I gouged his eyes out!!

nikebee said:
a man that will more than likely serve no more than 4 and a half years behind bars for the attack.
Click to expand...


Can you explain to use from your obvious insight into the parole process why this is?



Do people still believe in an eye for an eye?
Click to expand...


If you are proposing blinding him then, that answers your question about why we have a judicial system.
 
Tefal said:
Not even in self defense?
:confused:
Click to expand...
You're reading too much into this, Richdog obviously doesn't mean self defence. It was a drunken attack on somebody who was otherwise defenceless in bed with his girlfriend.

Tefal said:
If you are proposing blinding him then, that answers your question about why we have a judicial system.
Click to expand...

No I'm not, it was (believe it or not) an unintended pun. I meant it in a way that surely the punishment should fit the crime.

Tefal said:
Can you explain to use from your obvious insight into the parole process why this is?
Click to expand...

My insight comes from nothing more than the media, friends that have served time and family members that have been behind bars. The parole system more often than not will look favourably on somebody who is a "model prisoner" unless their punishment/crime is something severe.
 
in front of a 3 year old girl.....this has got to be 1 of the worse attacks ive read about.

sickening
 
Last edited:
nikebee said:
My insight comes from nothing more than the media, friends that have served time and family members that have been behind bars. The parole system more often than not will look favourably on somebody who is a "model prisoner" unless their punishment/crime is something severe.
Click to expand...

like gouging someones eyes out?


The media never actually reports the real release date they always report the absolute minimum they will get, and then never follow it up, so people constantly think yep they get 4.5 years etc, when it's unlikely they will.
 
"There was an understanding between her and Paul Gibson, who continued to live under the same roof after his relationship had ended, that when he was working nights, her new boyfriend could stay over."

Thats a starter for trouble already.
 
Tefal said:
Not even in self defense?
:confused:
Click to expand...

Actually, Gibson (The attacker) initiated the fight

The two men fought and Gibson was smashed in the face with a glass by Mr Craig, the court was told.
Click to expand...

Then, Craig hit him with the glass due to the attack (Going by the report)

After that, Gibson went even further with the following:

He then armed himself with a pair of scissors and a knife and burst in on Mr Craig and Miss Duggan hiding in a bedroom occupied by a three-year-old girl who was woken.

Gibson stabbed Mr Craig in the forearm, chest and back then his eyes were gouged out.
Click to expand...

He even could have accidentally hurt other people as well, even the baby.

Gibson is even quoted by a witness to have said: "I pulled his eyes out."


This statement:
Jonathan Goodman, defending, said the attack that night had not been planned and was not pre-meditated.
Click to expand...

May be true, but if that is the case, the kid has some mental / health issues, and they also need to be looked at.
 
Tefal said:
like gouging someones eyes out?


The media never actually reports the real release date they always report the absolute minimum they will get, and then never follow it up, so people constantly think yep they get 4.5 years etc, when it's unlikely they will.
Click to expand...

Whether you choose to believe it or not, clearly the judicial system and (presumably) the parole board obviously don't see gouging somebodies eyes out in front of a three year old child and the lads girlfriend a severe crime. Otherwise this person wouldn't have been handed a 9 year sentence with a chance of parole after 4 and a half years.

Generally when a judge says "You'll serve at least half of your sentence" that tends to be all they serve.

Tefal, do you work in this industry or have you got somebody close to you that's served a lot of time with no parole? It's just unusual to see somebody defend our countries judicial system so vigorously these days :)
 
Tefal said:
yes... your point being?

my statement had nothing to do with this case...
Click to expand...

...Sorry, you replied to the following:

"Originally Posted by Richdog
I'm sorry but anyone who gouges someones eyes out with their fingers (!) does not deserve to be let back into normal society.
Click to expand...

Not even in self defense?
Click to expand...


So I figured it was about the same event.
 
nikebee said:
Whether you choose to believe it or not, clearly the judicial system and (presumably) the parole board obviously don't see gouging somebodies eyes out in front of a three year old child and the lads girlfriend a severe crime. Otherwise this person wouldn't have been handed a 9 year sentence with a chance of parole after 4 and a half years.
Click to expand...

what exactly was he charged with? As there are maximum sentences for most things.


Generally when a judge says "You'll serve at least half of your sentence" that tends to be all they serve.
Click to expand...

again anything to back that up?

Tefal, do you work in this industry or have you got somebody close to you that's served a lot of time with no parole? It's just unusual to see somebody defend our countries judicial system so vigorously these days :)
Click to expand...

Nope, and I don't defend the system for giving too lenient sentences, (I have said i think the 9 years is too short) I do however wish to defend it from the redicusuly harsh/horrific punishments so many wish to inflict as revenge instead of justice.

And often it;s the same hypocrites who have ago at other countries overly harsh punishments.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom