Oh I completely agree with you on that OMITN but the point is we can’t change that. you certainly don’t have to talk to me about the Justice system and how flawed it is!!!

Of course we can change sentencing guidelines. It’s why we no longer have capital punishment.

Where do you get your suggestion that the crown failed to prove endangerment from my understanding was that he pleaded guilty to arson reckless endanger life part way through his trial . Which would suggest the sentence would have been 8 or 9 years had he pleaded guilty early on .

Ooh, interestingly for anyone with an opinion about sentencing, the Justice Ministry (Miniluv being unavailable) has a roleplay video called “You Be The Judge” where you can hear evidence then pass sentence and compare the sentence to what would actually have been given: http://ybtj.justice.gov.uk/

that the law should be weighted far more heavily in cases where actual harm occurs.

But that’s the whole point – the fact that no-one gets hurt as a result of a particular case of arson doesn’t make the arsonist any less blameworthy. The arsonist isn’t in a position to predict or control that – he didn’t know that there weren’t a bunch of overnight cleaners on the top floor who could all have been killed as a result of the fire. In fact, he was reckless (didn’t turn his mind) to that risk.

That risk of harm to people is why that charge you identified is more serious than “simple” arson: http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/arson_/

Of course we can change sentencing guidelines. It’s why we no longer have capital punishment.

This is obviously pure, inexcusable and pointless pedantry but surely abolition of capital punishment was the removal of the sentence, not a change in sentencing guidelines.

the fact that no-one gets hurt as a result of a particular case of arson doesn’t make the arsonist any less blameworthy.

I dont really see how fair sentencing can ignore what actually happened in the sentence and base it on the risk of what may have happened [ but did not]

Do we sentence the person who hit someone on the basis he could have reasonable expected to have not killed someone with one punch or do we sentence on the basis that the one punch did kill someone?

i read your links and realise you are saying what the law does and not necessarily giving your own view.

Do we sentence the person who hit someone on the basis he could have reasonable expected to have not killed someone with one punch or do we sentence on the basis that the one punch did kill someone?

To change the facts slightly, if there had been a crew of night cleaners in the department store and they had been killed by the fire, the arsonist would have been for manslaughter which (unlike arson) can carry a life sentence (IIRC).

So yes, I suppose you’re right, it is possible for the same conduct to be prosecuted/sentenced differently depending on the outcome. And I guess that makes the response to swiss01 more appropriately – “if anyone had been seriously injured or killed, the sentence (and possibly charge) would likely have been even heavier”.

Junkyard we sentence on the basis of a number of factors including :-risk , harm , intent and outcome and wider impact . This may well be why people reading media reports which are often inaccurate or incompleate perceive that sentencing can be inconsistent . There are a multitude of variables in life which can be reflected in sentences for apparently similar matters.

For your illustration? is it more serious to punch some one in the pub in retaliation for some perceived insult or to hunt them down two days later then hit them in the head with an axe .

Does your view change if your victim falls back and bangs his head on a table in scenario one and the victim survives in scenario two.

I suspect if in the Arson case some one had died the defendant would have faced at least a manslaughter count and probbably a murder count. From the way the trial panned out i guess he would have been convicted on the manslaughter.

interesting example using the axe one v one punch as we cannot ignore either intent or consequences*. These factors clearly interact hence we may appear to sentence without rhyme or reason.

Suppose it all depends which is why we see the disparity in sentences we often bemoan

* i think we would all agree the axe one is worse even though they are not dead and the other person is. that is an excellent example you have used to illuminate the point

we may appear to sentence without rhyme or reason…

Suppose it all depends which is why we see the disparity in sentences we often bemoan

1) when one (anyone) actually makes the effort to look at the sentences which can be given for a specific offence, then the list of mitigating and aggravating factors, and then the facts around the offence, I don’t think there are many sentences which are without rhyme or reason. In other words, if that appearance exists, it exists because the beholder hasn’t bothered to behold it in the full light of the facts, and the sentencer hasn’t done a good job of casting the light.

One can still of course disagree with the possible penalties and the guidelines themselves at that point.

[Abysmal metaphor mangling there]

2) I think it’s time for the bemoaners to bemoan in a bit more detail what they’re bemoaning.