" Torment " !

It is painful to feel the torment that must run through parents minds when the person responsible for the senseless killing of their son is allowed to plead guilty to a lesser crime than "Murder" !

Thomas Kelly ( 18 ) was walking through King's Cross with his girlfriend when for no reason Kieran Loveridge ( 19 ) walked up and " king hit " him, causing him to fall to the pavement and inflict brain damage when his head hit the concrete.  This was a completely unprovoked attack.

The court was told that on this night in question, Loveridge committed four similar attacks - one prior to the blow to Kelly's head - and two afterwards to  totally innocent people.   There is no explanation of why this happened.  It seems that Loveridge simply felt like assaulting people at random - and did so.  It is likely that alcohol was involved.

Thomas Kelly was taken to hospital and efforts were made to save his life, but the damage was beyond help and his life support was finally turned off. His attacker was identified days later, arrested and has now had a charge of murder downgraded to " manslaughter " - to which he has pleaded " guilty ".

Unfortunately, the prosecution's definition of the crime as " manslaughter " is correct.   In the eyes of the law, " murder " involves the intention to cause a victim's death. The fact that Loveridge delivered four such blows during his rampage indicates a desire to cause pain, but three of the victims survived and the death of Thomas Kelly was not directly caused by the blow, but as a result of the fall that followed.   It would be hard to convince a court that Loveridge intended to kill his victim when he delivered that blow.

The fact that someone died because of an unprovoked assault is clear definition that a serious crime occurred.   In reality. there will probably be little difference in the custodial outcome between " murder " and " manslaughter " when it comes  to " time served " !

Theoretically, murder could bring a " life " sentence - and the maximum term for manslaughter is twenty-five years.   These days it seems that only exceptionally brutal and premeditated murders get more than a twenty year sentence, and few actually serve that full term.

If this sentence follows the usual pattern, whatever the judge hands down will be appealed.   The legal profession has made appeals an art form and in many cases they result in the sentence being substantially reduced.  Such a successful outcome usually depends on the quality of counsel  retained to present the appeal - and that depends on the depth of defence funds that can be applied to the case.

The sad thing is that the victims family have no part in these areas of decision making.   That is all decided in the arcane world of the people who practice law and the judiciary which presides over the court system.   At best, the bereaved may be allowed to read a statement outlining the extent of their loss to the court.

Such is the law in this modern age.   We have renounced the " an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth " concept, and replaced it with supposed compassion for the rehabilitation of the offender.    The onus of interest has passed from the fate of the victim to the hopeful rehabilitation of the offender.   The victim's loved ones have little inclusion in the workings of this process.

Many would argue that the pendulum of justice has swung too far in the wrong direction.   When this country was founded, a convicted person could be transported for life for stealing a loaf of bread to appease starvation.   Capital punishment was the option for a broad listing of crimes.

Today, we bend over backwards to dispense mercy and we are more likely to serve time for a financial offence than for ending someones life.   It is disheartening for the victims families - and poses no real deterrent to the type of behaviour that can lead to the death of others.