Todays youth

[carter]

This is a absolute travesty of justice.
Yes, another example of tolerance being taken to an illogical and intolerable extreme.

There do not appear to be any mitigating circumstances.
Why wasn't the perpetrator of this unprovoked assault at least assigned reponsibility for the medical bills and cost of health care for the victim?
At best, why wasn't he confined to an asylum for the criminally insane?
Biblically speaking, what if the perpetrator were to lose an eye as well?

Who will his next victim be, an elderly female?

It is up to the citizens of the nation to insure that standards of basic human dignity and behavior prevail.

 

[Moodle]

It's not the fuzzy-bunny-happy-make-believe-world that some bleeding hearts would like to live in, but in the really-real world the right of innocent people to not be at risk from a proven offender (whatever the cause of his offense) should take precedence over fantasies of "everybody playing nice together".

Apologies if this is straying into too-political zone, but I don't think anyone is arguing that this guy should be out on the streets, whether we're bleeding-hearts or not--as far as I can tell, the question is what level and type of supervision he should be under. As far as my own opinion, he's committed a violent crime, so I think he should be in custody, but if he is mentally ill as well, ideally it should be in a facility designed to deal with mentally disturbed prisoners--both for his own safety, and for the safety of the prison employees who would otherwise be dealing with him.

Of course, all of these hypotheticals probably don't amount to much, since I don't think the prison system as-is is equipped to deal with all the normal prisoners we have, much less ones with more severe medical needs--but that's definitely too far into politics, so I'll leave it be.

 

[carebear]

I wouldn't point the finger at anyone here.

I was referring to the mention at the end of the Skye article that this isn't his first "assault causing grievous harm". That's likely a previous maiming.

Somebody let him out for that one. There is a certain amount of moral responsibility for this crime with both the "system" and those voters who elected the people who allowed the system to get this bad.

Now he's going back into what is most likely a halfway house where he will have to take his medicine... until he walks away again, an at least 2-time felony assailant, 3 months later.

 

[Salv]

I wouldn't point the finger at anyone here.

I was referring to the mention at the end of the Skye article that this isn't his first "assault causing grievous harm". That's likely a previous maiming.

Somebody let him out for that one. There is a certain amount of moral responsibility for this crime with both the "system" and those voters who elected the people who allowed the system to get this bad.

Now he's going back into what is most likely a halfway house where he will have to take his medicine... until he walks away again, an at least 2-time felony assailant, 3 months later.

I think you have misread the Sky report. The attack took place in December last year, for which Gordon was arrested in January of this year. At the subsequent trial for the December assault - some time between January and now - he was found guilty of causing grievous bodily harm. He was not sentenced at that 'earlier' trial, and his sentencing has just been announced.

None of the reports linked here, and none of the other online reports from the UK tabloid press (always more than happy to bring up past criminal activity) mention any previous assaults by Gordon. If he did have previous convictions for assault I can pretty much guarantee that the press would highlight them to demonstrate how dangerous this man is, and how useless the criminal justice is. They would be drawing exactly the same conclusions as you have, and demonstrating exactly the same sense of outrage. The fact that they are not strongly implies that Gordon has no previous history of violent assault.

 

[PADDY]

Two years in a youth detention centre for killing a pensioner...

You read that right!

I've just recently read this in a UK national newspaper. Two 'juveniles' (cannot be publicly named because the law protects their identity as they are too young[huh] ) killed a pensioner who was teaching his grandson how to play cricket.

They started throwing stones and half bricks at him. Half a brick hit him on the side of the head, and one was heard shouting, "I think I got him!!"

This stoning triggerred a massive coronary, and the pensioner collapsed and died.

The two 'boys,' were sentenced to two years in a 'detention centre' (and no doubt will be released well before hand on grounds of good behaviour!).

The pensioner, sadly died.

Where's the justice here? So if this happened in 'your country/state' what might these boys be expecting from the judiciary?