The Student Room Group

3 and a half years for setting someone on fire

Scroll to see replies

Reply 20
From the sounds of things (and deducing from the nature/length of the sentence) these were yobs making fun of Steven at his expense. Certainly not nice lads. But without the intention to set him ablaze and kill him.

I wouldn't have thought tanning oil/cosmetic products were that flammable, so I don't find it hard to believe that the defendant in this case did not realise the potentially awful consequences of his actions either. They put the tanning oil on to mock him, they played with the lighter to mock him - in combination these things killed, but the intention was to mock.

It is a very sad case :frown:
Original post by iamgreatness
that is ridiculous. This country is going down the drain. Has been for years. Cant trust the police to handle anything. Have to handle it yourself, if you know what i mean.

What does this have to do with the police? They are not judges.


This sentence is far too weak though. So much for getting tough on hate crimes.
What horrible sickening joke is it to do to set fire to a poor helpless guy for fun.
Three and a half years is nothing, he should have had a lot more than that and be made to truly suffer for what he did to that poor guy...
Original post by SillyEddy
What does this have to do with the police? They are not judges.


This sentence is far too weak though. So much for getting tough on hate crimes.

police/judges the whole system fam. Man gets 3 and a half year for burning man alive, yet u get 4 years for carrying a knife around? how is man gona protect himself against man who can get away with burning man alive? got to take law into your own hands sometimes fam. It's either get killed or go prison fam
Original post by iamgreatness
police/judges the whole system fam. Man gets 3 and a half year for burning man alive, yet u get 4 years for carrying a knife around? how is man gona protect himself against man who can get away with burning man alive? got to take law into your own hands sometimes fam. It's either get killed or go prison fam

Who's fam, and how would they reform the system?
Reply 25
Original post by SillyEddy
What does this have to do with the police? They are not judges.


This sentence is far too weak though. So much for getting tough on hate crimes.


Is this a hate crime?

It sounds more like yobbish bullying of a vulnerable individual (eg: opportunistic), rather than specifically targeting Steven because of being autistic or gay. I can't see any evidence that he even was gay.

"Gay" is just generally used as a childish/yobbish slur or even intended as "banter" (however offensive) to many people.

The slurs about being gay, the tanning oil, the lighter - individually these are nasty attempts to mock, together they amount to a very unfortunate death, but not a deliberate killing (eg: a murder). I think this yob is a nasty idiot, but I don't think he set out to kill or significantly harm. This is obviously the conclusion of the judge.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by SillyEddy
Who's fam, and how would they reform the system?

fam means family, like bro for brother, its a shortening and i think you knew that.

Well, we need to have tougher punishments for criminals and to bring back corporal punishment.
Reply 27
Original post by arichmond64
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2297053/Yob-killed-autistic-teenager-setting-18th-birthday-party-teasing-gay.html


Is there any legal students etc. out there, who can please explain to me how a judge, can give someone just 3 and a half years in jail for this?

What is going on!:angry:


Welcome to Britain where the justice system is officially a joke. Everyone knows this, dude. Just look at the US where the justice system is not a joke, they even jail children for life without parole and they are absolutely right, these savages do not deserve to live among normal people.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/aug/04/usa.edpilkington
(edited 11 years ago)
Reply 28
Original post by Pigling
Is this a hate crime?

It sounds more like yobbish bullying of a vulnerable individual (eg: opportunistic), rather than specifically targeting Steven because of being autistic or gay. I can't see any evidence that he even was gay.

"Gay" is just generally used as a childish/yobbish slur or even intended as "banter" (however offensive) to many people.

The slurs about being gay, the tanning oil, the lighter - individually these are nasty attempts to mock, together they amount to a very unfortunate death, but not a deliberate killing (eg: a murder). I think this yob is a nasty idiot, but I don't think he set out to kill or significantly harm. This is obviously the conclusion of the judge.


Totally agreed. I don't think he was targeted for being gay whatsoever (nor was there any evidence that he was gay). He was prob targeted because he had learning difficulties, was a loner and looked quite unattractive. (no offense meant)

It was obvious to me that they took advantage of him, telling him to strip and he wanted friends and so entertained the idea, maybe oblivious that they was humiliating and bullying him. OR maybe he knew he was being made fun of but he wanted in his own way to make friends and so allowed it.

The burning the penis part is the final straw for me. Why would anyone do that? That just shows he intended to hurt the guy at least.

I'm still not entirely convinced it was entirely manslaughter. They covered him in an oil and then use a lighter on him. Doesn't that sound a bit fishy to you?
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by Pigling
Is this a hate crime?

It sounds more like yobbish bullying of a vulnerable individual (eg: opportunistic), rather than specifically targeting Steven because of being autistic or gay. I can't see any evidence that he even was gay.

"Gay" is just generally used as a childish/yobbish slur or even intended as "banter" (however offensive) to many people.

The slurs about being gay, the tanning oil, the lighter - individually these are nasty attempts to mock, together they amount to a very unfortunate death, but not a deliberate killing (eg: a murder). I think this yob is a nasty idiot, but I don't think he set out to kill or significantly harm. This is obviously the conclusion of the judge.

They wrote "I love dick" on his stomach, "gay boy" on his forehead and they were calling him a "gay ****". It seems they had a problem with his sexuality.

I don't believe he was killed for being gay (and I don't think his disabilities provoked it either) but the bullying was about his sexuality and this lead to his death.
Reply 30
Original post by Michaelj
Totally agreed. I don't think he was targeted for being gay whatsoever (nor was there any evidence that he was gay). He was prob targeted because he had learning difficulties, was a loner and looked quite unattractive. (no offense meant)

It was obvious to me that they took advantage of him, telling him to strip and he wanted friends and so entertained the idea, maybe oblivious that they was humiliating and bullying him.

The burning the penis part is the final straw for me. Why would anyone do that? That just shows he intended to hurt the guy at least.

I'm still not entirely convinced it was entirely manslaughter. They covered him in an oil and then use a lighter on him. Doesn't that sound a bit fishy to you?


If it had been petrol I would call it murder.

But tanning oil? Honestly I had no idea it was that dangerous, which is what allows me to believe that the defendant didn't.

Obviously, to play with fire and other people under any circumstances is idiotic, and careless. But someone isn't a murderer just because their idiocy tragically resulted in a death, murder requires intent and I don't think that's here. The defendant briefly attempted to help Steven, after all.
Reply 31
Original post by SillyEddy
They wrote "I love dick" on his stomach, "gay boy" on his forehead and they were calling him a "gay ****". It seems they had a problem with his sexuality.

I don't believe he was killed for being gay (and I don't think his disabilities provoked it either) but the bullying was about his sexuality and this lead to his death.


Have you been to school? Unfortunately, "gay" and all things gay remains a general topic of "banter". It more often has no link to a person's sexuality at all. People write gay **** on their friends on a night out. Obviously these weren't Steven's friends, they were maliciously mocking him but I don't think it was (intended) as more than that. There is no evidence of Steven even being gay.

Now if the defendant often made hateful remarks/ had an obvious hateful/violent attitude toward gays (he obviously has some homophobic views), found out that Steven was gay, and targeted him and deliberately tried to hurt him because of this - I would agree - hate crime.

But it seems that rather Steven was a vulnerable person, the kind of person who attracts bullies/yobs who will take advantage of his naievety - he was unfortunate to run into these yobs who saw an opportunity to "have a laugh" at his expense. Intended to mock him and "gay", "I love dick" are just reflections of their lack of imagination/maturity tbh.
(edited 11 years ago)
Reply 32
manslaughter? Since when can you accidently turn someone into a human torch?:s-smilie:
Eye for an eye law, set him on fire and see how he likes it.
Reply 33
Original post by OU Student
There is criteria to follow when it comes to sentencing. So, you can't just decide to give someone 3 and a half years for killing someone. There's something called mitigating and aggravating (?) circumstances to decide how long a sentence should be.

Not sure how this is manslaughter though.


Indeed.

But in this case

"Judge Roger Keen told him: “Egged on by others you sought to put a flame to Steven.

“What it did was engulf him in a fire. You tried to briefly assist and then you ran away. That in my judgment is serious aggravation.”
"
So really it could've been even lower!
Reply 34
Original post by Fusion
A prison officer told me all these teen "tough guy" types break down on their first night in prison and cry out for mummy all night long.


UK prisons are a joke, have a look at that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQXM1Xwjaew
(edited 11 years ago)
Reply 35
Original post by SillyEddy
They wrote "I love dick" on his stomach, "gay boy" on his forehead and they were calling him a "gay ****". It seems they had a problem with his sexuality.

I don't believe he was killed for being gay (and I don't think his disabilities provoked it either) but the bullying was about his sexuality and this lead to his death.


Were you even in secondary school? Loads of bullied people I know had similar insults given to them. None of which are gay. He may have been gay but at the same time, he may not have been.
Reply 36
Simply awful. RIP. :frown:
Can't trust the courts to do things properly nowadays, the sentencing structure is there and judges seem to find a way of handing out the most pathetic, low sentence possible. We know prison doesn't "work" but it bloody keeps people away from the general public. He should have got a long longer than this for taking a life, especially that of a vulnerable person like this teenager was. My cousin has autism and if someone did that to him they wouldn't live to see the prison door slam shut let's put it that way!
Original post by Michaelj
Were you even in secondary school? Loads of bullied people I know had similar insults given to them. None of which are gay. He may have been gay but at the same time, he may not have been.

Of course I went to highschool, but I was never doused and set on fire. I know some who were burnt/partially set alight by other students out of hatred though. I still don't think there's really any "nice" way of doing that to someone.
Reply 39
Original post by SillyEddy
Of course I went to highschool, but I was never doused and set on fire. I know some who were burnt/partially set alight by other students out of hatred though. I still don't think there's really any "nice" way of doing that to someone.


I knew a guy who got about 50-60 backpacks thrown on top of him, surprised he didn't die. Yes, nasty comments (not a banter way) and any form of assault is not meant nice, it's meant to amuse the tormenter and upset the individual.

The guy might as well been an animal the way they was treating him.

Quick Reply

Latest