Student urinates on war memorial, faces jail

[d_24]

"A student who was pictured urinating over a war memorial has been warned that he could face jail after pleading guilty to outraging public decency."



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/south_yorkshire/8342191.stm

I thought this would interest The Sinner, as a breeding ground for the odd unabashed conservative and as a community of students occasionally fond of traipsing the streets drunk. Here is a young man who after downing a bottle of whiskey went to a drinking session organised by Carnage UK, a student event organiser, and blind drunk went home pausing to piss on a war memorial. Someone snapped a pic, maybe understandably the student doesn't remember anything in the morning, and now he's in trouble.

While it is undoubtedly offensive should he be jailed?

[munchingfoo]

There are a growing number of politicians now who are arguing that jail should just be for those who are a danger to society, or for those who have shown that other methods of punishment do not work for them.

I pretty much back this camp. There are far more sensible and effective punishments available to be used in this case.

The fact that he was drunk should not be considered when deciding on the punishment. We are equally responsible for our actions whilst sober and inebriated (unless the alcohol was forced onto him).

[Gubbins]

The fact that he was drunk should not be considered when deciding on the punishment. We are equally responsible for our actions whilst sober and inebriated (unless the alcohol was forced onto him).

Is that strictly true? Speaking purely as someone with the legal knowledge of a stuffed gerbil, is can insobriety not be used for grounds of diminished responsibility? Voluntary dimished responsibility, admittedly, which one should also be held liable for, but dimished responsibility nonetheless.

To take a parallel, but slightly different example, would you give the same sentence to a lorry driver who killed someone while drink-driving as one who fell asleep at the wheel? Both could knowingly have been prevented by the driver, but neither is malicious. How about a driver that was drunk, and one who purposefully ran over someone? Which would get the heavier sentence?

I don't know if the student in question urinated on the monument because it was a monument, or just a convenient place to have a pee (i.e. it didn't register with him that it was a monument). If it was the latter, should the punishment be lighter? (I'm not really making a point - just posing an ethical question!)

[RedCelt69]

(I'm not really making a point - just posing an ethical question!)

Well, ethically speaking, no harm - no foul.

A piece of concrete was pissed on. In the morning, little would have been left of the evidence. The next time it rained, all of the evidence would have been washed away. The only outrage was caused by people knowing about it <waves at the media> not the action itself. If a dog had cocked its leg against the monument, would it have been frog-marched (dog-marched) down to the local nick?

The guy was drunk. AFAIK he wasn't an anti-war protestor... nor intentionally dishonouring the lives of those being commemorated.

Storm in a teacup.

[bdw]

The fact that he was drunk should not be considered when deciding on the punishment. We are equally responsible for our actions whilst sober and inebriated (unless the alcohol was forced onto him).

Is that strictly true? Speaking purely as someone with the legal knowledge of a stuffed gerbil, is can insobriety not be used for grounds of diminished responsibility? Voluntary dimished responsibility, admittedly, which one should also be held liable for, but dimished responsibility nonetheless.

Foo has it (certainly with respect to the law in E&W). The case that is often cited with respect to his exception relates to a defence successfully raised against a manslaughter charge for causing death while drunk driving. It was proved that the defendant had been intoxicated against his will when he ate some cake that had been heavily laced with booze at a Xmas party, having previously sought assurances from the hosts that the confectionary was alcohol-free.

To take a parallel, but slightly different example, would you give the same sentence to a lorry driver who killed someone while drink-driving as one who fell asleep at the wheel? Both could knowingly have been prevented by the driver, but neither is malicious. How about a driver that was drunk, and one who purposefully ran over someone? Which would get the heavier sentence?

1. Both would be charged with manslaughter in E&W (subject to confirmation of the cause for the second driver falling asleep). The length of the sentence handed down would obviously depend upon the specific facts of each case and the discretion available to the judge in setting the tariff. From memory, judicial discretion as to tariff has been steadily eroded in respect of manslaughter offences over the last few years. As a rule, drink driving offenders get the book thrown at them with greater vim than those falling asleep at the wheel. Consultations are underway to rework these manslaughter offences over the next few years, with a view to aligning the E&W system to the US model of type 1 and type 2 manslaughter, which is an eminently sensible move in my opinion.

2. It comes down to intent of the commissioner. One intended to cause serious injury, the other was drunk but may not have intended to cause the offence.if you are confident of proving a high level of intent underlying the physical aspect of the offence, you can charge the suspect with an offence further up the tariff scale.

I don't know if the student in question urinated on the monument because it was a monument, or just a convenient place to have a pee (i.e. it didn't register with him that it was a monument). If it was the latter, should the punishment be lighter? (I'm not really making a point - just posing an ethical question!)

The kid studies sport management at Sheffield - has he not suffered enough already?

[Haunted]

We are equally responsible for our actions whilst sober and inebriated

Unless of course you are a female consenting to sex.

[RedCelt69]

We are equally responsible for our actions whilst sober and inebriated

Unless of course you are a female consenting to sex.

Uhm... why differentiate gender? Date rape of men also happens - whether heterosexual or homosexual.

[Haunted]

Uhm... why differentiate gender? Date rape of men also happens - whether heterosexual or homosexual.

Nothing to do with date rape

[RedCelt69]

Uhm... why differentiate gender? Date rape of men also happens - whether heterosexual or homosexual.

Nothing to do with date rape

Nothing to do with gender, regardless.

[Haunted]

Nothing to do with gender, regardless.

My entire point is that it has everything to do with gender. If a woman consents to sex whilst inebriated, it is generally presumed that she was not responsible for her actions and the person she consented with is, therefore, a rapist. This is of course in stark contradiction to the idea that you are still responsible for your actions when willingly inebriated.

[RedCelt69]

Nothing to do with gender, regardless.

My entire point is that it has everything to do with gender. If a woman consents to sex whilst inebriated, it is generally presumed that she was not responsible for her actions and the person she consented with is, therefore, a rapist. This is of course in stark contradiction to the idea that you are still responsible for your actions when willingly inebriated.

OK. You've lost me. Why does the same not apply to men?

[Haunted]

You've lost me. Why does the same not apply to men?

I don't even pretend to know why.

[dac]

If a woman consents to sex whilst inebriated, it is generally presumed that she was not responsible for her actions and the person she consented with is, therefore, a rapist.

Is this really the case? I thought a big reason most rape charges often don't result in conviction was because the girl was drunk, therefore in the jury's eyes she may have consented at the time.

[munchingfoo]

It's a new law being considered.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/arti ... ictions.do

[LonelyPilgrim]

Re: the original question.

Jail serves no purpose here. No one benefits. It costs the state, doesn't undo the disrespect (and it is disrespectful, intentional or not), and isn't likely to stop the chap from getting drunk ever again.

That said, the man should be punished. I would suggest community service... perhaps giving the monument a complete cleaning.

[Gubbins]

That said, the man should be punished. I would suggest community service... perhaps giving the monument a complete cleaning.

I agree. I think the judge was just trying to give him a bit of a scare (which probably worked!). I think working (as anonymously as possible) in a veterans' home might be more appropriate.

[donpablo]

That said, the man should be punished. I would suggest community service... perhaps giving the monument a complete cleaning.

I agree. I think the judge was just trying to give him a bit of a scare (which probably worked!). I think working (as anonymously as possible) in a veterans' home might be more appropriate.

Seems like he already gave it a good clean *boom boom*.

Too many people reading too much into it. The guy was clearly that far gone it was probably border line between the reaction he is generally getting now and that if he had actually died from alcohol poisoning. He would have been made out to be the bright popular saint as per.

Obviously the judge is trying to just make an example out of him becos the media got everyone involved and in a frenzy, no doubt the result of a slow newsweek. But what a waste of god damn money and time. The promotion company should be getting the flak, those are the idiots that generally like to say they promote sensible drinking but end up causing all this nuisance in towns and city centres. The gits are quick to dupe impressionable young people out of their money and then distance themselves when they send their punters over the line.