Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Should There Be A Lenient Sentance For Marine A
129 Answers
http://
47% want a lenient sentence and 35 per cent believe the marine should receive a full life sentence for his crime.
/// Support for a more lenient sentence was highest among the over 55s, with more than half of those aged 55-64 saying that the law should make an exception for a serving soldier. Among the over 65s, some 55 per cent would support leniency. ///
It would be interesting to see a vote taken of amongst those who have actually served in Afghanistan, it is only those who know what pressures are involved when you fight those who do not wear any uniform of recognition.
47% want a lenient sentence and 35 per cent believe the marine should receive a full life sentence for his crime.
/// Support for a more lenient sentence was highest among the over 55s, with more than half of those aged 55-64 saying that the law should make an exception for a serving soldier. Among the over 65s, some 55 per cent would support leniency. ///
It would be interesting to see a vote taken of amongst those who have actually served in Afghanistan, it is only those who know what pressures are involved when you fight those who do not wear any uniform of recognition.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
/// Has anyone ever considered that, if for nothing else, he deserves a long sentence for stupidity? ///
I was not aware that anyone deserved a long sentence for stupidity, if that was the case then there would be no NHS crisis, no packed schools, no unemployment and plenty of houses for everyone.
They might have to build more prisons though. :0)
I was not aware that anyone deserved a long sentence for stupidity, if that was the case then there would be no NHS crisis, no packed schools, no unemployment and plenty of houses for everyone.
They might have to build more prisons though. :0)
AO, do you not know even the fundamentals of the Geneva Convention? Or is your answer about knowing the details a fog to avoid answering the question you were asked above? We don't ask fora verbatim or detailed account of every provision from you. These soldiers certainly did know the fundamentals, or one did, because one of the mentions it on the tape!
Do you think it right to shoot dead a captured man, when self-defence doesn't come into it? Yes or no ? If yes, I am surprised. If no, what made this case so exceptional that this marine was justified, to any degree, including mitigation, in doing it ? If he was acting under some temporary disorder of the mind brought on by the stresses of his service in combat, that would have been a defence to murder. Otherwise, it is murder.
He faces 15 years minimum. It is open to a court to use discretion in exceptional cases and go below the tariff. I can't see that happening.
What is extraordinary is that 35 per cent polled thought the man should receive a whole life sentence. That is for defendants like Jeremy Bamber. Lenient sentence was not precisely defined. I'd be in favour of less than a full life sentence, and that is what he'll get.
Do you think it right to shoot dead a captured man, when self-defence doesn't come into it? Yes or no ? If yes, I am surprised. If no, what made this case so exceptional that this marine was justified, to any degree, including mitigation, in doing it ? If he was acting under some temporary disorder of the mind brought on by the stresses of his service in combat, that would have been a defence to murder. Otherwise, it is murder.
He faces 15 years minimum. It is open to a court to use discretion in exceptional cases and go below the tariff. I can't see that happening.
What is extraordinary is that 35 per cent polled thought the man should receive a whole life sentence. That is for defendants like Jeremy Bamber. Lenient sentence was not precisely defined. I'd be in favour of less than a full life sentence, and that is what he'll get.
For me this thread is illuminating for the way it demonstrates that there are people who genuinely have the self image that they entitled to justify murder "in the right circumstances and for the right reasons" so to speak. I am clearly not as civilised as they, not least because I cannot see what justifies the presence of USA, British and other military/combat forces in and throughout Afghanistan in the first place.
The last part of your post is easy to answer Karl !
Afghanistan was ruled by stupid, uneducated religious nutters, the very same people that shot Malala in the head, just because she wanted to go to school and learn. These idiots, the Taliban, treated all women appallingly...see the following wiki ::::
http://
The women were treated in an unprecedented cruel way. For instance, women were not allowed to be examined by a male doctor or nurse, only by another woman. But as women were not allowed to be educated, there wasn't anywhere near enough female medical practitioners, and therefore 10,000's of women died in childbirth or became seriously ill. Another consequence of the backward thinking of the Taliban, is that schooling for boys also ground to a halt, as most teachers were women.
The Taliban often targets health officials that work to immunise children against polio due to fears of the vaccine, including the fear that it is used to gather intelligence about their organisation. So normal childhood illnesses that have become overwhelmingly controlled in the West, killed 100,000's of Afghani kids every year.
Despite the Taliban's so-called religious piety, they saw no problem with cultivating Heroin on an industrial scale, thus causing untold misery within its own people, as well as the free world.
The list of Taliban horrors is endless Karl and easily researched on the 'net.
Afghanistan was ruled by stupid, uneducated religious nutters, the very same people that shot Malala in the head, just because she wanted to go to school and learn. These idiots, the Taliban, treated all women appallingly...see the following wiki ::::
http://
The women were treated in an unprecedented cruel way. For instance, women were not allowed to be examined by a male doctor or nurse, only by another woman. But as women were not allowed to be educated, there wasn't anywhere near enough female medical practitioners, and therefore 10,000's of women died in childbirth or became seriously ill. Another consequence of the backward thinking of the Taliban, is that schooling for boys also ground to a halt, as most teachers were women.
The Taliban often targets health officials that work to immunise children against polio due to fears of the vaccine, including the fear that it is used to gather intelligence about their organisation. So normal childhood illnesses that have become overwhelmingly controlled in the West, killed 100,000's of Afghani kids every year.
Despite the Taliban's so-called religious piety, they saw no problem with cultivating Heroin on an industrial scale, thus causing untold misery within its own people, as well as the free world.
The list of Taliban horrors is endless Karl and easily researched on the 'net.
that we don't like the way other regimes behave domestically isn't a reason for invading them, mikey. We went in because they were nurturing al-Qaeda, who attacked the USA. That was, in my view, good cause for the invasion of Aghanistan. (Not the invasion of of Iraq, which had no justification at all.)
I guess it depends on what you mean by lenient
I think he should serve a minimum of 8 years and I think that's pretty damn lenient.
Any less than that would be a complete travisty
He acted deliberately, he knew that this was explicitly forbidden by the armed forces and he was not under any person threat at the time
He laughed and joked about it For Funks Sake
He avoided responsibility for it pleading not guilty and maintaining his innocence in the face of overwhelming evidence.
A slap on the wrist would send completely the wrong signals about how seriously Britain takes such things
I think he should serve a minimum of 8 years and I think that's pretty damn lenient.
Any less than that would be a complete travisty
He acted deliberately, he knew that this was explicitly forbidden by the armed forces and he was not under any person threat at the time
He laughed and joked about it For Funks Sake
He avoided responsibility for it pleading not guilty and maintaining his innocence in the face of overwhelming evidence.
A slap on the wrist would send completely the wrong signals about how seriously Britain takes such things
AOG
Was he convicted by a military or civilian court?
If it were a military court, then why are us civvies trying to second guess what trained army personnel have decided?
Also - if I had been found guilty of premeditated murder, I would look at 5 years in jail as being pretty lenient already.
I he were tried and convicted by the army! then I really don't feel qualified to question their decision.
Do you?
Was he convicted by a military or civilian court?
If it were a military court, then why are us civvies trying to second guess what trained army personnel have decided?
Also - if I had been found guilty of premeditated murder, I would look at 5 years in jail as being pretty lenient already.
I he were tried and convicted by the army! then I really don't feel qualified to question their decision.
Do you?
The court that tried him was composed of warrant officers and above. It would be absurd to say that they do not have understanding of the stresses of service and combat. The Judge Advocate who advises them on the law is experienced in both civilian and military law. The sentence will be in accordance with the opinion of the court and the law of England. A jury in a civilian court may recommend mercy, so can this panel, though this is uncommon, it is still open to them.
Why a civilian should put his opinion, knowledge of combat, or the stresses that brings, above that of experienced, presently active, soldiers is not clear.
Why a civilian should put his opinion, knowledge of combat, or the stresses that brings, above that of experienced, presently active, soldiers is not clear.
AOG
Any comments about this? Is your experience of military combat superior to those of the warrant officers referred to by FredPuli43?
I would tend to leave these decisions to the experts.
For instance, I'm happy with the General Medical Council deciding whether a doctor should be struck off.
Likewise, I rely on military courts to decide on cases such as these.
Whom should we give credence to in these situations?
The army or Joe Bloggs?
Any comments about this? Is your experience of military combat superior to those of the warrant officers referred to by FredPuli43?
I would tend to leave these decisions to the experts.
For instance, I'm happy with the General Medical Council deciding whether a doctor should be struck off.
Likewise, I rely on military courts to decide on cases such as these.
Whom should we give credence to in these situations?
The army or Joe Bloggs?
Latest Posts
Crosswords0 min ago
ChatterBank3 mins ago
News7 mins ago
Booking Dot Com Different Colour.
Spam & Scams13 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.