Tougher Sentencing for Manslaughter

The fact that a judges hands’ are tied when sentencing criminals in manslaughter cases is unacceptable as the exact definition, situations and people involved vary far too much for a blanket set of guidelines as is in place now.

In the early hours of 17th of October 2010 Nathan Bagley was fatally attacked outside of a bar in Sheffield. Incidents like this are not uncommon, which is understandable when copious amounts of alcohol have been consumed and large numbers of people are kicked out of a place at one time. The difference with Nathan’s situation is that this attack was entirely unprovoked. As the sentencing judge told Adam Vincent Stott (the man charged with Nathan’s manslaughter) in the sentencing hearing, there was even an element of premeditation there as Nathan was trying to go home in a taxi and was actually chased out of the taxi by Mr. Stott before the fatal blow was delivered – indicating that Mr. Stott clearly intended to seriously harm Nathan, who did not do so much as raise his arms in self defense.

Mr. Stott was sentenced to 6 years, given 2 years off for turning himself in and pleading guilty at an early stage, and now will be out of prison in less than 2 years if he behaves himself. How can a motiveless, unprovoked attack by a remorseless man with a violent past can result in less than 2 years in prison? There was a case in Sheffield recently where a man was sentenced for fraud and drug dealing and he received a sentence of eight and a half years. I am not trying to compare the actual cases but instead shine some light on what I find to be completely unreasonable – a man who viciously killed another innocent man will be out in a quarter of the time as a man who did not directly harm anyone.

There is a serious flaw in the justice system when criminals are rewarded for acknowledging their guilt. There needs to be a separation between true remorse and calculated remorse. A criminal who knows they are guilty and knows they will not be acquitted will inevitably opt for the early release scheme in order to get a third taken off of their sentence, whether they are actually remorseful or not. I believe it’s the actions of that individual directly after the incident that speak the loudest – not the actions demonstrated after speaking to a solicitor about receiving the lightest sentence.

Mr. Stott should have received a heftier sentence for taking the life of a completely innocent, wonderful and gentle man in this horrific act of violence and at the very least should be required to serve the full 4 years. My greatest fear is that this will inevitably happen again and another family will have to leave the court house in tears as they will also feel like they are being punished by an unduly lenient sentence.

The sentencing laws need to be looked at – particularly the reward system for “remorse” – and criminals should be made to serve their full sentences, not rewarded for good behaviour. They should have had enough sense to behave well before committing their criminal acts – the victims of crime do not get rewarded so why should the perpetrators?