From what i've been gathering the main argument/motivation being tossed around by "your side" for it being "ok" to sentence the man to such a ridiculous sentence has been that it's ok because the victim was old and therefore helpless.
My examples pointed out that the same amount of helplessness happens to several different types of victim regardless of age.
Assault is assault. At the end of the day it's still a person attacking another regardless of who it is as the helpless threshhold gets passed the second the attacker is winning. If the attacker loses does that mean they deserve a lesser sentence? They had the exact same intent to do the exact same crime and as such deserve the same exact punishment. Whether the attacker won of not is inconsequential except to the victim and/or any damages incurred for medical expenses.
In the end advocating extra years being added to a sentence(over the maximum for the proper charges for the case) simply because you dislike the crime is the same as ignoring that there are already "fair" sentences for the crime in place that can be given.
See this is where I strongly disagree.
Assault is not Assault.
1: a woman punching a man leaving a mere scratch because he called her a C**T
2: a woman punching a man to the point of near death for calling her a C**T
which is worse? You can slap the same name on the actions sure, but when the nature, end result and long term effects differ so significantly as does the varibles then no Assault is not Assualt. And in fact they are 2 very different situtions that call for 2 very different and carefully thought out punishments.