agree: The Lord Cameron approach.

Apologies if you know the story.

When I was a lad Weegie neds had developed the nasty habit of assaulting passers-by with razors, and the regular tariff when they got into court was about 3-5 years, out in 2 - no deterrent.

Lord Cameron and a couple of like-minded (i.e. sensible) judges decided to do something about it.

Scene: the High Court in Edinburgh. On stage: Lord Cameron and a couple of nasty wee neds who'd carved someone's face up. Neds smirking, expecting 3-5 years in a holiday camp; Lord Cameron gives 'em 17 years and 20 years apiece.

Exit neds, in shock; jubilation and celebration among the polis, the victim's family, and every right-thinking citizen of Scotland.

Lord Cameron lived in the New Town, and walked to work in the High Court every morning. You would see policemen stop and salute him as he passed, even as late as the 1980's.

[Killiehibbie]

A number of years ago I was on the jury in a muder trial. The judge informed us that in order for a verdict of guilty of murder to be passed, if an act is carried out with sufficient recklessness as to make death likely then it does not have to be pre-meditiated. Dont quite know if this would have been the case here though.
Murder – the most serious crime against the person, requires for someone to have died and for the accused to be found to have deliberately killed them or acted so recklessly they didn’t care if the victim lived or died. Mandatory life sentence on conviction.

You learn something new every day, never knew about the acting so recklessly bit.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Vigilantes - trained and equipped.

It'll happen if this sort of thing continues and the police are cut further.

It'll be like Clockwork Orange.

Are you sure this is right?:confused:

[heretoday]

Are you sure this is right?:confused:

No I'm not sure but who can say what life will be like on our streets in say thirty years time the way things are now.

[Phil D. Rolls]

No I'm not sure but who can say what life will be like on our streets in say thirty years time the way things are now.

I don't know, but I do know there has always been young people with a violent streak. After all, A Clockwork Orange was written 50 years ago.

I agree that something does have to change though. It's not just the arrogance of these boys attacking Mr San that sticks out to me. It's the fact that there were adult onlookers outside the Loch Inn who seem to have felt that there was nothing they could do to stop the situation.

I don't think those guys would have been particularly frightened of the neds that were behaving that way. They may well have been frightened of the consequences of getting involved.

Possibly children are getting too much protection from the consequences of their actions these days. But then the "blame free" culture seems to be something that operates from the top down, when you have people like politicians and policemen, social workers and doctors, none of whom are ever at fault when things go wrong.

[heretoday]

I think when Cl Orange was written there was still a sense that if you did something wrong you would get caught. It was after all about a time in the future!

I see people just doing what the hell they like with no regard for others and I don't like it. There's a wildness around and the fact that police numbers are known to be getting squeezed gives the neds the message that it's open house.

[Phil D. Rolls]

I think when Cl Orange was written there was still a sense that if you did something wrong you would get caught. It was after all about a time in the future!

I see people just doing what the hell they like with no regard for others and I don't like it. There's a wildness around and the fact that police numbers are known to be getting squeezed gives the neds the message that it's open house.

Burgess wrote the book after he and his wife were attacked in their house by a gang of youths. The first chapter of the book is an exaggerated account of what happened.

If anything, the point of the book (at least as I interpreted it) is that teenagers will always act irresponsibly - you've as much chance of controlling them as a Clockwork Orange moving across your table.

So has society changed, or (in my case) is it just that I am getting older and think I have more to fear from feral youths?

[heretoday]

Burgess wrote the book after he and his wife were attacked in their house by a gang of youths. The first chapter of the book is an exaggerated account of what happened.

If anything, the point of the book (at least as I interpreted it) is that teenagers will always act irresponsibly - you've as much chance of controlling them as a Clockwork Orange moving across your table.

So has society changed, or (in my case) is it just that I am getting older and think I have more to fear from feral youths?

I haven't read it for yonks so I bow to your literary interpretation and the film certainly contained a harrowing sequence in a domestic setting.

It's easy to imbue the book with images drawn from the later screen adaptation. I must read it again soon. However, I do think the streets of Corstorphine were safer after dark in 1962.

[Phil D. Rolls]

I haven't read it for yonks so I bow to your literary interpretation and the film certainly contained a harrowing sequence in a domestic setting.

It's easy to imbue the book with images drawn from the later screen adaptation. I must read it again soon. However, I do think the streets of Corstorphine were safer after dark in 1962.

Well I'll bow to your knowledge of that. :greengrin

Clockwork Orange is well worth a read, I think the film didn't really pick up on Alex's change of direction at the end, and is better remembered for the old ultra violence.

[The Green Goblin]

The message this sentence sends to people who don`t have any qualms about attacking folks for the fun of it, is that at the worst if you go for someone and they die as a result, you`re looking at a (very) few years out before getting back out to carry on again.

The time will fly and before you know it, Mr. San`s family will be seeing that little scrote jaunting about town in front of them again like nothing ever happened.

As the judge was not restricted in his powers of sentencing by law, one can only assume that he is just detached from any kind of reality or perspective.

GG

[Steve-O]

I'm still trying to work out how a man can be the victim of an unprovoked and extremely violent attack, as a result of which attack he dies, and it comes out CULPABLE HOMICIDE?

Read much more like racially-aggravated deliberate murder to me. :rolleyes:

Sorry but 1 single punch does not make for an "extremely violent attack". This was not "extreme violence" by any stretch. It had dire consequences because the victim landed on his head.

Whether it was racially aggravated, we don't know, but "deliberate murder"? I'd have to disagree and side with the Police, the Courts and the Judge on this one.

How many people on this board have punched someone? Ok, there may not be that many who have acted like erses and punched someone without being provoked, but anyone who has punched someone would probably feel a bit guilty if the person fell over and died as a result? It's not so hard to believe this wee fud has SOME degree of remorse surely?

[Steve-O]

:agree:

Exactly.

It's time the Government accepted that there really is a lot of bad bassas out there and the answer is to build more prisons if only to give the public a break from the misery they heap on honest folks lives.

Aye it works well in the USA so why not copy them...:rolleyes:

[Steve-O]

Also, since when has the length of a sentence ever deferred anyone doing anything? Really?

The death sentence has proven to be no deterrent, and life sentences wouldn't appear to be a deterrent either. People still commit murder, despite the lengthy sentences.

[LeithWalkHibby]

Lord Cameron lived in the New Town, and walked to work in the High Court every morning. You would see policemen stop and salute him as he passed, even as late as the 1980's.

They were saluting the wrong guy. It was Lord Carmont who handed out long sentences.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Also, since when has the length of a sentence ever deferred anyone doing anything? Really?

The death sentence has proven to be no deterrent, and life sentences wouldn't appear to be a deterrent either. People still commit murder, despite the lengthy sentences.

Perhaps society needs something back from those who do wrong. Maybe we need to be reassured that actions have consequences.

[Woody1985]

Why is the arguement given that the law should be a deterrent brought up?

The law should be there to protect decent law abiding people. Yes, part of the sentencing structure is a deterrent due to the length of jail time you will (or won't!) get if you commit a crime but as said above, you will always commit crime regardless of the 'deterrent' and they should therefore be punished accordingly.

[Steve-O]

I'm just not sure the keeping people in prison as long as possible is the answer, especially when they are still young and have time to make something of their life other than becoming a hardened criminal through mixing with older, bad influences in prison.

We talk about protecting the community, but he's in jail now, so is there really going to be a difference if he gets out in 5 years, or, say 9 years? The HOPE for everyone that gets out is that they do not reoffend and if they don't, then I couldn't care if they are out early.

The sentence in this case does seem slightly light, but there will have been many things taken into account reaching this sentence length which we do not know about. It's very easy to write off Judges as being 'detached from reality' and other such things, but it really is not the case 99% of the time.