Originally Posted by
melmothtw
All good points well made, but a British court heard all the evidence and determined the verdict. For all you say about the GPMG's design flaws, this soldier (by his own admission) lined a civilian up in his sights and pulled the trigger - that's not a negligent discharge. The judge did not believe the soldier's account that it was an accident, and without hearing all the evidence I'm not going to second guess them.
I do have some sympathy for the 'passage of time' argument, but would we apply that to other historical offences committed elsewhere in the world - the Holocaust, for example. "He was only a camp guard, he took orders from Himmler, who is now dead and cannot speak in his defence" (before anyone says it, no I am not comparing the British Army in NI to the SS, I am just taking the 'passage of time' argument to its logical conclusion), or Mai Lai, or Srebrenica, or what is happening in Ukraine today?? Also, the immediate family of Aidan McAnespie are still alive, and require justice just the same as if it was yours or my father/son/brother/uncle/friend who was shot dead in the street.
I wonder if this may be an example of the key difference between the verdict and the sentence (which I don't think has been pronounced, yet)?
The verdict will have been predicated on the facts of the incident, and whether or not this young soldier should or should not have behaved as he did. The sentence will, presumably (and I do not know the exact details of how it is determined) take into account the passage of time, any failings in the chain of command, training, the weapon involved, etc. There have been several cases where people have been found guilty of, for example, helping someone terminally ill die, which I believe may be classed as manslaughter, but where the sentence had been non-custodial.
I don't believe there is any leeway in the UK justice system when it comes to pronouncing a verdict, but there does seem to be a lot of leeway when it comes to sentencing, it seems.