Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
 

Topic: Sarah Sands Case

Page 1 of 1  sorted by
Testimonial
Status: Offline
Posts: 4501
Date:

Sarah Sands Case

Permalink  
 
I almost hesitate to open this up because it is such a difficult topic, but I am interested to gauge opinion on it. As a matter of undisputed fact this lady went armed with a knife to the home of her victim and confronted him, before killing him in a frenzied attack. The victim was a man in his seventies who had a series of historic convictions for sexual assault on children (boys) and was on bail pending trial in connection with new allegations. She was arguably dealt with leniently in two respects: firstly she was convicted of manslaughter on the grounds of 'loss of control' rather than murder and secondly she was sentenced to only three and a half years which once her time on remand is allowed for means she will likely be released almost immediately on licence. This for me raises all sorts of very difficult issues. The instinctive human response is that there is some sort of rudimentary justice in it all, but on hard reflection the outcome worries me. She went to his door with a knife at a time when the allegations against him were unproven. Hard though the trial judge tried to set out why in his view it was an exceptional case (and these cases are all fact specific), in today's world I fear that this might be interpreted as leaving the door ajar for vigilante justice which might in the long run weaken the fabric of our society. Almost counter intuitively I am driven to the conclusion that the rule of law has to be upheld as a matter of public policy, and that the outcome in this case is dangerously close (however odious the victim might have been) to undermining it. Most will read the potted version in the Mail or the Sun. Very few will study the Judgment in full in the Weekly Law Reports to unpick the legal nuances. I recall a few years ago that a paediatrician came within minutes of being attacked by an angry mob of morons who thought they had a child molester in the community because they didn't own a dictionary between them. Potentially dangerous stuff. I hope the media are sensible in how they deal with this one.

__________________
Captain
Status: Offline
Posts: 2270
Date:
Permalink  
 
Must be joking mate. The Mail will almost certainly sensationalise it, as will the Sun. I just hope that they don't parade this woman around as some anti-hero & try to justify her actions which IMO was murder.

__________________

 

ian
Club Legend
Status: Offline
Posts: 6218
Date:
Permalink  
 
Initially I thought this to be a remarkable, dangerous and bias judgement.

However, on reflection, I am with the sentence.

The defendant did indeed go armed with a knife, but still, premeditation has to be proved. It's arguable she went defended via fear of attack in much the same way an individual might decide to carry an illegal weapon. This might be seen as defensible.

The client, due to her mental state, may well have had diminished responsibility in much the same way as the infamous crime of passion, or via a brief but real change of mental state beyond her control-the client has clearly been 'assessed ' as unstable.

You or I may well go armed into a situation due to a paranoid or otherwise extreme mental state but with no intent to kill or injure but find ourselves overtaken by our instinct and mental state and thus be defensible via reasonable sense of diminished responsibility . In much the same way a victim of abuse might kill her/his abuser.

__________________
Vice-Captain
Status: Offline
Posts: 1000
Date:
Permalink  
 
You reap what you sow. Paedophiles gets killed in revenge attack headlines won't lose me any sleep.

If it was my kid or grandkids I would do the same. The law is no deterrent but I would ensure he wouldn't have a single next victim.

__________________
Testimonial
Status: Offline
Posts: 4501
Date:
Permalink  
 
I understand that sentiment Heman, and I understand Ian's feelings on it. My problem with it is that she made a positive decision to go there armed. That to me makes the idea that it was a sudden loss of control is a difficult one. Whilst the victim may have had historic convictions, they had no connection to Ms Sands, and whatever she might have thought about it the fact is that he denied the recent allegations and was presumed innocent of them until proven guilty. That is a good and fundament principle. That's the danger isn't it - when we start excusing people who pre-empt proper legal process and decide themselves before trial to do something themselves because they have decided that people are guilty, we are on the way to anarchy. My human sympathy is with her, but on further reflection I really do think that this outcome might send a dangerous message.

__________________
ian
Club Legend
Status: Offline
Posts: 6218
Date:
Permalink  
 
I am not really expressing a feeling smiler, its more a reasoned position. My feelings are that he deserves more than the punishment he got and also that Ms Sands deserves more than 3.5 years.

The basis of the judgement was one of intent and the verdict manslaughter, which (and ive no legal mind) suggests the evidence backed the position that she had no premeditation and therefore intent could not be proved.

Your worry regarding encouragement I would share, but I am not sure it sets any new precedent as people are convicted of manslaughter under all manner of cir***stances ranging from neglect to fighting with deadly weapons.



__________________
Vice-Captain
Status: Offline
Posts: 1200
Date:
Permalink  
 

A frigging joke.  I would rather live next to the old paedo than to this deranged woman.  The judgement and sentence give carte blanche to any vigilante wanting to make a name for themselves.



__________________
Page 1 of 1  sorted by
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.