Of course he should go to prison. Of course, being a drug dealer is not a wise career. Of course we're all sympathetic for the poor mother. Of course we all feel for the little girl. But why has humanity become so immune to sympathy for the killer too? He is a human being. He has a family who will suffer incredibly losing him.

Yes - jail him. Yes - teach him in prison to learn how to behave. But it was totally a tragic accident. Don't treat him like a murderer. Be kind and decent (as we should be to immigrants). Are we now totally incapable of generosity? Is the human spirit no longer able to care about more than one person?

42 years for an accident. Or was it murder? Did he shoot the child deliberately? I thought that was the necessary ingredient for murder. I know nothing.

"Involuntary manslaughter usually refers to an unintentional killing that results from criminal negligence or recklessness, or from dangerous or impaired driving. It differs from voluntary manslaughter primarily because the victim's death is unintended."

True Brit 'Justice' now long lost in Orwellian Wormhole UK.

Where untried Savile, no sound evidence - is GUILTY by fake Media for 'MeToo More Money', Ratings & Profit.

This appears to be the legal definition of Murder but I suppose the media, controlling the law, can make a better one.

Murder is the unlawful killing of any person with an intention to kill or to cause grievous bodily harm to that person.

JK2006 wrote:
42 years for an accident. Or was it murder? Did he shoot the child deliberately? I thought that was the necessary ingredient for murder. I know nothing.

You are half right JK but missing the doctrine of "transfered malice" in UK law.

So the jury accepted that Cashman had the mental intention to kill the guy he was chasing. And is held responsible (for murder) when his mental intention and actions resulted in the unintended death of the girl instead.

But in most cases you are correct: the distinction between murder and manslaughter is the intention (mens rea). Cashman had the murderous intention according to the jury, but his actions (actus reus) went wrong. But action and intent were present. So murder.

If he appealed he would have to put the case that he did not intend to kill the guy he was chasing: pretty hard to do when he was so angry and reckless he shot that poor girl in her home while persuing him with a firearm...

Actually a very good BBC show on this tonight.

It seems to be "transferred malice". A useful term - I know several False Accusers who could be jailed for that. But what I wonder is - if he'd just killed the other drug dealer, would he have got 42 years? Answer NO. So why did Cashman get 42 years? Because the media told the Judge (and the public) he should. It was, after all, a great story.

JK2006 wrote:
So why did Cashman get 42 years? Because the media told the Judge (and the public) he should. It was, after all, a great story.

I'm sure there's an element of that but I also wonder what previous he had? If he had previous violence, organised crime offences they would have been taken into account...

The TV show is excellent; of course he was a villain but this sentence is mob rule and these days mob rule is caused by mass media.

JK2006 wrote:
The TV show is excellent; of course he was a villain but this sentence is mob rule and these days mob rule is caused by mass media.

In this case, the mob are ahead of the game.
Yes of course we must have compassion and treat everyone with kindness, but this man is a cold blooded murderer from a drug dealing gang that has the control of young kids, scared residents, the media and even the police, and people have had enough.

Yes on most points Honey but no; we simply cannot allow mob rule, no matter how justified. Yes they must clean up the drug wars. Yes the guy is clearly a slime ball. But NO; we cannot allow media to control justice. Or to control public opinion. He should be spending ten years or so in prison and should be rehabilitated (as the guy in the BBC show was). Feeling sympathy for him and his family should not be suffocated by our hatred of the war. Neither should our sympathy for the poor girl and her family. We ought to have room for both inside ourselves or else we are as bad as the drug barons. Cold hearts.

JK2006 wrote:
Yes on most points Honey but no; we simply cannot allow mob rule, no matter how justified. Yes they must clean up the drug wars. Yes the guy is clearly a slime ball. But NO; we cannot allow media to control justice. Or to control public opinion. He should be spending ten years or so in prison and should be rehabilitated (as the guy in the BBC show was). Feeling sympathy for him and his family should not be suffocated by our hatred of the war. Neither should our sympathy for the poor girl and her family. We ought to have room for both inside ourselves or else we are as bad as the drug barons. Cold hearts.

The war on drugs will never end JK. We don't know who else the guy killed or harmed in the past.

How about if the UK banned handguns...oh wait they have been banned since 1996/1997.

In Ireland you can only carry guns if you're a farmer or member of a gun club.

Criminals don't care about the law. I have no idea why people want to be involved in drugs and dealers. Just change your social circles and take up cigar smoking.

I agree with JK about mob rule - simply no place for it in a healthy criminal justice system, but also sympathetic to Honey's concerns about how dangerous the man is.

So for me any behaviours in his prison sentence that mirror his previous life should be a bar to release.

If he continues to intimidate, manipulate, groom, coerce, use violence, deal drugs on the wings he does not come out. We need to be compassionate and give him a chance to rehabilitate, we must ignore the clamour of mob rule, but if we have reason to believe he has not changed, the risk to other children and adults is given priority over his freedom.

Essentially, this is what the parole board look at - see the interesting bbc programme on i-player currently.

Wyot wrote:
I agree with JK about mob rule - simply no place for it in a healthy criminal justice system, but also sympathetic to Honey's concerns about how dangerous the man is.

So for me any behaviours in his prison sentence that mirror his previous life should be a bar to release.

If he continues to intimidate, manipulate, groom, coerce, use violence, deal drugs on the wings he does not come out. We need to be compassionate and give him a chance to rehabilitate, we must ignore the clamour of mob rule, but if we have reason to believe he has not changed, the risk to other children and adults is given priority over his freedom.

Essentially, this is what the parole board look at - see the interesting bbc programme on i-player currently.

How does that bring back the life of the kid?

And sadly but inevitably if the Parole Board makes a decision, the media (knowing the mob stupidity) howls with hatred and the government reverses the decision. Or will do (Charles Bronson). And the vast majority of punters say "Quite right too". If they had their way, capital punishment would return. "Hang 'em. Who cares if they were innocent. Our fabulous legal system never gets it wrong, specially now we've left the Human Rights... oh, we haven't? Well we'd better get on with it. All hail Suella and Rishi despite their skin colour".

Yes unfortunately the parole system under this amoral Government (and the bully Raab) has been politicised like never before. Certainly for high profile cases (though I am not sure about Bronson as his prison behaviour is appalling and the parole board decided not to release it wasn't overturned by the Gov). But in general this would be my approach.

JK2006 wrote:
And sadly but inevitably if the Parole Board makes a decision, the media (knowing the mob stupidity) howls with hatred and the government reverses the decision. Or will do (Charles Bronson). And the vast majority of punters say "Quite right too". If they had their way, capital punishment would return. "Hang 'em. Who cares if they were innocent. Our fabulous legal system never gets it wrong, specially now we've left the Human Rights... oh, we haven't? Well we'd better get on with it. All hail Suella and Rishi despite their skin colour".

I overheard a conversation in a pub about Bronson. They said they don't mind him being released as long as he is not near them. The problem is with Bronson, there will be some idiot who will challenge him, one hard slap and Bronson goes back inside.

A lot of people can't behave themselves it's in their DNA.

And it's not easy GM. When I was out on Parole in Harrods at the exit a large Arab man was beating the shit out of his (7 or 8 year old) daughter. Every bone in my body wanted to step in and stop him. My brain said "Don't". Next day my probation officer said if I had I'd have been recalled to prison.

The problem with the Parole Board and Bronson, WYOT, is that we simply don't know whether the board decided he was still a threat or they knew, had they released him, the media would condemn them (and probably organise a fight a week after his release, as they tried and failed with me and succeeded with Glitter).

JK2006 wrote:
And it's not easy GM. When I was out on Parole in Harrods at the exit a large Arab man was beating the shit out of his (7 or 8 year old) daughter. Every bone in my body wanted to step in and stop him. My brain said "Don't". Next day my probation officer said if I had I'd have been recalled to prison.

That would have been worth going back inside for JK.