3 life sentences, minimum 12 years in jail WOT?!

Emlyn_Dewar · 6 May 2011 at 00:04

franco_22 said:
Our society believes in rehabilitation, but yes, I think it costs an average of £22000 a year to keep 1 prisoner.

Could make a significant saving if the system just got shot the worst of them.

For some crimes, rehabilitation should not be an option. They had their chance and they blew it. The rapist in the OP link does not deserve another chance. He is a gruesome human being and the country would be a better place with him not in it.
How many people who are let out early (that were in for violent crimes) go on to re-offend?

Tute · 6 May 2011 at 00:04

Also - concurrent sentencing - what utter brainless moron thought this idea up?

Amnesia · 6 May 2011 at 00:09

Luseac said:
He will be released on licence and have to adhere to certain conditions for the rest of his life.

BBC said:
The court heard that Parsons had been out of prison on licence for little more than a week when the attack happened.

Let's hope not.

J-FRO · 6 May 2011 at 00:10

Rotty said:
20 years ago 2 of my cousins ( girls aged 2 and 4 ) were killed

the bloke who did it was convicted of 2 counts of murder

he was also convicted of 2 counts of attempted murder

he was sentenced to 2 life sentences and 2 sentences of 12 years to run concurrently

he was released after 11 years, where is the justice in that ?

There is no justice in that. He should have been put down.

People are happy to put a dog down for biting someone, but they're not prepared to put down people who emotionally and physically scar others. And that gives me a deep sense of concern for humanities moral values. Especially when such people go on to repeat the same or a similar offence.

Tombo · 6 May 2011 at 00:13

J-FRO said:
There is no justice in that. He should have been put down.

People are happy to put a dog down for biting someone, but they're not prepared to put down people who emotionally and physically scar others. And that gives me a deep sense of concern for humanities moral values. Especially when such people go on to repeat the same or a similar offence.

If you do that you run the risk of killing innocent people and that isn't acceptable.

Tute · 6 May 2011 at 00:18

Tombo said:
If you do that you run the risk of killing innocent people and that isn't acceptable.

Whilst I don't necessarily agree with the death penalty, that statement is a slippery slope also - why lock anyone up, with the risk of locking up innocent people?

Amnesia · 6 May 2011 at 00:21

because innocent people can be released if later to be found not guilty....we havent found a way to bring the dead back to life.

im not taking the pee btw if thats how its coming across

Tute · 6 May 2011 at 00:32

Well the point is you've still locked up an innocent person for x amount of years, which can have a profound effect on someone.

You have to have faith in your own justice system - especially in a country like the UK. We have a very fair and decent method of dealing with people that (allegedly) break the law.

I just believe the sentencing is well out of whack for a lot of things.

Amnesia · 6 May 2011 at 00:35

well i don't think we will ever have a perfect system.....i would atleast expect to be paid for my time when the police arrest me and i spend a few hours being questioned ......when not guilty ofcourse.

Vonhelmet · 6 May 2011 at 00:37

Rotty said:
20 years ago 2 of my cousins ( girls aged 2 and 4 ) were killed

the bloke who did it was convicted of 2 counts of murder

he was also convicted of 2 counts of attempted murder

he was sentenced to 2 life sentences and 2 sentences of 12 years to run concurrently

he was released after 11 years, where is the justice in that ?

Was he a danger to society any more? Assuming not, in broad terms, then there can be no harm caused in releasing him so it isn't an inherently bad thing. Was imprisoning him for longer going to bring your cousins back? No. Was killing him going to bring your cousins back? No. Was keeping him imprisoned for longer or killing him going to bring "satisfaction" to you or your cousins other relations? Yes? Sorry, but that's vengeance, not justice.

Tute · 6 May 2011 at 00:37

Well there is no perfect system - it's just all about getting as close to perfect as possible.

Amnesia · 6 May 2011 at 00:43

Rotty said:
20 years ago 2 of my cousins ( girls aged 2 and 4 ) were killed

the bloke who did it was convicted of 2 counts of murder

he was also convicted of 2 counts of attempted murder

he was sentenced to 2 life sentences and 2 sentences of 12 years to run concurrently

he was released after 11 years, where is the justice in that ?

Just read that....thats disgraceful mate. 2 kids and out in 11 years.
I dont see that as justice at all, it's nothing short of disgraceful.

Vulcan · 6 May 2011 at 00:50

vonhelmet said:
Sorry, but that's vengeance, not justice.

So as soon as someone is rehabilitated they should be released because that's "justice"? Keeping them longer is vengeance?

I would say keeping them longer is justice. Prison is about rehabilitation but it's also a punishment.

GolfNovember90 · 6 May 2011 at 00:55

i wouldnt be suprised at all if he got out in 15 years.

welcome to the world of british sentencing

Rotty · 6 May 2011 at 01:22

vonhelmet said:
Was he a danger to society any more? Assuming not, in broad terms, then there can be no harm caused in releasing him so it isn't an inherently bad thing. Was imprisoning him for longer going to bring your cousins back? No. Was killing him going to bring your cousins back? No. Was keeping him imprisoned for longer or killing him going to bring "satisfaction" to you or your cousins other relations? Yes? Sorry, but that's vengeance, not justice.

no he probaby wasn't a danger but there has to be a punutive element to a prison sentence and that failed in that respect

Angilion · 6 May 2011 at 02:29

Rob_J said:
The way the justice system works in this country means he will be out within 7 years, because he will be deemed safe.

Do you have any evidence to support your assertion that sentences are usually overturned in this country? I think you don't.

Note that he wasn't sentenced to 12 years. He was sentenced to life with a minimum of 12 years, which means that unless the sentence is overturned he can't be released in less than 12 years (and almost certainly won't be released then - that's just the earliest date at which any application for early release could be made). 7 is less than 12.

Vonhelmet · 6 May 2011 at 07:29

How long must a person be punished for? And do we want to punish them at length given the enormous cost of keeping people in prison?

Von Smallhausen · 6 May 2011 at 08:25

Given his crime vonh, I couldn't give a one about the cost of keeping him off the street.

Vonhelmet · 6 May 2011 at 09:13

Von Smallhausen said:
Given his crime vonh, I couldn't give a one about the cost of keeping him off the street.

I'm not too fussed about the costs of effective imprisonment and rehabilitation, but cost is always an issue that gets trotted out. Mind you, I think that's invariably from people who think we'd be best just killing all the criminals and cutting costs that way...

Tefal · 6 May 2011 at 11:00

No1newts said:
Life should mean life, until you die. No need for multiple life sentences.

I do laugh at some of the American ones with multiple life sentences and are eligible for parole in 200 years or something silly >.<