Why the difference ?

[BertiWooster]

http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/130898/32-years-for-gun-thug-who-killed-an-innocent-student-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/staffordshire/8286715.stm

In the first case 32 years min for murder

in the second case 13 & 11 years min for murder ,

Why does the second murder only warrants a minimum of 13 & 11 years - Am i missing something
here ?

[123everton]

The former involved a gun, I'm not saying it's right, it's just I think that if a firearm is involved it implies premeditation.

[anotheoldgit]

I was gob smacked, having already posted a question on the thugs who killed the student, and pleased at the long sentenced they received, then only a few days later, to read that two other thugs had only been given 13 & 11 years for killing that innocent chap on his way home from the shops.

ahmskunnirt pointed out that Case 1 was, as 123 points out, premeditated. But I can't think why, because although they had gone out with a gun to kill someone, they hadn't set out to kill the student, he happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

It is cases such as these that the racist finger could be pointed, and in this case rightly so. Why is it two black persons got such a heavy sentence when two white persons got such a lenient sentence?

I am sure there was no racial intent but when there seems to be such a vast difference in sentences given out, it leave the door wide open for accusations.

[BertiWooster]

In both cases , with respect to the actual victims , it could be argued that neither was premeditated .

However , if you go out with a gun, then by default it will always be the intention to take life .
It is irrelevant as to whether or not your victim is a gang member or otherwise - you should be dealt with severely .

What is so concerning here is the desparity in sentencing between someone who shoots another - albeit unintentionally - and attract a sentence , normally reserve for terriosts ; and someone who deliberately kicks someone's head in to a pulp - quite deliberately ; and attract a sentence of 11 & 13 years

I'm not one who brings race into these discussions , but it would appear that there has ben a trend over recent years where , the perpetrators of gang killings is dealt with more severely than other brutal crimes .

If this is a concious direction that is being adopted by the courts , then we run the risk of sliding down a dangerous and slippery slope .

I agree we need a system where life means 30 40 or whatever years the tarrif is set at ; but crucially it should be applied consistently across the board .

[socket2008]

Firearm offence carries larger sentence. It's all down to intent. The two who received less sentences it could be argued didn't go out to kiill, whereas the other guy went out with gun.

Look at it from another percepective. One guy randomly attacks PM in street and kills him and gets 12 years. Another guy attacks PM in the street and kills him but has a nuclear bomb strapped to his bottom. He gets 30 years.

[Oneeyedvic]

You will also notice that in the first case the perpetrator had previous for stabbing and also showed no remorse - which would (I believe) add time.

I think (and am prepared to be proved wrong) that sentencing starts off at a range of figures (lets take 30 years). The judge can then take off time according to things like pleading guilty, previous behaviour etc.