In Law there is a great principal called the 'Eggshell head'. This Law means that if you hit someone on the head and because of a weak skull they suffer injury disproportionate to the average individual experiencing the same blow, the offender is still responsible for the more serious outcome. This Law applys to many circumstances and areas of Law.

However, yesterday an appeal overturned an 'Eggshell head' ruling. Please have a look at the link below as this is a very interesting case. I think this case highlights some deep moral/law issues and I have mixed views on the ruling. However at the end of the day I believe the decision should not have been overturned. What are your views?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_yorkshire/4649898.stm

Wow. Looks like Britain has weak judges just as we have here in Canada. Talk about insufficient sentences! That 'Eggshell Head' principle is ridiculous; what should be considered in violent cases is the intent and the outcome. Lack of knowledge cannot, in my opinion, weaken one's responsibility for one's actions.

The girl in the BBC Story died because she had a heart condition. The attackers are guilty of assualt not murder or manslaughter.

The girl in the BBC Story died because she had a heart condition. The attackers are guilty of assualt not murder or manslaughter.

But she would still be alive if that assult did not take place. Surely that means the attackers are responsible for her death?

Yes, they are partly responsible for her death.

They didn't intend to kill her and couldn't have know about her condition. So are, as I said before only guilty of assualt.

Your right they did not intend to kill her that was why they were orginally convicted of manslaughter.

MANSLAUGHTER - The unlawful killing of a human being without malice or premeditation, either express or implied; distinguished from murder, which requires malicious intent.

You also seem to forget that the level of intent can be allowed for in the sentance given for the crime. The sentance in this case did reflected the distance between intent and outcome.

Hi Everyone,

I think overturning the 'eggshell head' is playing in dangerous ground. Everyone should take responsibility for their actions and the consequences of their actions, even if those consequences were not intended. Further, this need for taking responsibility for one's own actions and their consequences should be reflected in the law. Once one eggshell head ruling is overturned, another one will be . . . and so on. And then where is the line drawn?

I understand that people can be punished for years because of consequences they did not intend, but nevertheless, it happened and they need to accept that and take responsibility for it. If they don't and if the law doesn't see that justice is done, then it is working in favour of the perpertrator rather than the victim or the victim's family. While the eggshell head can be overturned, there is hope for the perpertrator and injustice to the victim.

Just a few initial thoughts, but I am sure there is much more to this than I know about or can comment on.

Thanks for getting me thinking about something outside my usual scope of knowledge :)

Nicola