pembsexile wrote: I am not sure how far we can take the humiliation idea in regards to punishment, but I would make him clean the toilets of the stadium of the fan he attacked. How would he explain that one to his mates?

Hi Mike,

For me cleaning toilets is not humiliating. It's a necessary job and whilst unpleasant would give this utter prat the opportunity to make amends. I believe in accountability for our actions. I believe in retribution. I don't believe in humiliation or revenge.

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

pembsexile wrote: I am not sure how far we can take the humiliation idea in regards to punishment, but I would make him clean the toilets of the stadium of the fan he attacked. How would he explain that one to his mates?

Hi Mike,

For me cleaning toilets is not humiliating. It's a necessary job and whilst unpleasant would give this utter prat the opportunity to make amends. I believe in accountability for our actions. I believe in retribution. I don't believe in humiliation or revenge.

I suspect it'd be humiliating to someone who thought enough of themselves to run onto the pitch during a match to whip up the crowd.

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

pembsexile wrote: I am not sure how far we can take the humiliation idea in regards to punishment, but I would make him clean the toilets of the stadium of the fan he attacked. How would he explain that one to his mates?

Hi Mike,

For me cleaning toilets is not humiliating. It's a necessary job and whilst unpleasant would give this utter prat the opportunity to make amends. I believe in accountability for our actions. I believe in retribution. I don't believe in humiliation or revenge.

You may not find it humiliating Brendan. I suspect he would. What was it somebody said about schadenfreude. Not sure if I spelt that correctly.

It’s just a good job for Grealish that arsehole Mitchell had a weak ass punch, because if he could hit then Jack could have found himself with a serious injury.
I don’t see someone running a full 20yrds to punch someone full force from behind as being a ‘minor’ crime, certainly the outcome was, but, it could have been so much worse.

Exile 1976 wrote:It’s just a good job for Grealish that arsehole Mitchell had a weak ass punch, because if he could hit then Jack could have found himself with a serious injury.
I don’t see someone running a full 20yrds to punch someone full force from behind as being a ‘minor’ crime, certainly the outcome was, but, it could have been so much worse.

An assault which does not cause injury is a section 39 common assault. It carries a maximum sentence of six months. I certainly don't consider it a minor crime, in the sense of it not being serious. However it is not as serious as an assault occasioning actual bodily harm, or one causing grievous bodily harm, or manslaughter or murder.

Had it been 'so much worse' the charge would have been a section 20 causing GBH without intent, that is without intending to cause really serious harm. The worst case scenario would be what is commonly referred to in the trade as a 'one punch manslaughter'.

That final scenario is as you say very serious and tragically common. Every person who has ever thrown a punch could so easily be guilty of that.

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

Exile 1976 wrote:It’s just a good job for Grealish that arsehole Mitchell had a weak ass punch, because if he could hit then Jack could have found himself with a serious injury.
I don’t see someone running a full 20yrds to punch someone full force from behind as being a ‘minor’ crime, certainly the outcome was, but, it could have been so much worse.

An assault which does not cause injury is a section 39 common assault. It carries a maximum sentence of six months. I certainly don't consider it a minor crime, in the sense of it not being serious. However it is not as serious as an assault occasioning actual bodily harm, or one causing grievous bodily harm, or manslaughter or murder.

Had it been 'so much worse' the charge would have been a section 20 causing GBH without intent, that is without intending to cause really serious harm. The worst case scenario would be what is commonly referred to in the trade as a 'one punch manslaughter'.

That final scenario is as you say very serious and tragically common. Every person who has ever thrown a punch could so easily be guilty of that.

Anyone that throws a punch at someone that cannot, or is in no position to, defend themselves, such as from behind, should be treated with a harsher sentence IMO, regardless of the outcome of the punch, as the intent to cause real harm is there.
How anyone can say that there is no intent to cause 'really serious harm' (genuinely, what's classed as that? Broken jaw? Fractured eye socket? Both?)in someone running to throw a punch at someone unable to defend themselves is beyond me. That's where I think the law needs to be changed.

Exile 1976 wrote:

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

Exile 1976 wrote:It’s just a good job for Grealish that arsehole Mitchell had a weak ass punch, because if he could hit then Jack could have found himself with a serious injury.
I don’t see someone running a full 20yrds to punch someone full force from behind as being a ‘minor’ crime, certainly the outcome was, but, it could have been so much worse.

An assault which does not cause injury is a section 39 common assault. It carries a maximum sentence of six months. I certainly don't consider it a minor crime, in the sense of it not being serious. However it is not as serious as an assault occasioning actual bodily harm, or one causing grievous bodily harm, or manslaughter or murder.

Had it been 'so much worse' the charge would have been a section 20 causing GBH without intent, that is without intending to cause really serious harm. The worst case scenario would be what is commonly referred to in the trade as a 'one punch manslaughter'.

That final scenario is as you say very serious and tragically common. Every person who has ever thrown a punch could so easily be guilty of that.

Anyone that throws a punch at someone that cannot, or is in no position to, defend themselves, such as from behind, should be treated with a harsher sentence IMO, regardless of the outcome of the punch, as the intent to cause real harm is there.
How anyone can say that there is no intent to cause 'really serious harm' (genuinely, what's classed as that? Broken jaw? Fractured eye socket? Both?)in someone running to throw a punch at someone unable to defend themselves is beyond me. That's where I think the law needs to be changed.

That's interesting.

Rather like drink driving though. Drive over the limit and you will be fined and banned from driving. Do exactly the same and kill someone and you will get a lengthy prison sentence. But the offence is still the same.

I do think that your analysis that we need to look at the offence and not the outcome is the way forward. If every person who drove over the limit knew that they would face a custodial sentence I believe that far fewer people would lose their lives on the roads.