Drunken violence

[M Malice]

well done mitch, you are leader at the lions and a leader in the community, lets bring this issue right to the forefront of footy supporters and players minds at all levels around the country. one of the most cowardly things you can do. enough is enough.

that is mitch in the footage.

 

[SizeMatters]

well done mitch, you are leader at the lions and a leader in the community, lets bring this issue right to the forefront of footy supporters and players minds at all levels around the country. one of the most cowardly things you can do. enough is enough.

is that Robbo getting hit? What a pack of mongrels to do something like this.

 

[M Malice]

is that Robbo getting hit?

yep, in the comments section that didn't link properly it says it is. he's a lucky boy, to be still with us. don't know when this happened.

 

[jjami15]

yep, in the comments section that didn't link properly it says it is. he's a lucky boy, to be still with us. don't know when this happened.

I would assume it was when he was out with Garlett (standing up for his mate) and he told Carlton that he got hurt doing boxing or something of the like and that stamped his exit cards. I really feel for the family of the 18yr old who passed away today when he was king hit. There are laws to make a statement against this and I hope that they get the full term. Enough is enough.

 

[Sherrinator]

I was jumped from behind by a group of dropkicks and had my head stomped into the concrete. If I hadn't got my hand under my head to reduce the blows I might not be here today.

These unprovoked attacks make me sick and they keep getting away with it. Charge them both with murder and maybe this mentality amongst today's young males might change.

 

[Lionheart182]

I was jumped from behind by a group of dropkicks and had my head stomped into the concrete. If I hadn't got my hand under my head to reduce the blows I might not be here today.

These unprovoked attacks make me sick and they keep getting away with it. Charge them both with murder and maybe this mentality amongst today's young males might change.

Doesn't murder need to be premeditated?

Still I get your point. I always remembered that kid in Sydney who died after being king hit. Turned out is was his first night out after turning 18 and they thought he was someone else.

 

[Sherrinator]

Doesn't murder need to be premeditated?

Still I get your point. I always remembered that kid in Sydney who died after being king hit. Turned out is was his first night out after turning 18 and they thought he was someone else.

Pretty sure that seeking someone out for the sole purpose to cause harm is pre-meditating.

 

[Skoob]

Doesn't murder need to be premeditated?

Still I get your point. I always remembered that kid in Sydney who died after being king hit. Turned out is was his first night out after turning 18 and they thought he was someone else.

No. If the culprit could reasonably expect their actions to result in death, that can be enough.
A deliberate punch to the back of the head could be argued that way.

 

[jjami15]

No. If the culprit could reasonably expect their actions to result in death, that can be enough.
A deliberate punch to the back of the head could be argued that way.

Just read an article in the CM it sounds like the two offenders had accosted a couple of others and were 'roaming' the mall to inflict pain. I ain't no lawyer but that sounds like there was pre-meditation to inflict serious harm and therefore they should feel the full brunt of what a magistrate can pass down.

 

[MacMum]

The law is an ass......should be straight out murder.

 

[M Malice]

i am pretty sure there is a new law on the books to cover this "coward punch" scenario. as in most legal cases the police/public prosecutor lay the correct charges, it is the judge that passes an inappropriate sentence (it is very rare for the maximum allowable sentence to be handed down) and in some cases a too short, non-parole period.

 

[WhiteLionFeva]

The law is an ass......should be straight out murder.

Can understand your frustration but the problem is and always will be a sentencing one and that can only be fixed by the legislature, among other things, fixing minimum terms for certain offences. Doesn't require us to redefine murder or manslaughter, just to fix the correct range of penalties and narrow the discretion given to judges and magistrates. There can also be little doubt that penalties meted out for certain offences are now out of step with community expectations and therefore norms.

 

[Full Wingspan]

What differentiates murder from manslaughter is the state of mind of the alleged offender, the latin term mens rea is used to describe this element and literally translates to "guilty mind".

Murder requires a specified mental state (intent to kill or to cause grievous bodily harm, recklessness) or constructive murder (s3A Crimes Act, resisting arrest/escaping from custody). On the other hand, manslaughter does not require a specified mental state but rather the focus is on conduct.

Intention forms a big part of determining whether an act is either classified as murder or manslaughter, but it's not the sole factor.

When I last studied criminal law, Victorian legislators had begun drafting coward-punch legislation, so it's a relatively new area of law. Traditionally, it would fall into your typical manslaughter category - factors such as not being able to reasonably foresee that the victim would die from the punch, and the very absence of the required mens rea for murder would see the lesser conviction upheld.

While I agree that the behaviour is not to be condoned, I do not think a lifetime sentence should come from most of these incidents (of course, we need to appreciate that each case has its own set of unique facts and circumstances), and I also think the pubs and clubs of Australia have a lot to answer for. Many of these incidents are alcohol fuelled, and there needs to be significant overhaul in the responsible service of alcohol at both the training and practical levels so that individuals who are clearly not in a state to drink further, are not served.

I think coward-punch legislation is the happy medium. Although the crime itself displays many of the same principles as common law and statutory manslaughter, the new laws reflect society's displeasure of the 'cowardly' nature of the crime, and hence a slightly more serious penalty in lieu of manslaughter

I'm not sure whether it only applies to punches were the victim was not aware it was going to land, but that's what the term 'coward' would suggest. A pet hate of mine is seeing CCTV footage of a brawl or fistfight, and when one bloke goes down, the media reports it as a 'king hit' or 'coward punch'. I would define these two terms as being hit, usually in an unprovoked manner, without actually seeing the punch coming, more often than not, from behind and to the back of the head.

 

[Mr Ripper]

Kill them and dump the bodies at the tip and then blow up the tip.

 

[James North]

Kill them and dump the bodies at the tip and then blow up the tip.

Better outcome for you if you dump them in a creek in Brookfield.

 

[Caiphus]

Its not an alcohol problem, it's a social problem. There are countries with a heavier drinking culture where things like this don't happen often ie. Germany & Japan.

 

[Full Wingspan]

Its not an alcohol problem, it's a social problem. There are countries with a heavier drinking culture where things like this don't happen often ie. Germany & Japan.

I'll agree with you there too. Let's not be ignorant and believe that this issue is caused directly by one factor - like most things, a combination of many elements have led to the issue we have at hand today.

Alcohol is certainly a very common element in these types of incidents, and no doubt it bears some relationship with 'coward punches'.

Having tougher penalties is one deterrent in shifting that culture.

 

[Lionheart182]

No. If the culprit could reasonably expect their actions to result in death, that can be enough.
A deliberate punch to the back of the head could be argued that way.

I might have this wrong, but there is a reason they can't be charged with murder for a king hit, may not be due to premeditation though.

Encouragingly, I did read an article today stating new laws have been implemented for one-punch attackers which carries life in prison. Not sure that will actually happen but a step in the right direction probably.

 

[James North]

Its not an alcohol problem, it's a social problem. There are countries with a heavier drinking culture where things like this don't happen often ie. Germany & Japan.

Yeah if this happened in Japan it would be national news for days (in a country of 130 million) and the attacker's parents would be apologising profusely on television.

 

[Skoob]

I might have this wrong, but there is a reason they can't be charged with murder for a king hit, may not be due to premeditation though.

Encouragingly, I did read an article today stating new laws have been implemented for one-punch attackers which carries life in prison. Not sure that will actually happen but a step in the right direction probably.

I'm not a legal mind, but similar arguments were made in regard to Baden-Claye, which led me to find this;

CRIMINAL CODE - SECT 302
302 Definition of murder
(1) Except as hereinafter set forth, a person who unlawfully kills another under any of the following circumstances, that is to say—

(a) if the offender intends to cause the death of the person killed or that of some other person or if the offender intends to do to the person killed or to some other person some grievous bodily harm;(b) if death is caused by means of an act done in the prosecution of an unlawful purpose, which act is of such a nature as to be likely to endanger human life;(c) if the offender intends to do grievous bodily harm to some person for the purpose of facilitating the commission of a crime which is such that the offender may be arrested without warrant, or for the purpose of facilitating the flight of an offender who has committed or attempted to commit any such crime;(d) if death is caused by administering any stupefying or overpowering thing for either of the purposes mentioned in paragraph (c);(e) if death is caused by wilfully stopping the breath of any person for either of such purposes;
is guilty of murder.

(2) Under subsection (1)(a) it is immaterial that the offender did not intend to hurt the particular person who is killed.

(3) Under subsection (1)(b) it is immaterial that the offender did not intend to hurt any person.

(4) Under subsection (1)(c) to (e) it is immaterial that the offender did not intend to cause death or did not know that death was likely to result.

I'll take a stab and suggest that perhaps in many "coward punch" cases, where alcohol is involved, diminished responsibility is allowed to be argued. Without having read what "coward punch legislation" covers, maybe that accounts for such a defence.

I'm sure some of the legals here could enlighten us.
philcara16 has already provided some interesting info.

 

[SizeMatters]

Just read an article in the CM it sounds like the two offenders had accosted a couple of others and were 'roaming' the mall to inflict pain. I ain't no lawyer but that sounds like there was pre-meditation to inflict serious harm and therefore they should feel the full brunt of what a magistrate can pass down.

So what's that? 5 years out in 2 with good behaviour? The legal system is a joke I hope these flogs get locked up for 25 years minimum. Either way they will get what's coming to them in prison... inmates don't take to coward attacks lightly.

 

[Sherrinator]

If someone's mind is so fragile that a legally available drug like alcohol can sway it to commit life-threatening acts - that person seems to me to be a danger to society.

 

[Full Wingspan]

I'm not a legal mind, but similar arguments were made in regard to Baden-Claye, which led me to find this;

I'll take a stab and suggest that perhaps in many "coward punch" cases, where alcohol is involved, diminished responsibility is allowed to be argued. Without having read what "coward punch legislation" covers, maybe that accounts for such a defence.

I'm sure some of the legals here could enlighten us.
philcara16 has already provided some interesting info.

Basically, you cannot use the absence of intention to murder in cases where 1(a) the offender is found to intend to kill or cause GBH to the victim, or 1(b) an act done in the prosecution of an unlawful purpose.

Some of these unlawful purposes in Victoria include killing someone while escaping custody or resisting arrest

Again, it's very important to note that while proving the adequate mens rea (guilty mind), intention is material factor but is not the sole determinant of this element for the crime of murder.

 

[M Malice]

If someone's mind is so fragile that a legally available drug like alcohol can sway it to commit life-threatening acts - that person seems to me to be a danger to society.

yep. a thread on the main board "what gives you the shits". i posted something similar to this a few days ago.
people who drink and then feel the need to get violent, i think it stems from some sort of insecurity or inferiority complex ie. low self esteem, paranoia.

maybe if the local police who walk the beat in these nightspots, using their local knowledge, and they feel certain individuals are a threat they could be given the option of applying through a magistrate, similar to a DVO application. the magistrate can then apply a non alcohol consumption order or alike.
drugs, legal or otherwise should not be able to be used as a mitigating circumstance in these cases involving serious assault, death, drink/drug driving causing death etc. particularly when the offender has been previously convicted for a drug related crime.

 

[carnthemlions]

What differentiates murder from manslaughter is the state of mind of the alleged offender, the latin term mens rea is used to describe this element and literally translates to "guilty mind".

Murder requires a specified mental state (intent to kill or to cause grievous bodily harm, recklessness) or constructive murder (s3A Crimes Act, resisting arrest/escaping from custody). On the other hand, manslaughter does not require a specified mental state but rather the focus is on conduct.

Intention forms a big part of determining whether an act is either classified as murder or manslaughter, but it's not the sole factor.

When I last studied criminal law, Victorian legislators had begun drafting coward-punch legislation, so it's a relatively new area of law. Traditionally, it would fall into your typical manslaughter category - factors such as not being able to reasonably foresee that the victim would die from the punch, and the very absence of the required mens rea for murder would see the lesser conviction upheld.

While I agree that the behaviour is not to be condoned, I do not think a lifetime sentence should come from most of these incidents (of course, we need to appreciate that each case has its own set of unique facts and circumstances), and I also think the pubs and clubs of Australia have a lot to answer for. Many of these incidents are alcohol fuelled, and there needs to be significant overhaul in the responsible service of alcohol at both the training and practical levels so that individuals who are clearly not in a state to drink further, are not served.

I think coward-punch legislation is the happy medium. Although the crime itself displays many of the same principles as common law and statutory manslaughter, the new laws reflect society's displeasure of the 'cowardly' nature of the crime, and hence a slightly more serious penalty in lieu of manslaughter

I'm not sure whether it only applies to punches were the victim was not aware it was going to land, but that's what the term 'coward' would suggest. A pet hate of mine is seeing CCTV footage of a brawl or fistfight, and when one bloke goes down, the media reports it as a 'king hit' or 'coward punch'. I would define these two terms as being hit, usually in an unprovoked manner, without actually seeing the punch coming, more often than not, from behind and to the back of the head.

I can't help but think that the deterrence approach in this particular case has had little effect, and I doubt that will change. There's no easy solution here (I certainly don't have one), but as Caiphus said it's a societal and cultural problem more than anything.