egafd.com

Why has the charge of using a knife (especially when knife attacks are on the increase) not been increased from Grevious Bodily Harm to attempted murder?
Surely, any knife attack could end in potential death. For example the girl who got attacked at school in the face and head, the knife could have gone through her eye, ear etc and into her brain. Increase the punishment levels to deter people from even thinking about this type of sick crime.

Much as it pains me to disagree with one so delectable, most evidence suggests that the threat of severe punishment does little to deter people from violence. Many crimes of violence are heat-of-the-moment, so rational consideration of the consequences of an act is extremely unlikely.

When I was at school in the '80s, loads of kids carried blades. Some for show, some for self-defence and some for crime. Stabbing someone doesn't necessarily imply you intend to kill them. Can't believe that I'm standing up for knife-wielding scum, but it proof of intent is the legal point of distinction between GBH, wounding with intent and murder.

it doesn't really matter, GBH can still carry a life sentence

wasnt there another one on a bus .

"it doesn't really matter, GBH can still carry a life sentence."

Be interesting if anyone knows of a GBH case actually getting a life sentence?

How long is life?, it certainly isn't the natural term so I think the name "life" should be changed to something more relevant.... What I wonder???

The person who stabbed poor Abigail in the neck (at Great Bookham I believe) shouldn't be charged with GBH or even attempted murder . I think that sort of attack should be dealt with as if it was a murder. It was only a miracle and skill of the doctors that made it survivable. So why should the attacker benifit from the doctors skills and Abigail's strength.

I know the police have not charged anyone for this particular case. Suppose a bomber doesn't kill (failed to go off!!!!). In my eyes they should be charged with murder because that was there intention.....Lets see what happens there.....

When I was at school the sharpest thing around wasn't me!!! it was either the drawing pin or compass point. The ancient compass was a device where you clamped a pencil onto it a drew circle. Dark old days but a lot less violent.

PC

I agree 100% that there should be little distinction between murder and attempted murder. All attempted murder means is that the perpetrator was either to inept to be successfull in commiting an outright murder, or was somehow prevented. Why should a wannabe murderer be less harshly dealt with because they were unsuccessfull? You're right, it doesnt change their intent. And with the Abigail case, again your right. He clearly wanted her dead and the fact that doctors saved her shouldnt be a benefit to how the psycho is treated in the legal process. The destruction to her and her families lives is immense even though (thankfully) she survived. This should be acknowledged in the sentence, should the police ever catch who did it. Personally, I think whoever did that should be locked up for the remainder of their life.

I agree it SHOULD be attempted murder, same as if some thug smashes a beer bottle for a weapon.......thats pretty intent as well

here you go


'On 13 November 2001 Keith Tudor called the police to say that he had returned home to find his wife, Karen, unconscious and badly beaten.

Paramedics took Mrs Tudor to hospital with serious head and other multiple injuries. It was soon discovered that she also had a number of old injuries.

Whilst Keith Tudor was giving his version of events it was established that his story was incorrect, and he was arrested on suspicion of assault. An incident room was set up to investigate the serious attack on Karen Tudor. It soon became apparent that she had been pregnant, but the baby had died in her womb.

The investigation discovered that two previous partners of Mr Tudor had also been severely attacked in the past, and they both decided to pursue complaints against him. They had not done so in the past because they lived in fear of him.

Keith Tudor appeared before Stafford Crown Court in April 2002 and pleaded guilty to four counts of causing GBH with intent and one of causing GBH. He was given four life imprisonment sentences.'

from

You are quite right. GBH does carry a life sentance. Therefore there is little point in making a case more difficult to prove when the evidence does not justfy it.

That was a good bit of info I really didn't expect Life for GBH to actually have been applied.

Heres a thought. Would the serious head injuries have healed without hospitalisation......would she have died without the skills of the doctors?

I wonder in a "FEW" years time when he is up for parole if they will view the case of GBH differently than if it was a murder charge?.
(I do not know enough about this area so will leave for others)

Life sentence--- How is it some cases can have a minimum serve time (say 20 years) applied. Others apparently do not have a minimum set and they seam to be out in as little as 7 years?.

As you can tell I am not an expert in this area, but it has always bugged me that some Defendants appear to "get away with murder!!!!"


PC