You be the judge (more sentencing)

[anglolawyer]

I wouldn't, however, suggest that the UK look toward the US as an example in this regard. The poor in this country are prosecuted more often and punished more severely than the wealthy, or even the comfortable.

ETA: Relatively old statistics used in the link, and if there have been big changes I'd be interested in hearing about them.

There was an American guy in a radio discussion about living in Britain. This was maybe 20 or 30 years ago. He said violence in Britain was random and irrational. You might get punched in the face for fun at the pub or in the street whereas in the States violence was more likely to be economic as in, give me your wallet. He said he felt safer in the States.

 

[Craig4]

I can't see anything less than 2 years for the bouncer. He set another person on fire inflicting intense pain and leaving the victim disfigured. If he hadn't intended to light the costume on fire, I'm puzzled as to why he used a lighter to set it alight.

For the housewives, 15 years. This is an ongoing, major criminal enterprise, not a few house wives selling some dime bags on the side.

 

[Craig4]

I can't see anything less than 2 years for the bouncer. He set another person on fire inflicting intense pain and leaving the victim disfigured. If he hadn't intended to light the costume on fire, I'm puzzled as to why he used a lighter to set it alight.

For the housewives, 15 years. This is an ongoing, major criminal enterprise, not a few house wives selling some dime bags on the side.

 

[GlennB]

I think that it is a reasonably foreseeable result (pretend to set fire to something and it catches fire). Such a cavalier disregard for another person's safety should, when it results in easily predictable injuries, be punished severely.

There's where I disagree. We live in an age of health+safety™ where you can't rent out a flat unless the furniture is certified 'safe' and the electrics examined and passed as tickety-boo by a pro. Clothes too. OK, in this case these were hardly 'clothes' in the normal sense but from my pov it's a silly prank that went horribly wrong.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

I can imagine the guy thinking he could set it alight, but then easily put it out. Still an incredibly stupid and dangerous thing to do, but I do think intent should be taken into consideration to some extent.

 

[anglolawyer]

There is a doctrine of 'presumed intent'. You are presumed to intend the ordinary and natural consequences of your acts. I think if you set fire to someone it is an ordinary and natural consequence that they catch fire and you should be presumed to have intended that consequence and sentenced accordingly.

 

[GlennB]

There is a doctrine of 'presumed intent'. You are presumed to intend the ordinary and natural consequences of your acts. I think if you set fire to someone it is an ordinary and natural consequence that they catch fire and you should be presumed to have intended that consequence and sentenced accordingly.

Cotton wool attached with hair-spray residue? Who even knows the hair spray is there and it's a conflagration-in-waiting?

 

[Giz]

There's where I disagree. We live in an age of health+safety™ where you can't rent out a flat unless the furniture is certified 'safe' and the electrics examined and passed as tickety-boo by a pro. Clothes too. OK, in this case these were hardly 'clothes' in the normal sense but from my pov it's a silly prank that went horribly wrong.

Oh, there are plenty of terrible stories about "elf and safety gawn mad!" but I don't think that severely punishing a bloke who tried to set someone on fire as a joke and ended up severely injuring them when they caught fire would count as one of them.

Seriously, saying "do not try to set people on fire, even as a joke" is not health and safety gone mad. (Similarly, if someone pointed a gun at someone as a joke and it 'went off' causing serious injury or death, I would similarly expect something more than 18 months as a sentence... even if they didn't have the 'intent' to do that).

 

[Babbylonian]

Cotton wool attached with hair-spray residue? Who even knows the hair spray is there and it's a conflagration-in-waiting?

No. I hate to say it but..."Just, no."

Fire is dangerous. Everyone over age 2 knows that. I'm sure that in the UK, just as in the US, children are told at their earliest ages, "Don't play with fire." I'm just as certain that virtually every child finds themselves painfully burned (and even a very minor burn hurts like crazy) at least once.

Thus, any adult who knowingly plays with fire, especially as a prank/joke on someone else, has to be well aware that the consequences can vary from short-term pain to death and that fire can quickly get out of control.

 

[mgidm86]

Cotton wool attached with hair-spray residue? Who even knows the hair spray is there and it's a conflagration-in-waiting?

Right now, I'm thinking that the act of lighting someone on fire "just a little bit" is just as bad as "a lot".

Seriously, lighting someones clothes on fire can be an oops?

 

[Professor Yaffle]

While I wouldn't want an idiot who burnt someone badly, even though he didn't mean to, to be let off particularly lightly; I wouldn't want him sentenced the same as someone who had deliberately burnt someone.

 

[mgidm86]

I'm a bit tired of stupidity being a valid defense. When I was a kid I "sort of" aimed my BB gun at a very small window in my parents shop (rural property with a business on it). The window was far away so I shot the BB really high, figuring there was no way I'd hit it. But I did and it broke.

"I didn't mean to break it! I didn't think I'd hit it!"

"Well you did and now you can buy a new one", which I did.

Same goes with lighting people on fire

 

[mgidm86]

While I wouldn't want an idiot who burnt someone badly, even though he didn't mean to, to be let off particularly lightly; I wouldn't want him sentenced the same as someone who had deliberately burnt someone.

I agree. My guess at the sentence was 3 years.

 

[Beerina]

A. 18 months is reasonable, or whatever for the equivalent of 'attempt to cause great bodily injury less than murder'.

Why should he think a woolly fuzzy sheep costume should burst into flames...like a wooly fuzzy sheep costume (it is its own best analogy!). Please.

If being sarcastic, congrats, you trolled me.

 

[mgidm86]

One more thing - the guy who lit him on fire is a bouncer. Disclaimer: I've managed a nightclub and worked with many bouncers. Some do a great job, others are total thugs.

Now, I know it's difficult to imagine a bouncer actually wanting to hurt someone, but I'd want to know more about the incident, and what led up to it.

Was it, "Hey dude cool costume let me get a better look, it's dark"

or

"I wonder what would happen if I lit a small part of him with my lighter"

or

"Hey, look at the fairy in the sheep costume...watch this...."

Click the link in the OP and look at the photos of this kid on fire.

the Mail

 

[Babbylonian]

I'm a bit tired of stupidity being a valid defense. When I was a kid I "sort of" aimed my BB gun at a very small window in my parents shop (rural property with a business on it). The window was far away so I shot the BB really high, figuring there was no way I'd hit it. But I did and it broke.

"I didn't mean to break it! I didn't think I'd hit it!"

"Well you did and now you can buy a new one", which I did.

Same goes with lighting people on fire

I agree. My guess at the sentence was 3 years.

I'm right there with you.

Person 1: "I got this great new suit. They say it's flame resistant."
Person 2: <Takes out lighter, puts it to the jacket>
Person 1: <Jacket is set on fire, quickly burns itself, the shirt under it, and the skin under that>

Now, while I would support a lawsuit against someone selling a highly flammable suit that was advertised as flame resistant, even in that extreme circumstance I'd still want Person 2 in prison for a couple years for being reckless. Why? Because you don't set things on fire unless they're supposed to be set on fire. Charcoal, wood in a fireplace...heck, even occasionally piles of brush under the proper, legal circumstances.

 

[anglolawyer]

Let's ask the victim's opinion

Mr Collins said he was 'majorly disappointed' with the sentence, and added: 'I feel like what he's done hasn't been taken seriously. If I hadn't managed to get the suit off I could have died, but he'll be out before too long.'

The attitude underlying this assault is very prevalent in England. A sort of casual, offhand violence that spoils many evenings. Still, I asked my SO and she said community service so I basically give up.

 

[Giz]

Still, I asked my SO and she said community service so I basically give up.

My god. If I ever go bad and then get nicked, I want your SO on my jury!

 

[fuelair]

But if you 'glassed' someone you would be doing it 'premeditated' It looks to me like in case A it was a prank that went horribly wrong, there was no malice or premeditation.

Although the injury was nasty the perp didn't set out with the intention of causing the injury.

Giving someone a hot foot is a prank. Applying fire to their clothing - especially fine threaded cotton balls (which are great for tinder in the woods absent a blow-torch or dryer lint (the best!!)) is certain to cause a blaze up adhesive or not (besides, the carrier in the adhesive would have dried up and not been particularly involved - while the space between the threads of cotton in the cotton balls left massive room for fire accelerating air). If you can't think of ways something can go wrong - or are not sure, do not do it!!!!!

 

[Craig4]

While I wouldn't want an idiot who burnt someone badly, even though he didn't mean to, to be let off particularly lightly; I wouldn't want him sentenced the same as someone who had deliberately burnt someone.

Yeah. If the defendant had been deliberately torturing the kid, I'd say send him away until he's too old and arthritic to use a lighter. Someone like that doesn't need to be out interacting with the public. For stupid prank gone wrong, I can live with 18 months.