BB?
- Thread starter LadyT
- Start date
LOL. I couldn't help it. Its like some kind of posting Tourrettes syndrome. Its not my fault.
uscitizen
Villified User
concurrent or consequetive.
its the UK. I have no idea. But he's seriously fucked his daughters & his grandchildren's lives up for good (no pun intended - seriously). There's no forgetting or getting over what he did. Stuff like this makes me really want to rethink the death penalty.
Socrtease
Verified User
concurrent
charver
You lookin' at my pint?
I'd hope that the A-G would appeal the sentence on grounds of leniency but i wouldn't be surprised if that were rejected.
The average "life-sentence" for murder is only 15 years and there are very few people in English prisons with a real whole-life tariff.
I can't explain it. We seem hell-bent on locking people up on relatively long sentences for very minor breaches of the law but seem reluctant to hand out proper life sentences to those who kill or involve themselves in the worst kind of sexual violence.
I'd prefer to make sure, he should come out as ashes in a shoe box.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Most European countries don't have the whole life sentences. The European Court of Human Rights is doing a review right now in which they may abolish them in the countries that do.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
In America we way overuse whole life imprisonment. There are people serving whole life terms for non violent crimes. IMHO, the sentence shouldn't be an option except for premeditated murder.
But the situation in Europe, where the average maximum term awaiting parole is about 20 years no matter what, has created the situation where you could get a similar sentence for transporting marijuana and killing and raping a trillion people.
Last edited:
Thorn
Member
I think that you've touched on a big flaw in our justice system, in that the victims seem to get left behind in the process.
One problem with your suggestion, which on the surface makes a lot of sense, is that I'd guess the majority of victims would really rather the person had no possible contact with them, ever again; they wouldn't want him/her to be a continuing part of their lives in any tangible sort of fashion. In a more abstract sense, the destruction left behind is always with them, but they probably wouldn't want to continue any sort of contact, even if it isn't direct.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
I think it should come in the form of a tax rebate given to victims because of the state failing in its responsibility to protect them.
Prisoners already work, but all of the profits go to the state and the corporations that contract the prisoners. If we gave the money to victims instead, it would both be the morally sensible thing to do and get rid of the righties dreams of having a free prison system so they can put as many people as they want in there without impacting the budget.
Socrtease
Verified User
Yeah and some Irish have spent decades in your prisons with no charges whatsoever.
uscitizen
Villified User
Ohh I would like to know that the perp is cleaning sewage tanks or somesuch and the money is coming to me.
But yes the money needs to be routed thru the govt or an agency, no contact allowed either way.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
The money shouldn't have any connection to the perpetrator. The money should be given simply because the state failed in its duty. The state should have the ability to make prisoners work to help pay of its debt, but the amount of money a victim gets shouldn't have any connection to how long the perp happens to live or how much work he does. That's stupid.
charver
You lookin' at my pint?
Well as far as i know no Irish persons have have spent "decades" in any English prison without charge, at least in terms of the modern State. I am aware of a number of innocent Irish persons who were systematically 'fitted up' by corrupt police officers, for a series of bombings in which they played no part whatsoever, and subsequently sentenced to life imprisonment, only being cleared decades later. When you can just fabricate evidence what's the point of unlawful detention?
I am also aware of the Northern Irish courts being granted the ability to detain without trial during the period 1971-5. The period of 'internment' was widely seen as nothing short of a disaster and utterly indefensible. And then there were the Diplock Courts allowing trial without juries, again only in Northern Ireland, in case juries were intimidated. Another cracking idea. What we really needed was a far away island to send the people from the island of Ireland to.
The justice system certainly doesn't come out of the last century looking like the dashing hero and, on many occasions, seemed to be little better than criminals themselves. Thankfully we live in more enlightened times, at least temporarily, and locking people up without trial is only acceptable, for some 28 days, if one is defined as one of those beastly terrorist types. It's a pity that virtually anyone can be defined as a terrorist by our fine upstanding government but one can't have everything.