man jailed for deadly unprovoked attack

OP

Original post by Mathemagicien

Sounds like the victim indeed provoked it.

Timon is just a man of his word. /sarcasm

6 years is too lenient for scum like this. The justice system seems to hand out wildly different times for similar crimes, and similar times for wildly different crimes.

yeah I think he might get out in three I dunno if will serve the whole sentence in prison his brother is a convicted murderer as well

Reply 3

Nerry

15

"Trevor Timon, 31, hit 30-year-old Oliver Dearlove while the victim and his friends were talking to a group of women in Blackheath, south-east London, in August 2016."

tut tut tut, so much for loving boyfriend

Reply 4

999tigger

19

Its up to the government to legislate as there has been a series of these one punch cases. The judges follow sentencing guidelines given to them. Theres been no indication the judge got it wrong or that there will be an appeal. Shocking killing and casual resort to violence. Animal.

Reply 5

More people criticising a system they have no knowledge of.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 6

RF_PineMarten

18

Original post by Nerry

"Trevor Timon, 31, hit 30-year-old Oliver Dearlove while the victim and his friends were talking to a group of women in Blackheath, south-east London, in August 2016."

tut tut tut, so much for loving boyfriend

Yeah, because everyone knows as soon as you get a girlfriend you're not allowed to be at all social with any other girls or have a friendly conversation with them.

/s

Reply 7

OP

Original post by Underscore__

More people criticising a system they have no knowledge of.

Posted from TSR Mobile

What? I do have knowledge of the criminal justice system and therefore I criticise it's leniency.

Reply 8

the bear

the offender has been deeply affected, as he told the court:

In a letter read to court, Timon said: "There is not a single day that I don't think of Oliver, his friends and family and the devastating effects my action has caused."

Reply 9

Dodgypirate

6

6 years?!

He deserves a life-sentence...

This is absurd.

Reply 10

joey11223

Tbh despite my usual wanting of harsher punishments for a lot of crimes, scenarios like this to trouble me slightly. When you have these "one punch" killings, the perpetrators intent was clearly not to kill and the result destroys both their life's. If you're out in town and you have a disagreement, lets say someone keeps getting in your face and you push them away, they trip, fall, land awkwardly, end up dying due to a brain injury. People not knowing the exact circumstances, as would happen in a thread like this, would label you a murderer, you deserve life, deserve to die even. For certain crimes an eye for en eye appeals to me, but not here really. So you give him 6 years, or you give 26...what do you actually gain by locking this guy up for another 20? I mean fair enough if he'd boasted about it and I suppose I'm taking his statement at face value, but you'd be totally traumatized yourself if you got into a small bust up and someone ended up dying. He;s future's ****ed anyway, this 6 year sentence then restorative justice seems more appropriate.

Reply 11

Original post by karl pilkington

What? I do have knowledge of the criminal justice system and therefore I criticise it's leniency.

www.businessinsider.com/report-says-long-sentences-dont-deter-crime-2014-5?IR=T
www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2016/03/criminal-justice
www.sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Deterrence-in-Criminal-Justice.pdf

Locking people up and throwing away the key is idiotic yet so many people in this country think we should be doing exactly that

Original post by Dodgypirate

6 years?!

He deserves a life-sentence...

This is absurd.

Case and point.

Someone should spend the rest of their life in jail for accidentally killing someone? I bet that'll go a long way toward cutting crime.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 12

Dodgypirate

6

Original post by Underscore__

Case and point.

Someone should spend the rest of their life in jail for accidentally killing someone? I bet that'll go a long way toward cutting crime.

Manslaughter is eligible for sentencing up to life in prison. The sentence depends on a variety of factors from the defendant's past and the particulars of the case.

In this situation, the assailant punched the victim in an unprovoked attack leading to the latter's death.

Questions should be asked about the assailants past, whether he has partaken in other similar occurrences (albeit not killing another). However, I'm sure these were raised during the process.

The assailant is clearly a thug who poses a high threat to other members of the public.

It'd be interesting to know what his reasoning behind literally beating the life out of some innocent man.

Reply 13

OP

Original post by Underscore__

www.businessinsider.com/report-says-long-sentences-dont-deter-crime-2014-5?IR=T
www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2016/03/criminal-justice
www.sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Deterrence-in-Criminal-Justice.pdf

Locking people up and throwing away the key is idiotic yet so many people in this country think we should be doing exactly that

Case and point.

Someone should spend the rest of their life in jail for accidentally killing someone? I bet that'll go a long way toward cutting crime.

Each article you cited focuses on deterring crime. In my view justice for the victim is important. Also the attack was unprovoked the defendant knew he was likely to knock him out therefore he deserves much longer, manslaughter can get you a life sentence.

Reply 14

Original post by karl pilkington

Each article you cited focuses on deterring crime. In my view justice for the victim is important. Also the attack was unprovoked the defendant knew he was likely to knock him out therefore he deserves much longer, manslaughter can get you a life sentence.

The purpose of the criminal justice system isn't please individuals, its there to do the best for society as a whole. 'Justice for the victim' is such a loose and ambiguous term that courts could never focus on that.

I would hardly say he knew he was 'likely' to knock the victim out; people punch others all the time, most of the time it leads to nothing. Even if we suppose he knew his punch was likely to knock the victim out, there's a significant difference between knocking someone out and killing them. The court was satisfied that there was no intent to cause any harm beyond ABH thus his sentence is appropriate.

Original post by Dodgypirate

Manslaughter is eligible for sentencing up to life in prison. The sentence depends on a variety of factors from the defendant's past and the particulars of the case.

In this situation, the assailant punched the victim in an unprovoked attack leading to the latter's death.

Yes, he intended to punch victim and hurt him. Unfortunately he killed someone but intent is hugely significant.

Original post by Dodgypirate

Questions should be asked about the assailants past, whether he has partaken in other similar occurrences (albeit not killing another). However, I'm sure these were raised during the process.

The assailant is clearly a thug who poses a high threat to other members of the public.

He could very easily have had his wake up call from this. He expressed remorse and I think that it's quite likely he won't pose a threat upon a release. All of this would have been factored into sentencing.

Original post by Dodgypirate

It'd be interesting to know what his reasoning behind literally beating the life out of some innocent man.

He didn't literally 'beat the life out of some innocent man', he hit him once. There's nothing to suggest that he intended to any significant harm.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 15

OP

Original post by Underscore__

The purpose of the criminal justice system isn't please individuals, its there to do the best for society as a whole. 'Justice for the victim' is such a loose and ambiguous term that courts could never focus on that.

I would hardly say he knew he was 'likely' to knock the victim out; people punch others all the time, most of the time it leads to nothing. Even if we suppose he knew his punch was likely to knock the victim out, there's a significant difference between knocking someone out and killing them. The court was satisfied that there was no intent to cause any harm beyond ABH thus his sentence is appropriate.

Yes, he intended to punch victim and hurt him. Unfortunately he killed someone but intent is hugely significant.

He could very easily have had his wake up call from this. He expressed remorse and I think that it's quite likely he won't pose a threat upon a release. All of this would have been factored into sentencing.

He didn't literally 'beat the life out of some innocent man', he hit him once. There's nothing to suggest that he intended to any significant harm.

Posted from TSR Mobile

He admitted himself that he told the victim he was gonna knock him out. The attack was unprovoked there is no need to prove intent for a manslaughter case. He could have got life for manslaughter. Also justice is a fairly simple concept it involves fairness and paying back for a crime you have committed. He is ultimately responsible for the persons death by attacking someone for no reason with the intent of knocking them out.

Reply 16

Original post by karl pilkington

He admitted himself that he told the victim he was gonna knock him out.

1. People say that all the time but don't intend actually do what a doctor would define as being knocked out.
2. How do you know which definition of knocked out he meant? A knockout in boxing doesn't mean a person has been knocked unconscious.

Original post by karl pilkington

The attack was unprovoked there is no need to prove intent for a manslaughter case.

But if the court found that he intended to commit harm beyond ABH he would have been found guilty of murder. Intent is important in terms of how we treat people hence why murder is the most serious of the homicide offences.

Original post by karl pilkington

He could have got life for manslaughter.

That almost never happens, I can't think of a case in which it has happened.

Original post by karl pilkington

Also justice is a fairly simple concept it involves fairness and paying back for a crime you have committed.

In what way is spending time in a prison cell paying anything back? There's no way to pay a family back for losing someone.

Original post by karl pilkington

He is ultimately responsible for the persons death by attacking someone for no reason with the intent of knocking them out.

And that's why he's been sentenced to six years in jail which is, proportionality, quite a long sentence for a one punch killer.
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10663783/One-punch-killers-receive-average-sentences-of-less-than-four-years.html

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 17

Sabertooth

"Significant risk to the public"
"Six years"

Reply 18

Fusion

The sentence seems reasonable when you weigh up the actual events that took place. It was tragic and unfortunate.

Reply 19

OP