Another "Where`s The Justice" Thread

[Speedy Claire]

As above another of those "Where`s the Justice" threads and sorry but I`ve gotta have a rant.

9 years ago my friends nephew aged 15 was murdered not far from where I live. The murder in itself was bad enough but Michael was tortured brutally for 2 hours during which time attempts were made to cut his ear off, his neck was broken and then he was finally kicked to death. He was murdered by three 16 year olds the "leader" of whom thought Michael was having a relationship with his ex girlfriend. The three lads were each sentenced to life imprisonment.

However my friends sister recently recived a letter saying that one of the boys was being considered for parole and she was invited to attend the hearing at Wellingborough Prison. Allowing victims families to speak at a parole hearing is a new project initiated by the Government in order to "protect the interests of victims in the criminal justice system". My friends sister was the first person in the country to take part in this new project. She was told she could read out a statement at the hearing which she prepared and took with her but once there she was not allowed to read her statement out as "it had not been prepared by a professional" so she basically had to sit in silence!!!!

This boy has now been released from prison today...... I know that there`s people that will say "at 16 he was a kid" but I`m sorry I don`t hold with that arguement. At 16 years of age a person knows right from wrong and what these boys did to my friends nephew was barbaric. Michael didn`t die as a result of a prank gone wrong or something going too far it was planned all along that he was going to be killed. They took with them a cassette player and whilst they tortured him and tried to sever his ear they played "Stuck In The Middle With You" by Stealers Wheel as they wanted to "re-enact" the scene from the film Reservoir of Dogs.

I`m at a loss as to understand how somebody can commit murder, be given a life sentence then be released 9 years later!!!!!!

Where is the justice? i`m a firm believer in a life sentence meaning life in prison but this is just taking the p...

[sv_rory]

this is the exact reason people are taking the law into their own hands

[Davido]

Reading this angers me.

[sv_rory]

Reading this angers me.

it does me too mate. this is why kids nowadays ae little bar stewards its because they are invincable

[Dappa D]

Reading this angers me.

+1

I really feel for your friend

[sv_rory]

that kid whos just got out of prison will probably get murdered because somebody will want revenge even if its not the family

[Speedy Claire]

that kid whos just got out of prison will probably get murdered because somebody will want revenge even if its not the family


He`s been released to a new location and a private address.... the condition of his parole is that he doesn`t set foot into an area with a Liverpool postcode!!!!

So basically we`ll be ok in Liverpool but anyone else living in any other part of the country could fall victim to this lad who`s now only 24 or 25. I`m sorry but to my mind people like him are born evil, they must have a faulty gene in their makeup cos i`ve never known a lad of 16 who`s capable of committing the crime this lad did!

[sv_rory]

its really hard to say who and why this chap has killed somebody. one thing is though no matter what excuses he has he knows its wrong to kill somebody.

i bet if he was all alone he wouldnt of done it. again its this typical thing where they act all tough when there in their groups

[madness]

I know that a lot of people don't agree, but we should have a death penalty.

[yorkie_chris]

Now wait for minimatt to turn up and explain to us all why this guy doesn't need shooting.

[sv_rory]

I know that a lot of people don't agree, but we should have a death penalty.

i totally agree we should, nobody would kill intentionally.

i used to work with a guy a few years back who regularly shoplifted. i confronted him once and said you wouldnt do this in your home contry would you?

he replied no because they will cut my hand off !!

i then asked why he did it in our country, he then replied because i can, and if they catch me they will need proof!

[Lozzo]

I know that a lot of people don't agree, but we should have a death penalty.

+1. The ultimate deterent

[hovis]

we should have a death penalty.
+1

just 9 years in jail, for taking somones life,

its ridiculas

[Kinvig]

+1

just 9 years in jail, for taking somones life,

its ridiculas


I agree that 9 years does sound insufficient...but the DEATH PENALTY?????

FFS.


*cough* Colin Stagg *cough*

[sv_rory]

I agree that 9 years does sound insufficient...but the DEATH PENALTY?????

FFS.


*cough* Colin Stagg *cough*


you go to saudi and there are market stalls with jewellery everywhere, nobody is stupid enough to steal because they will lose a hand

surely if you run a like for like system with murder it would be the same , all this petty crap with kids stabbing and torturing would stop

[Davido]

Death penalty will never work, because as long as there's just a tiny bit of doubt (and I mean tiny) that the defendant is innocent, then they will not be given the penalty.

But I do agree he needs to be beaten until he needs to breathe through a straw for the rest of his life.

[Kinvig]

you go to saudi and there are market stalls with jewellery everywhere, nobody is stupid enough to steal because they will lose a hand

surely if you run a like for like system with murder it would be the same , all this petty crap with kids stabbing and torturing would stop

i find the saudi system barbaric. If I wanted to live under such a regime, I would emigrate.

And our system is not 100% reliable to ensure only the giutly are punished. A few high profile miscarriages of justice have happened in recent years.

[Davido]

*cough* Derek Bentley *cough*

[hovis]

i find the saudi system barbaric.

.
i agree..........
but it works

[sv_rory]

i can only but agree with you mate

[yorkie_chris]

Doesn't matter. In this case are we presuming the guys guilt due to being convicted by jury?

In which case, whether you want to blow his head off, or assign him a pshrink, 9 years is a joke. In fact, if you were really pi$$ed off at someone, many people would see that as a fair trade. Where's the deterrent there?

[hovis]

In fact, if you were really pi$$ed off at someone, many people would see that as a fair trade. Where's the deterrent there?

i was thinking exactly the same thing, better than fair, in fact

[Sally]

9 Years takes the ****, life should be a set time.
**** this appeals and ****, who cares if they've been good inside, or stayed out of trouble.
9 years, is not enough rehabilitation time for a murderer.
Death penalty, for proved murderer's and paedophiles.
Deserved, fully.

[Kinvig]

Death penalty, for proved murderer's and paedophiles.
Deserved, fully.

*cough* Barry George *cough*

[hovis]

*cough* Barry George *cough*

is he that faggot out of culture club?

[Jase22]

I'd quite like to see the use of neutering for some criminal offences.

[Kinvig]

is he that faggot out of culture club?


now you're homophobic too?

[Speedy Claire]

I personally do agree with the death penalty but only where guilt is proven 100% without a shadow of a doubt. In this particular case I recall that the lads pleaded not guilty then changed their plea.

I`m not sure but I seem to remember reading somewhere that pleading guilty guarantees a lighter sentence? but these lads were all given life!

I`ve not long put the phone down to my friend again and her sister has today received a letter from Justice Secretary Jack Straw. In the letter he apologises for the way her sister was treated at the parole hearing ie. not being allowed to read out her statement.. his apology was something along the lines of "as this is a relatively new process everyone concerned is on a learning curve so it is very important that we make sure that your unfortunate experience is not repeated at future hearings" bit late for her though!!

She also received a further letter informing her that the parole hearing of one of the remaining 2 imprisoned boys has been deferred but the other boys parole hearing will be heard very soon.

Makes me sick to the stomach

[Flamin_Squirrel]

I personally do agree with the death penalty but only where guilt is proven 100% without a shadow of a doubt.

We've been over this. There's no such thing as 100%.

I'd certainly agree 9 years is derisory, but as for the death penalty being the ultimate deterrent, utter utter ********.

[davepreston]

many thing can be said about the barbaricness of of countries who have the death pelenty but may i point out that things get handled a little different where i come from and bear in mind there are many problems bombings and shootings but there is a very real deterant and it does work, drug abuse eg hard drugs are practically nonexestant and 13 to 17 year olds still help old ladies across the road and with there shopping without anyone worrying if there going to be mugged. now a knee capping or ten might be bad for the little scrote that did it but allot more people dont **** about cos they know what will happen. hard swift and without comebacks it sounds to me that these boys could do with a visit from some lads with fuzzy faces on

[Speedy Claire]

We've been over this. There's no such thing as 100%.

I'd certainly agree 9 years is derisory, but as for the death penalty being the ultimate deterrent, utter utter ********.



If a sentence of life in prison meant life in prison then i`m happy to pay a little bit of my taxes each month to keep them there til the day they die. However as life in prison doesn`t mean life in prison and is more of a "know how to pretend you`re sorry and play the system and you`ll be out in 9 years" then why the hell should I have to fund their short stay after they`ve committed such a heinous crime?

Anyways I don`t want to enter a debate on the death penalty etc. My rant is about injustice and how our judicial system is totally disgusting and outdated.

[james160987]

death penalty gets my vote for the absolute worse, but im im honest iwould like to see is real prisons,

i mean fiar enough these cat d and open prsions for re-introducing into soceity, but for the extreme crimes it should be, a small room, with no entertainet and grool, and hard work , not getting sky tv as they think its agaist there human rights not to have it,

[hovis]

there was a documenty on last about san quntin (?) prision in the states, most said they liked it there, and prefered it there than living in the real world

[punyXpress]

In the last few days I posted regarding parole / early release.
Those who permit such gross early releases should themselves be liable to sanctions if / when those they have released early reoffend, as so many do.
That might just make them think what they are doing!

[ArtyLady]

I agree that 9 years does sound insufficient...but the DEATH PENALTY?????

FFS.


*cough* Colin Stagg *cough*

And yet another woman found not guilty today in a re-trial of killing a child in her care. :(

[Speedy Claire]

In the last few days I posted regarding parole / early release.
Those who permit such gross early releases should themselves be liable to sanctions if / when those they have released early reoffend, as so many do.
That might just make them think what they are doing!


An extremely good point

[Luckypants]

9 years for pre-meditated murder and torture? A sick joke. I note that all the trendy liberals are not in this thread telling us how wrong we are to think that this is utter ****e - youi cannot defend the indefensible.

This is EXACTLY the sort of case that make normal law abiding middle of the road folks wonder what the hell is wrong with this country, despair of the justice system, despair of law and order here and get one more step closer to taking matters into their own hands.

In the other thread where the bleeding hearts are telling us how terrible the police were to kill a suspected terrorist, how about they man up, grow a sack and back up the police when they do get it right? And get the wishy washy liberal parole knobends to make life mean life.

Makes me sick.

[ArtyLady]

9 years for pre-meditated murder and torture? A sick joke. [...]
This is EXACTLY the sort of case that make normal law abiding middle of the road folks wonder what the hell is wrong with this country, despair of the justice system, despair of law and order here and get one more step closer to taking matters into their own hands.....



Whilst I disagree with the death penalty because of the many miscarriages of justice that have been made - I agree with you LP, there is no way this cold blooded killer should ever have only been given 9 years :mad:

[northwind]

Doubt anyone's going to disagree that 9 years is too little. it's no short stretch, and the guy's not going to walk out of prison into an easy life with a murder conviction on his CV (not to mention that it was probably the best years of his life down the pan), but for something like this that still doesn't count for much. I wondered at first if maybe the reason he was out was that the blame was going on the other 2, but apparently not either.

The experience at the hearing just rubs salt in the wounds. Not sure what I think about that whole concept, it doesn't really sound like a good idea to me, but that's by the by, it's just kicking her while she's down there. Terrible.

<edit- I'd delete this post now but Luckypants has put a reply up so that would be wrong I think. I didn't explain myself well and I've obviously caused some upset through carelessness. I'm not saying at all that 9 years is enough, just saying that it's also no trivial thing. I still totally agree that it should have been longer, that's not even the average life sentence and the crime was horrendous. What I was getting at is that the guy hasn't gone unpunished, I thought it might help to focus a bit on the price he's paid rather than just on the fact that it's not enough. Small comfort though, if any. Anyway, apologies that it didn't come across right, I should have thought more before posting>

[Luckypants]

Doubt anyone's going to disagree that 9 years is too little. it's no short stretch, and the guy's not going to walk out of prison into an easy life with a murder conviction on his CV (not to mention that it was probably the best years of his life down the pan), but for something like this that still doesn't count for much.

Get a grip! 9 years is NOTHING, no short stretch? for murder and torture? And as for losing the best years of his life..... the guy was 16 at the time of the offence so will be 24-25 now? He has is whole life ahead of himself as a free man, unlike the poor lad whose life he and his accomplices stole.

Life in prison should be life in prison.

[northwind]

I've put an edit in my original post, I obviously made a total mess of it, sorry for that. It didn't come across at all as I meant, I didn't mean to stir the pot more for you, my fault.

[BanannaMan]

http://cenvachristiansportbike.homestead.com/files/motz2.gif
This sort of thing really ticks me off.
9 years is nothing for what this man has done!
Those responsible for letting this rubbage back out on the streets should be on trial themselves.
Mark my words, he'll be back in prision in less than 5 years with more innocent victims left in his wake.

And what an insult to the poor family....:smt093
Here at Christmas time too..
Grrrrrr....Tis' just not right!!!

[Tara]

life should mean life - thats my opinion i think 9 years is too short for murder. i watched a programme last week that talked to Denise Bulger on which was pretty distressing to watch.

not being able to anywhere with a Liverpool postcode doesn't make the pain go away and isn't going to bring her nephew back

i really feel for your friend Claire

[Flamin_Squirrel]

In the other thread where the bleeding hearts are telling us how terrible the police were to kill a suspected terrorist, how about they man up, grow a sack and back up the police when they do get it right? And get the wishy washy liberal parole knobends to make life mean life.

Makes me sick.

Hahaha.

The fact you think the police need backing up for shooting someone (who incidentally wasn't a suspected terrorist), and those that wont do so are 'wishy washy liberals' shows you're utterly utterly clueless.

[madness]

If a sentence of life in prison meant life in prison then i`m happy to pay a little bit of my taxes each month to keep them there til the day they die.

I'm probably going to get slated for this but, I would prefer my taxes to be spent on people who deserve to live and not on some evil b*st*rds. We are paying for 3 meals a day, central heating, sky TV. Criminals are getting these everyday while there are kids sleeping rough on the street at the mercy of pimp, pushers and paedophiles.

I know that miscarriages of justice happen, but with very strict rules and regulation in place the death penalty could work. I think we all know what would happen if a referendum was held on the subject.

[Flamin_Squirrel]

I know that miscarriages of justice happen, but with very strict rules and regulation in place the death penalty could work. I think we all know what would happen if a referendum was held on the subject.

'Work'? How?

It won't save tax payers money and it wont reduce crime either.

[madness]

'Work'? How?

It won't save tax payers money and it wont reduce crime either.

It 'works' in parts of the USA so why not here?

Why wouldn't it save money? It's cheaper to put a sick animal to sleep than pay for long term care. (Analogy)

Why won't it reduce crime? I personally would be more scared of committing a crime if the punishment was more severe.

Common sense really.

[Foey]

It won't save tax payers money


Why, i'd pull the lever for free.

[Lou M]

Claire, I think you're friend needs to start writing. Writing to whoever she can, Jack Straw, local MP, prison service. To stop these other two getting parole. Write every week, get her friends to write, start a campaign.
It might not do any good, but at least then her side would be heard, not like the mess made at the first parole board.

Life for a life. Not 9 years.

[keithd]

I know that a lot of people don't agree, but we should have a death penalty.

to act as a deterant the way it does in America?

'fraid it doesn't work, as has been discussed on here a few times.

this particular case sucks big hairy's, 9 years is completely pitiful and outrageous. of the 3 people involved did he show the most remorse? has he served his time the "right way", was he least involved? i do not know the answers to any of these questions as none of us do, and even if we were to find them out it would not help claires friend not one iota. i can merely play devils advocate as to the reasons he was let out early.

there are measures in place which allow appeals of sentences laid down to guilty parties, why can't there be a reverse appeal?

[Flamin_Squirrel]

It 'works' in parts of the USA so why not here?

Why wouldn't it save money? It's cheaper to put a sick animal to sleep than pay for long term care. (Analogy)

Why won't it reduce crime? I personally would be more scared of committing a crime if the punishment was more severe.

Common sense really.

It doesn't work at all in the US - crime there is far worse than here.

It doesn't save money, at least if you want a system with the strict rules and regulations as you describe. Firstly, because those sentanced to death spend a long time on death row anyway. Secondly, those sentanced to death have many chances to appeal their sentance, which means lots and lots of time going through court. Very very expensive.

It's academic anyway, even if it did save a bit of money. Anyone who thinks people should be killed off for reasons of expediency and money saving needs to get their head checked.

[Luckypants]

Hahaha.

The fact you think the police need backing up for shooting someone (who incidentally wasn't a suspected terrorist), and those that wont do so are 'wishy washy liberals' shows you're utterly utterly clueless.

Perhaps you should read that again. I do not think the police need backing up for shooting anyone where the rules were not followed.

What I AM saying is that in cases like this where the police have the right men and have built a case that proves these animals guilty (to the point where they changed plea in the trial to guilty), society and the justice system should back up the police with sentences that reflect the gravity of the crime. Wishy washy liberal parole boards that let the worst criminals out at the earliest opportunity undermine folk's confidence in the justice system as much as lenient sentencing by judges.

[hovis]

Doubt anyone's going to disagree that 9 years is too little. it's no short stretch, and the guy's not going to walk out of prison into an easy life with a murder conviction on his CV

i expect he will be given a new identity, so there will be no mention of this on his cv

[timwilky]

There is one saving grace in all of this, he will be out on licence which means he can be recalled to jail at any time, that can be one hell of a deterrent. simply the suspicion he may be about to breach a parole condition or commit even the slightest crime and back he goes.

Now lets face it, since 16 to 24 he has done nothing, obviously been a model prisoner but qualified to do nothing. So there he is probably jobless, on benefits and forced away from the only home/people he knows.

The chances he is going to commit some crime are high and back he then goes

[Miss Alpinestarhero]

That is disgusting...

Life sentance should indeed mean life.

Maria

[Speedy Claire]

Now lets face it, since 16 to 24 he has done nothing, obviously been a model prisoner but qualified to do nothing. So there he is probably jobless, on benefits and forced away from the only home/people he knows.

The chances he is going to commit some crime are high and back he then goes

Lets hope you`re right Tim and he`s very soon back inside but as for being qualified to do nothing I have to disagree. Whilst in what was probably an excuse for a prison but was more like a "secure unit" where he was free to play on his x box and was being bought the latest clothes and trainers etc. he did in fact learn a trade. He apparantly did an apprenticeship.. in what I don`t know but is now a qualified mechanic/joiner/plumber/electrician or whatever and does actually have a job to go to.

Not bad for someone who committed such a terrible crime to spend such a short period learing a trade and quite possibly having the kind of luxuries he wouldn`t have had in the "outside world". They say crime doesn`t pay!!!

[Flamin_Squirrel]

Perhaps you should read that again. I do not think the police need backing up for shooting anyone where the rules were not followed.

What I AM saying is that in cases like this where the police have the right men and have built a case that proves these animals guilty (to the point where they changed plea in the trial to guilty), society and the justice system should back up the police with sentences that reflect the gravity of the crime. Wishy washy liberal parole boards that let the worst criminals out at the earliest opportunity undermine folk's confidence in the justice system as much as lenient sentencing by judges.

I would agree that it would seem that in this case the sentance is lenient.

However, lets get some perspective before we condemn the whole system. Other than the headlines we read in the papers, is there anything to suggest that there is a systemic problem with unsuitable sentancing, rather than gut feeling?

Also, on what basis do you consider a punishment lenient anyway? Seems like most people think it's a way of getting revenge.

[Flamin_Squirrel]

Lets hope you`re right Tim and he`s very soon back inside but as for being qualified to do nothing I have to disagree. Whilst in what was probably an excuse for a prison but was more like a "secure unit" where he was free to play on his x box and was being bought the latest clothes and trainers etc. he did in fact learn a trade. He apparantly did an apprenticeship.. in what I don`t know but is now a qualified mechanic/joiner/plumber/electrician or whatever and does actually have a job to go to.

Not bad for someone who committed such a terrible crime to spend such a short period learing a trade and quite possibly having the kind of luxuries he wouldn`t have had in the "outside world". They say crime doesn`t pay!!!

So you want to force him into a position where he HAS to commit another crime when he gets out? :?

[madness]

It doesn't work at all in the US - crime there is far worse than here.

It doesn't save money, at least if you want a system with the strict rules and regulations as you describe. Firstly, because those sentanced to death spend a long time on death row anyway. Secondly, those sentanced to death have many chances to appeal their sentance, which means lots and lots of time going through court. Very very expensive.

It's academic anyway, even if it did save a bit of money. Anyone who thinks people should be killed off for reasons of expediency and money saving needs to get their head checked.

You appear to be very liberal. Not only in your views but also with your condemnation of people who hold different opinions to yourself. There's nothing wrong with being passionate about what you feel is right or wrong but you'll never turn peoples opinion by suggesting they need their head checking.

[Flamin_Squirrel]

You appear to be very liberal. Not only in your views but also with your condemnation of people who hold different opinions to yourself. There's nothing wrong with being passionate about what you feel is right or wrong but you'll never turn peoples opinion by suggesting they need their head checking.

By liberal do you mean a left wing tree hugger, or the true meaning of liberal in that I quite like the idea of going about my business without the state ever being given the power to murder me?

I may have been rather blunt, as usual, but perhaps you could put that aside and consider my point as to why the death penalty is insane, or maybe come up with a counter argument?

[skidmarx]

I'm probably going to get slated for this but, I would prefer my taxes to be spent on people who deserve to live and not on some evil b*st*rds. We are paying for 3 meals a day, central heating, sky TV. Criminals are getting these everyday while there are kids sleeping rough on the street at the mercy of pimp, pushers and paedophiles.

I know that miscarriages of justice happen, but with very strict rules and regulation in place the death penalty could work. I think we all know what would happen if a referendum was held on the subject.
I don't think we do all know what would happen if there was a referendum on the death penalty. My guess would be that a minority of illogical people who think that it is morally defensible to support state sanctioned murder, would vote FOR the death penalty. Whilst the majority would vote NO to the death penalty as they would understand we all have a responsibility to construct the kind of society that values human life above all, despite the terrible example set by a few individuals.
But I don't think that was what you were saying.

[Kinvig]

I don't think we do all know what would happen if there was a referendum on the death penalty.

There will need to be a clause that anyone who reads the Sun should be discounted from the referendum.

[Luckypants]

However, lets get some perspective before we condemn the whole system. Other than the headlines we read in the papers, is there anything to suggest that there is a systemic problem with unsuitable sentancing, rather than gut feeling?

I would cite this case as evidence, it has not made the papers. Local sex offender got 9 months for 'statutory rape' of mental patient. Someone I was in school with got 12 years inside for double murder of his parents, folks killing people while drunk driving getting 5 years (out in 30 months)......

Also, on what basis do you consider a punishment lenient anyway? Seems like most people think it's a way of getting revenge.

If it was revenge that was intended, put them in stocks and let the victim's family at them. Punishment is indeed a form of revenge, you do something bad and we will get our own back by putting you in prison....

As to what is lenient, it is a tricky one. I think in my examples above the sentences are lenient. For instance why call it a life sentence unless it is for life? Now spending the rest of your days in prison from a young age may be a tad harsh, but life sentences are only handed down for grave crimes such as murder so perhaps it is not. I do believe 'life' sentences should have a minimum tariff of around 30 years or even whole life.

The thing is with prison sentences is they must not just punish the offender but also make the victims feel that justice is done. Now of course not all victims will feel that way, but not all will ever feel justice has been done without the 'eye for an eye' hanging... Currently there is a feeling in the country that too many folks are 'getting away with it' through light sentences.

[Ed]

Claire - I feel for your friend. This is just appalling. 9 years is a joke.

* * *

But here we go with the hang em and flog em brigade again. I can't say anything more than FS has said in terms of rejecting hanging/lethal injection/whatever. There can never be 100% clarity of guilt. We've been here so many times before - look at Sally Clarke, she is just one who comes to mind. Convicted on the medical evidence of a man who at the time was the most eminent and respected paediatrician in the country, if not in Europe. And then some years later his evidence was shown to be flimsy and untrustworthy.

What do you death wallahs say to that? How would you have brought her back from the gallows?

There are times when I feel very angry about lenient sentences - and this is one - but exceptions do not prove the rule.

In fact I think that if I were on the jury in a murder case where I knew that 'guilty' would mean death, I would refuse to convict.

[MiniMatt]

9 years for pre-meditated murder and torture? A sick joke. I note that all the trendy liberals are not in this thread telling us how wrong we are to think that this is utter ****e - youi cannot defend the indefensible.

This is EXACTLY the sort of case that make normal law abiding middle of the road folks wonder what the hell is wrong with this country, despair of the justice system, despair of law and order here and get one more step closer to taking matters into their own hands.

In the other thread where the bleeding hearts are telling us how terrible the police were to kill a suspected terrorist, how about they man up, grow a sack and back up the police when they do get it right? And get the wishy washy liberal parole knobends to make life mean life.

Makes me sick.

Wishy washy liberal parole knobend reporting as requested. Gee thanks for the intro Mike....

9 years for pre-mediated murder and torture is in my mind indefensible. No arguments from me there. I'd also agree that at 16 there should be very little of a defence of youth, although I'd argue that there should be some. In my mind what you're looking at is a serious falling down in the justice system, I'm not of the mind that the perpetrators should automatically spend the rest of their lives in prison but I am of the mind that this should be the default position and whilst we should look for the potential for the individual concerned to make a contribution to society in later years it shouldn't be an expected outcome. As you point out, someone capable of that degree of torture clearly has something very wrong in their head, something which ultimately may not be fixable.

Death penalty - already far more eloquently explained by others - accept that the state will kill innocents with regularity. In a pure numbers game, it's possible that the state will kill less people than criminals who are released and kill again. But we don't work on pure numbers, we work on trying to make the best society we can, not an acceptable fudge of "there will be some collateral damage".
State sponsored castration, butchery, mutilation - as above but worse.
Death penalty deterrent - is the USA a crime free utopia?

Fixing the justice system - I agree, we all agree, it needs improvement. But we've already tried everything that people are suggesting in this thread - we've already tried the death penalty, we've already tried state sponsored torture and agonising death, we've already tried barbaric prisons. So has every other country on the planet. No-one has found the solution but what we have found over the years are the things that don't work - no point going back to those things.

[Flamin_Squirrel]

I would cite this case as evidence, it has not made the papers. Local sex offender got 9 months for 'statutory rape' of mental patient. Someone I was in school with got 12 years inside for double murder of his parents, folks killing people while drunk driving getting 5 years (out in 30 months)......

Yes, but is it the norm for this kind of thing to happen? As it's impossible to create an infalable system there will, unfortunately, always be light sentences. Before declaring 'sentances are too light!' it needs to be quanfitied. However I realise this is hard, by the nature of sentencing being subjective.

If it was revenge that was intended, put them in stocks and let the victim's family at them. Punishment is indeed a form of revenge, you do something bad and we will get our own back by putting you in prison....

As to what is lenient, it is a tricky one. I think in my examples above the sentences are lenient. For instance why call it a life sentence unless it is for life? Now spending the rest of your days in prison from a young age may be a tad harsh, but life sentences are only handed down for grave crimes such as murder so perhaps it is not. I do believe 'life' sentences should have a minimum tariff of around 30 years or even whole life.

The thing is with prison sentences is they must not just punish the offender but also make the victims feel that justice is done. Now of course not all victims will feel that way, but not all will ever feel justice has been done without the 'eye for an eye' hanging... Currently there is a feeling in the country that too many folks are 'getting away with it' through light sentences.

Especially for things like muder, it's not really possible to hand out any sentence that can meaningfully deliver true justice. Nothing is going to bring that person back. So you have to examine what you're trying to achieve by the prision sentence. That's a tricky one which largely depends on the circumstances of the case and to which we're often not privy to.

Example - 24 year old man sent to prison for "only a year, *gasp shock horror*" for raping a 14 year old girl. "Another derisory sentance", that's how the head line read. Read into it further, turns out the girl claimed to be 17, looked 17 and she was consentual. The poor guy was none the wiser and was mortified when he found out. The only reason he got prosecuted was because the police found out some how, and were duty bound to investigate it as a statutory rape.

[Luckypants]

Wishy washy liberal parole knobend reporting as requested. Gee thanks for the intro Mike....

:takeabow: You are most welcome :D


Good post, most of which I agree with.

[Flamin_Squirrel]

In fact I think that if I were on the jury in a murder case where I knew that 'guilty' would mean death, I would refuse to convict.

This is an example of why minimum sentences are as just a bad idea. Accused in the dock, probably guilty, but there are mitigating factors involved. The jury know that the judge will be duty bound to sent the accused down for X years if they convict which they view as far too harsh, so they acquit them all together.

[Flamin_Squirrel]

I'd also agree that at 16 there should be very little of a defence of youth, although I'd argue that there should be some.

On the other hand, the UK has the lowest age of criminal culpability in Europe I believe, but we also have the largest prison population.

[yorkie_chris]

So you have to examine what you're trying to achieve by the prision sentence.

If a life sentence is given, then the idea is you are trying to ensure that the killer cannot kill again.

E.g someone who killed because the little voices told them to is not fit to be out in society, so life. Revenge is a pointless one, and unlikely to give any more than superficial comfort to the family of the dead.

[Odin]

Ohh some very good posts on here.

Firstly, given the facts presented in the first post (as I have nothing else to go by), then to me it would be a lot cheaper and easier to simply end the guilty boys lives.

Secondly, although I do not totally agree with a lot of the more liberal comments on here, I do respect there thoughts. However, I think we are getting a little confused here between the death sentence for the guilty and poor procedure/methodologies that lead to the wrong person being found guilty, or the wrong sentence given.

Just look at the example 24 given above. If a girl says she is 17 and she sleeps with a guy, then the risk/responsibility is hers. The guy should not be guilty of anything, but he was convicted for something that he had no control over (i.e. her lying). Similar to if a guy meets a girl in a Nightclub. You have to be 18 to enter so he would surely be right in assuming that any girl he met would at least be 18.

However, I anyone is found to be guilty of rape, then quite frankly, a quick, cheap painless death is a very good solution.

[Kinvig]

However, I anyone is found to be guilty of rape, then quite frankly, a quick, cheap painless death is a very good solution.

People do cry rape!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/beds/bucks/herts/7012535.stm

[Speedy Claire]

So you want to force him into a position where he HAS to commit another crime when he gets out? :?


He shouldn`t have got out!!!! he shouldn`t have been released.... a life sentence should mean life

[shonadoll]

I think in cases like this, where there is obviously dna evidence and plenty of proof, life should mean life. Am sickened by this,absolutely sickened.

I watched a documentary recently about James Bulger's mum, and how she felt when his killers were released, given new identities etc.

In my opinion, when you commit a crime such as this is should mean the rest of your life in prison-it's just another kick in the guts to the families of the victims.We care too much about the perpetrators in this country.

[madness]

This thread just goes to show that some things just can't be agreed upon, and until they can be agreed upon our society will continue is steady decline.

[grh1904]

In fact I think that if I were on the jury in a murder case where I knew that 'guilty' would mean death, I would refuse to convict.

Even if after hearing all the evidence it was proven to you beyond all reasonable doubt that the defendant did do it??????

I can see where you're coming from, having read your posts and getting an idea on your stance on the subject, but is what you say above not a bit dodgy.

We could end up with a situation where you and your fellow jurors are happy with the evidence offered by the prosecution and that the offence is proved beyond reasonable doubt, but a suspect gets off because the jurors refused to convict just in case the judge cried out "OFF WITH HIS HEAD" Okay I know we would never do such a thing nowadays but you get the gist of what I mean????


Surely that would be far more dangerous than letting out a "W"anchor like the kid speedy is on about???????????????

[ArtyLady]

Claire - I feel for your friend. This is just appalling. 9 years is a joke.

* * *

But here we go with the hang em and flog em brigade again. I can't say anything more than FS has said in terms of rejecting hanging/lethal injection/whatever. There can never be 100% clarity of guilt. We've been here so many times before - look at Sally Clarke, she is just one who comes to mind. Convicted on the medical evidence of a man who at the time was the most eminent and respected paediatrician in the country, if not in Europe. And then some years later his evidence was shown to be flimsy and untrustworthy.

What do you death wallahs say to that? How would you have brought her back from the gallows?

There are times when I feel very angry about lenient sentences - and this is one - but exceptions do not prove the rule.

In fact I think that if I were on the jury in a murder case where I knew that 'guilty' would mean death, I would refuse to convict.

My sentiments entirely.

[ArtyLady]

The other thing to consider is that psychopaths usually dont have little voices in their heads, they can't be cured, they arent mentally ill (unless they are someone like Brady but then he will never come out thank goodness) - they just enjoy killing (saw a documentary the other night about Colin Pitchfork)

So even if someone is found guilty and convicted (assuming they are guilty and aren't yet another victim of miscarriage of justice!) then they should never see the light of day again because otherwise they may just continue where they left off! :(

[Odin]

[quote=Kinvig;1722984]People do cry rape!

Yes I know this sort of thing happens, thats why I suggested improving the procedures/methodologies that lead to a conviction, or otherwise.

The only ones that should face a long time in prison after a stunt like that is the lasses. And the man should be issued with a full public pardon as well as costs that cover any losses he had due to time off work etc.

[Ed]

Even if after hearing all the evidence it was proven to you beyond all reasonable doubt that the defendant did do it??????

I can see where you're coming from, having read your posts and getting an idea on your stance on the subject, but is what you say above not a bit dodgy.

We could end up with a situation where you and your fellow jurors are happy with the evidence offered by the prosecution and that the offence is proved beyond reasonable doubt, but a suspect gets off because the jurors refused to convict just in case the judge cried out "OFF WITH HIS HEAD" Okay I know we would never do such a thing nowadays but you get the gist of what I mean????


Surely that would be far more dangerous than letting out a "W"anchor like the kid speedy is on about???????????????

I make no bones about being liberal on social issues, grh. I have a fundamental difficulty with capital punishment. It's so hard to say cos I'm not in the situation, but I'm fairly sure that I could not send someone to their death. Whatever the circumstances. It's not for me to say 's/he deserves to die'.

[hovis]

just heard on the news a guy got 25 life sentances for raping his 2 daughters over so many years (they got pregnat 17 times, and 7 of the kinds survived) and beating his son

he will be out in 19 years

:confused:

[MiniMatt]

just heard on the news a guy got 25 life sentances for raping his 2 daughters over so many years (they got pregnat 17 times, and 7 of the kinds survived) and beating his son

he will be out in 19 years

:confused:

Firstly, stop reporting inaccuracy as fact. Listen again to the news piece. He has a LIFE sentence. He has a MINIMUM TARIFF of 19.5 years. Ergo the first time he will become eligible for parole will be in 19.5 years. No guarantee he'll get it then. No guarantee that he'll be alive then either, and even if he did - he'll be 77 years old then and whilst perhaps not deserving of freedom will hardly be a threat.

[hovis]

Firstly, stop reporting inaccuracy as fact. Listen again to the news piece. ...............more stuff.calm down dear..........

i am just repeating what i heard on the radio


:rolleyes:

[hovis]

His 56-year-old father was sentenced to a life term for each of the 25 rapes he had admitted and will serve at least 19-and-a-half years..

so thats 25 life sentances?

is'nt it?>

[Luckypants]

See my rant elsewhere about concurrent sentences. Can I add this as another reason why there is systemic leniency in sentencing.

[MiniMatt]

But concurrent sentencing has been part of the British justice system for eons - I thought your argument was how it was all so much better in the old days?

Ok, another example, and I'm not saying this proves the point but just something to think about as it's all too easy to jump on ill thought out schemes, say "that's what we need to fix the justice system" and walk away:
Is it fair that someone who triggers three speed cameras on one road over three miles gets three seperate convictions added on top of eachother? Or should the total punishment ultimately be for the most serious violation along that stretch of road? One is roughly an example of concurrent sentencing, the other is an example of adding up - what's fairest?

[yorkie_chris]

But in that example only one offence has been committed.

[MiniMatt]

But in that example only one offence has been committed.

It's not the best example I grant you, but it's happened already that people have triggered multiple cameras in one trip and gotten multiple points added to their licence. Three cameras over three miles is arguably one offence, but what about three cameras in a three hundred mile journey? What if you were caught doing 80 in a 70 zone, 60 in a 50 zone and 55 in a 30 zone - what, ideally would be the outcome? I'd argue that if a copper was following you you'd get done for the 55 in the 30 and they'd probably let you off the others if there was no particular danger, or perhaps just use them as an example of your consistent high speed in prosecuting the 55 in the 30 zone. Ie. net result is kinda concurrent sentencing - you get 4 points for the 55 in the 30 (guessing at points here), you would ordinarily get 3 points each for the others but 4 points gets added to your licence.

[yorkie_chris]

No idea! I'm just amused at the possibility of standing up in court and saying "honestly m'lud... I was riding like a tw4t the whole time!!!" and it actually helping matters! lol.

[MiniMatt]

calm down dear..........

i am just repeating what i heard on the radio


:rolleyes:


And.... breathing again....

Ok, apologies if I went off on one there.

Free bit of info, and apologies if I'm sounding like teacher here, don't mean to be patronising but whenever you hear on the radio or any news source about someone getting a LIFE sentence that means exactly what it says - they have been sentenced to life imprisonment. You may well hear about a minimum tarrif, or an earliest parole date, or you may even hear unscrupulous news sources saying "they'll be out in X years". In every single instance, until the law is changed, this means that X years is the earliest possible date the offender can be considered for parole - it doesn't mean they will be considered for parole after that time, and it doesn't mean any parole hearing will result in their release, it just means that's the earliest possible time such things could conceivably be considered. Furthermore, when given a life sentence they will have that life sentence forever, even if given parole at a later hearing they are out under licence, just about anyone from parole officers and up can have that person put straight back in prison if they commit the smallest of offence, or break parole conditions, or even if the parole officer believes they are a danger.

YC - I'll think of a better argument and get back to you :D

[hovis]

but this guy got 25 life sentances

[yorkie_chris]

So does that mean he's serving them concurrently and he'll be eligble for parole in 19?

[Luckypants]

But concurrent sentencing has been part of the British justice system for eons - I thought your argument was how it was all so much better in the old days?

Ok, another example, and I'm not saying this proves the point but just something to think about as it's all too easy to jump on ill thought out schemes, say "that's what we need to fix the justice system" and walk away:
Is it fair that someone who triggers three speed cameras on one road over three miles gets three seperate convictions added on top of eachother? Or should the total punishment ultimately be for the most serious violation along that stretch of road? One is roughly an example of concurrent sentencing, the other is an example of adding up - what's fairest?

Where did I say it was better 'in the old days'? I may have implied that I thought harsher sentences of yesteryear were more of a deterrent but not everything was better eg being put in jail because you prefer men as sexual partners.

I have never liked concurrent sentencing. Even as a kid as soon as I understood the concept it was to me inherently wrong.

Your analogy is reasonable and I would say 'bad luck getting caught, but not seeing three cameras / vans? You deserve it for poor observations!' Yes they should get all three piled on their licence.

[hovis]

So does that mean he's serving them concurrently and he'll be eligble for parole in 19?

dunno?

all it said was he had 25 life sentances

and may be out in 19½ years

[MiniMatt]

Where did I say it was better 'in the old days'? I may have implied that I thought harsher sentences of yesteryear were more of a deterrent but not everything was better eg being put in jail because you prefer men as sexual partners.

I have never liked concurrent sentencing. Even as a kid as soon as I understood the concept it was to me inherently wrong.

Your analogy is reasonable and I would say 'bad luck getting caught, but not seeing three cameras / vans? You deserve it for poor observations!' Yes they should get all three piled on their licence.

But sentences in yesteryear weren't harsher. Really, they weren't. We now have a larger prison population as a percentage of total population than ever before since reliable records began. Ergo, more people are now imprisoned than ever before.

There will unfortunately be exceptions always, and this particular case would appear on the face of it to be very much one of these exceptions but what would be a fundamental failing of judgement would be to consider that exceptions are the norm.

As for the concept being wrong, to be honest I thought the exact same thing about the US system when I first heard about it - how a judge can sit there and hand out with a completely straight face a sentence of 197 years I'll never know.

Actually on the subject of the US, I'm making a lot of comparisons with them, and we all do as the whole death penalty and prison sentencing debate rolls round every couple of weeks it seems. I wonder if the same sort of system exists in the US that those people who are given 197 year sentences, do they typically see parole? I really don't know and would be keen to find out. Similarly, I wonder if the same debate goes on on US forums - I'd wager that over on US boards a lot of times there'll be a lot of people suggesting that the country is going to pot, the criminal justice system is a joke and we need harsher punishments to deter crime.

[MiniMatt]

FYI Speedy

I'd like to apologise.

It's occurred to me that I'm repeating a well rehearsed argument about the rights and wrongs of our society as I have done many times in the past and doubtless will again in the future. It's a debate that has well drawn lines and the players on either side have rehearsed their parts well.

This thread, however, should not be one of those battlegrounds, there will be time again for this argument, it'll roll around again soon enough. This thread is about you, your friend, and a terrible event which has doubtless devastated the lives of hundreds surrounding the poor victim; I apologise for jumping straight in to my part of the well rehearsed argument with little regard for what must be a horrific time for you and your friend. You have my very deepest sympathies.

[Kate Moss]

Hun,
This nearly brought me to tears. Only last night was I discussing with Phil how I couldn't get my head around people hurting children, let alone another child being capable to inflict such brutalities.
As you said - they wanted to re inact a scene from resevoir dogs - well done those parents for allowing them to watch such a film. Bravo, FFS.

I have become an aunty very recently for the first time as has Lily and If anyone did that to my nephew, God, I just don't know how I would cope, let alone my sister.

It's good that you feel you can post about such things on the forum and Im always lurkig here somewhere if you want a chat.

Justice is the concept of moral (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality) rightness - what a joke

[Speedy Claire]

FYI Speedy

I'd like to apologise.

It's occurred to me that I'm repeating a well rehearsed argument about the rights and wrongs of our society as I have done many times in the past and doubtless will again in the future. It's a debate that has well drawn lines and the players on either side have rehearsed their parts well.

This thread, however, should not be one of those battlegrounds, there will be time again for this argument, it'll roll around again soon enough. This thread is about you, your friend, and a terrible event which has doubtless devastated the lives of hundreds surrounding the poor victim; I apologise for jumping straight in to my part of the well rehearsed argument with little regard for what must be a horrific time for you and your friend. You have my very deepest sympathies.


Many thanks Matt and no worries. I realised not long after I`d started the thread that it was going to become another debate on the rights and wrongs of society and death penalties etc. but that is the way these threads go. I really appreciate your kind words tho so thanks again :D

[Speedy Claire]

Hun,
This nearly brought me to tears. Only last night was I discussing with Phil how I couldn't get my head around people hurting children, let alone another child being capable to inflict such brutalities.
As you said - they wanted to re inact a scene from resevoir dogs - well done those parents for allowing them to watch such a film. Bravo, FFS.

I have become an aunty very recently for the first time as has Lily and If anyone did that to my nephew, God, I just don't know how I would cope, let alone my sister.

It's good that you feel you can post about such things on the forum and Im always lurkig here somewhere if you want a chat.

Justice is the concept of moral (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality) rightness - what a joke


Thanks Kate :grouphug:

Lately there`s been so many cases in the media and it`s so sad. I`m also at a loss as to understand it

[Flamin_Squirrel]

He shouldn`t have got out!!!! he shouldn`t have been released.... a life sentence should mean life

If he's shown no remorse and is likely to do it again, then throwing the key away is fair enough. Otherwise, what do you expect to achieve by this?

I promise I'm not a wishy washy 'liberal', and I certainly understand why you'd want the guy to rot. But for a moment, just try and think about your motives. Is it revenge?