6 acid attacks in one night = 10 years

From what I gathered reading the BBC article sentence was mitigated by the guilty plea and that he was tried as a minor, not an adult. However IMHO 25 years should be the minimum starting tariff for this sort of offence with the only mitigation for the guilty plea is a possible reduction to 22 years. As it stands there is every likelihood he will only be 22 or 23 on release, unlikely to be rehabilitated and may well start down a similar path again.
 
Yeah, tried as a minor and the sentence was appropriate for 'deterring future or similar attacks'

Yeah right
 
If the guy is 17 now, I guess he was 16/17 when he committed the crimes last summer? 16 the is age of consent in this country, so I think he should have been tried as an adult tbh.

Edit: ^^ beaten by 2 minutes lol
 
Last edited:
Tefal said:
Wow how on earth is it legal for your gender to affect what age you go to a more "adult" prison.

Girls protected until 18 but boys only until 14?
Click to expand...

Especially retarded when it's accepted girls mature faster than boys...
 
Orionaut said:
Funny you should say that.

I have always favored doing a deal with the Russians for a penal mining colony on Severny Zemlya.

(A place that is basically about as remote as you can get without actually leaving the planet)
Click to expand...

No objection from me. I think it would offer him a unique rehabilitation experience.
 
Tefal said:
Wow how on earth is it legal for your gender to affect what age you go to a more "adult" prison.

Girls protected until 18 but boys only until 14?
Click to expand...
YOIs are better equipped to deal with violent offenders and a 15-year-old boy is typically more difficult to physically control than a girl of the same age.

And it's not a one-way street. Boys are normally sent to YOIs from 15-21 while girls are sent to an actual adult prison from 18 onwards because there isn't an equivalent to a YOI for them. A YOI can be horrible but prison is usually worse.

Tefal said:
Again I'd say an indefinite sentence would have been the appropriate course of action
Click to expand...
Indeterminate sentences for public protection were abolished in 2012. People were serving far longer than their minimum terms for reasons other than being dangerous, like the mandatory pre-release rehabilitation course not being made available to prisoners due to funding cuts so they weren't released.

Tefal said:
6 people in a few hours whos lives have been destroyed thsts more damage than some of the terrorist attacks over the years :/
Click to expand...
You're making a pretty large assumption about the harm caused. The quote in the BBC article says one person has suffered 30% vision loss and the other five reported burning and searing pain on the night but no permanent physical injuries to those five are mentioned. Acid attacks are horrible and vicious but the sentencing will be proportionate to the sentence for the same level of injury caused by other means.
 
TJM said:
Acid attacks are horrible and vicious but the sentencing will be proportionate to the sentence for the same level of injury caused by other means.
Click to expand...

I think this results orientated line of thinking that seems to be prevalent in the justice system is a bit dubious at times. As someone else pointed out on here not so long ago there are various brutal stabbings in say central London that perhaps a couple of decades ago would have otherwise be murders... the reason they're not murders has nothing to do with the criminal or the severity of the attack but simply down to some luck and lots of skill from the emergency services/A&E staff.

The fact that the A&E dept happened to be well staffed that night/ambulance arrived on time etc.. can potentially mean someone ends up with GBH or attempted murder when they'd have been otherwise sentenced for murder. I think serious attacks that were potentially life threatening ought to be treated/sentenced in the same way regardless of the actual result re: the victim living or dying.

Likewise this youth was happy to throw acid onto people, if he'd happened to find a stronger substance (I doubt he was too bothered about what exactly he was throwing aside from knowing it would cause damage) then maybe he'd have got a harsher sentence... but frankly it shouldn't matter too much, the actions are the same from the offender's perspective.

(obviously it isn't so black and white, we will always want people punished - a speeding driver/driver using their mobile who gets caught only faces a ticket, a speeding driver/driver using their mobile who can't stop in time for a kid running into the road gets rather more potentially - even though it is the same action albeit with a rather unlucky/unfortunate consequence that time)
 
They need banging up for good, no good thugs chucking acid around shouldn't be allowed back on the streets.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom