Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.
Trending News
friends there is something I do not understand?
I refer to the sentence handed down to an individual who bombed his home and in the explosion killed a Babyy living next door
.He was sentenced to ten years in prison,I am completelyy baffled at the light sentence can anyone explain how the judge arrived at that award I listened to the family of the young baby that was killed. That punishmentt for the horrific crime committed is= not= justified in my view, what do you think my friends?is this once again our laws failing us?
10 Answers
- 8 years agoFavorite Answer
Whether a baby died or not someone who can do this sort of thing is a danger to himself and everyone else so he should be locked away forever where he can do no more harm.
My sympathies to the parents!
- the old dogLv 78 years ago
There was no intention to kill, the idiot just committed an act of horrendous stupidity and an innocent suffered to the point of death. Had no one died the fool would have suffered a penalty of two to five years for the destruction of the bomb.
Manslaughter is very difficult to put a tag on and I suppose there are other aspects of the case that the public does not know.
However, ten years does not seem justified to the family of the victim.
- The First DragonLv 78 years ago
Maybe he did not intend to kill the baby, but it was an unintended consequence of bombing his own home.
Sometimes the sentence does not seem to fit the crime. But at least there is a sentence.
- YorrikLv 78 years ago
There was no intent to kill anyone the man blew up his own home without foreknowledge of the baby next door thus he cannot be said to have 'murdered' the child/baby.
UK is not USA and judges do not hand down over heavy sentences. Here in UK we have a very long history of legal and prison reform.
Yes punish the guilty but at the same time try to encourage them to see the error of their ways and try to make them better citizens.
Locking a person up for 50 years or more (as happens in the USA) is a no hope situation. There has got to be 'hope' for the convict who must be encouraged to accept responsibility for his/her actions and to seek God.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXKisDZvB0Y&feature...
London UK 190213.1846
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Anonymous8 years ago
10 years, bearing in mind he will probably only serve half that, doesn't seem adequate.
Pitiful man should have gotten at least 20 & serve 10.
- Anonymous8 years ago
he will be out in 5
- Anonymous8 years ago
awful as the case is, the judge seems to accept there was no intention to kill this poor babe.. 20 years so he gets to do 10 would be better..
- baffledLv 78 years ago
the criteria these days is wether the offender is likely to recommit that or other offences...and the sentence is adjusted accordingly.
- Helen SLv 78 years ago
The parents must still be devastated. That idiot will probably be out in four years or less.
I can't make any sense of it either.
- Anonymous8 years ago
In this pathetic country that's quite Good.