Gaming11 mins ago
My Faith In Military Justice Is Feeling A Bit Stronger This Afternoon
47 Answers
Marine Sergeant Alexander Blackman gets life with at least 10 years
http://
I was concerned we'd see a slap on the wrist but I think this sends a fairly strong message that this is not excusable behavior
You may all shout me down now
http://
I was concerned we'd see a slap on the wrist but I think this sends a fairly strong message that this is not excusable behavior
You may all shout me down now
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by jake-the-peg. 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.
I was wondering why anyone was posting on sentencing quite honestly as I thought it was a mandatory life sentence whatever
I mean does anyone get Borstal for Murder these days ?
In this case does anyone know who does the recommendation about the number of years served (in prison, no not in the Army)
I mean does anyone get Borstal for Murder these days ?
In this case does anyone know who does the recommendation about the number of years served (in prison, no not in the Army)
I think you do have to take mitigating factors into account and I was thinking about 8 years would be right
After Danny Nightingale got a suspended sentence for smuggling a pistol and 300 rounds of ammunition I was concerned that we'd see say a 2 year minimum tariff.
Especially with all the newspaper support.
Well done to the court I think
After Danny Nightingale got a suspended sentence for smuggling a pistol and 300 rounds of ammunition I was concerned that we'd see say a 2 year minimum tariff.
Especially with all the newspaper support.
Well done to the court I think
-- answer removed --
I take you point Jordy but we train to kill not to murder. There is a big difference, it what separates us from regimes like the Nazi's and Saddam etc
If all military personnel used that one think of what would happen.
In the the of the moment in the battle field I agree totally. It now appears this was not and murder is murder.
If all military personnel used that one think of what would happen.
In the the of the moment in the battle field I agree totally. It now appears this was not and murder is murder.
Baz, in many instances I would agree with you and I think most of our armed services we owe a huge debt to. But not this one, this sort of thing plays right into the hands of those we seek to knock the military.
And, if we are to take the moral high ground, which pretty much is what this war is about, then we cannot be seen to act like them. Can we?
And, if we are to take the moral high ground, which pretty much is what this war is about, then we cannot be seen to act like them. Can we?
Who cares what the Taliban find amusing? If you really want our soldiers to behave like savages whose ideas belong in the 14C, well fine, but we do not expect our soldiers to shoot dead an unarmed, injured, captive.
.
I am surprised that he only got 10 years minimum. There seem ample grounds for a good deal more than what is really the basic tariff for a murder
.
I am surprised that he only got 10 years minimum. There seem ample grounds for a good deal more than what is really the basic tariff for a murder
The sentencing guidelines for murder by an offender over 18, provide a minmum time to be served of 15 years. Aggravating factors, to increase that, include that the victim was under a disability or that the offender was in a position of trust.
Mitigating factors to reduce it include that the accused was suffering from some mental disorder insufficient to reduce the offence to manslaughter (viz. diminished responsibility; a temporary disorder at the very momernt the crime was committed) ; there was no intent to kill but only to cause gbh; provocation (meaning by the victim) which falls short of a defence (this is in effect the same as 'diminished responsibility') ; and a belief that the killing was an act of mercy. Before anyone thinks that applies, they should realise that this mitigation is meant for someone who takes a life at the victim's own request because the victim is either suffering from, or the accused knows that the victim is suffering from, endless pain and will be so for an unlimited future to which death will be a merciful end, and, in the latter case, they are not able, through illness, to express their wishes
That is why I say that this man's case presents ample grounds for what is reallly the basic tariff.
Mitigating factors to reduce it include that the accused was suffering from some mental disorder insufficient to reduce the offence to manslaughter (viz. diminished responsibility; a temporary disorder at the very momernt the crime was committed) ; there was no intent to kill but only to cause gbh; provocation (meaning by the victim) which falls short of a defence (this is in effect the same as 'diminished responsibility') ; and a belief that the killing was an act of mercy. Before anyone thinks that applies, they should realise that this mitigation is meant for someone who takes a life at the victim's own request because the victim is either suffering from, or the accused knows that the victim is suffering from, endless pain and will be so for an unlimited future to which death will be a merciful end, and, in the latter case, they are not able, through illness, to express their wishes
That is why I say that this man's case presents ample grounds for what is reallly the basic tariff.
The insurgent was by most accounts mortally wounded anyway.
In a harsh reality of war, Blackman saw no point in wasting time and effort on him. Yes, wrong to kill him in such a manner but after several tours of seeing his colleagues killed and maimed he snapped.
The man had approached the SF base with the express purpose of killing and wounding our forces, he got everything he deserved IMHO.
I daresay this thing has happened more than once in similar circumstances.
We mostly follow the Geneva Convention, terrorists never do so I tend not to shed a tear when they subsequently reap the whirlwind.
Ironically, I believe Sgt Blackman will have a very easy time of things inside.
In a harsh reality of war, Blackman saw no point in wasting time and effort on him. Yes, wrong to kill him in such a manner but after several tours of seeing his colleagues killed and maimed he snapped.
The man had approached the SF base with the express purpose of killing and wounding our forces, he got everything he deserved IMHO.
I daresay this thing has happened more than once in similar circumstances.
We mostly follow the Geneva Convention, terrorists never do so I tend not to shed a tear when they subsequently reap the whirlwind.
Ironically, I believe Sgt Blackman will have a very easy time of things inside.
And, if we are to take the moral high ground, which pretty much is what this war is about, then we cannot be seen to act like them. Can we?
------------------
If we acted like them we'd doubtless have tortured him, dismembered him and in all probability beheaded him. Cold blooded it may have been but in no way comparable to how they treat infidels/SF/Afghan policemen.
------------------
If we acted like them we'd doubtless have tortured him, dismembered him and in all probability beheaded him. Cold blooded it may have been but in no way comparable to how they treat infidels/SF/Afghan policemen.
Judge Blackett said the seven-strong military board, which included three Royal Marine officers, had taken 15 years as the starting point for deliberations on Blackman’s minimum sentence. They had reduced the term because of his record, the strains he was under and the provocation of brutal fighting against the Taliban. [ From the Telegraph's report]
There is some explanation of the sentence being less than the tariff. The tribunal found some provocation in the man being a member of a group who are engaged brutal fighting against our forces. That appears to be what is meant; if so, it runs directly counter to the argument, in sentencing, that the man brought greater danger to his colleagues by encouraging the enemy to more barbarity by way of revenge, would aid them in getting more to commit such acts, and that he killed in cold blood, fully aware of what he was doing and that it was wrong.
There is some explanation of the sentence being less than the tariff. The tribunal found some provocation in the man being a member of a group who are engaged brutal fighting against our forces. That appears to be what is meant; if so, it runs directly counter to the argument, in sentencing, that the man brought greater danger to his colleagues by encouraging the enemy to more barbarity by way of revenge, would aid them in getting more to commit such acts, and that he killed in cold blood, fully aware of what he was doing and that it was wrong.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank12 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles14 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles22 mins ago
I Am Supposed To To What I Am Told
Body & Soul30 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.