Hmm Huntley gets life

[Gef]

Hmmmm but a driver 3 times over the limit and racing at 90 mph only gets 8 years for killing two girls. Something wrong here?

[inferno]

I don't know anything about the dring driving case, but the difference is one of intention. Huntley lured the children in, and we can only speculate about his motives, then deliberatly killed them. With a drunk driver there is no intent to kill, however they are punished because they know that drink driving can result in accidents and potentially loss of life. A drink driver who kills someone deserves prison, and a significant sentance, but we need to differentiate.

[Maudlettice]

This relates to James Hill age 29 who was banned from driving and has 6 drink/driving convictions. Whilst banned, he raced in a car on public roads against a friend of his, lost control and murdered Kayla Young and Amy Jones, both aged 13 who were strolling along a footpath, by splattering them into infinity by hitting them with his car at 87mph. He than ran away. Judge John Reddihough gave him 9 years, and the 9 years is subject to 50% remission for good behaviour! Huntley has been given two life sentences also for murdering two young girls (murder was not a unanimous verdict - one juror could not be convinced that he had murdered) and Mr Justice Moses gave him two life sentences. The appeal court judges have to say how long Huntley must serve, and the Home Secretary has given the strongest possible hint that a minimum of 50 years is expected. Quelle la difference?

[darth vader]

Maude i sympathise. The fact that this evil person has been convicted on 6 previous occasions for drink driving offences means he is now aware of the possibility of death through drinking. In my eyes he therefore has intent, if getting into a car whilst under the influence of alochol, and should have been tried for murder, not death by dangerous driving.

[BenDToy]

Darth, I agree with the sentiments, and this animal deserved a much harsher sentence than he got, but I think it would set a dangerous precedence if people were charged with murder on the basis that they knew what they were doing could cause death. Think about a hastily thought up example such as passive smoking, food poisoning etc. This despicable character, despite his flaws, did not set out to deliberately kill anyone. One of the prerequisites for murder is to prove it was deliberate and premeditated.

[Maudlettice]

Could it be that Huntley had no intention of killing the girls, but only saw a chance for some sexual hankey-pankey? Then the first one that he tried it on with set up a loud racket causing him to strike out blindly to shut her up and accidentally killing her? Then the second one continued with the hullabaloo and in the same panic he struck out blindly again with the same accidental result? The jury was told to decide only upon the evidence, and the evidence does not contradict this. Is the reasonable probability of this or something similar why the lone juror would not agree to a verdict of double murder? If so, does that not put Huntley on the same level as Hill, so deserving 9 years less 50%, not 50 years certain?

[Gef]

Sorry to take so long in thanking you all for your answers. My gut reaction was that James Hill had got off lightly. I know he did not have any intent of murder but with six previous convictions can we be sure that he won't do it again? BTW I have no argument with Huntley's sentence.