Mother killed her kids because they got in the way of her sex life is jailed for life.

Even the most heinous of criminals should eventually be eligible* for parole.

*note I said eligible which doesn't mean it should alway be granted.

Subject to the circumstances of the crime and their actions since.


A young person who commits a hideous murder of a child or children in their care is not likely to pose much of a risk 40 old years later under intense supervision conditions and requirements.
 
Words fail me.

Cannot conceive how a mother could murder her own children.

The sooner capital punishment is brought back, the better.
 
Kelt said:
Because I believe she doesn't deserve to live after such a heinous crime...bit obvious really.

Do you think she deserves life?
Click to expand...

Yes, its obvious that you believe she should die for her crimes, but that is not what I asked... I asked why you believe capital punishment should be brought back.

Yes, I do believe she deserves life... but I don't believe in revenge killings.

Am gonna bring up the point I made earlier, do you agree with your country selling arms to people who use them on civilians?
 
Threepwood said:
Yes, its obvious that you believe she should die for her crimes, but that is not what I asked... I asked why you believe capital punishment should be brought back.

Yes, I do believe she deserves life... but I don't believe in revenge killings.

Am gonna bring up the point I made earlier, do you agree with your country selling arms to people who use them on civilians?
Click to expand...

Again, pretty obvious.

I said I wished capital punishment would be reinstated so this reprehensible excuse for a human being could receive apt punishment. Might make her think twice before doing it again.

And I would quite happily see arms dealers shot or blown to pieces by the very product they sell.
 
Caracus2k said:
Even the most heinous of criminals should eventually be eligible* for parole.

*note I said eligible which doesn't mean it should alway be granted.

Subject to the circumstances of the crime and their actions since.


A young person who commits a hideous murder of a child or children in their care is not likely to pose much of a risk 40 old years later under intense supervision conditions and requirements.
Click to expand...

Why should they be eligible?
 
Threepwood said:
As a country, we the UK, the second largest arms dealers of the world... Have sold bombs and guns that have been used to kill children.

I hope that every person in here who is appalled by the killing of these two children are also campaigners against our arms trade, because we provide weapons to those committing horrific war crimes.
Click to expand...
What a reacher of a connection. Well done you.
 
200sols said:
Why should they be eligible?
Click to expand...

Because prison should serve multiple purposes.

Including rehabilitatation and protecting the public.

If a supervised person represents a low risk to the public (specifically the type of victim previously targeted) and has served a suitable long sentence it doesn't make much sense to keep people in prison into their dootage subject to the usual conditions for parole.
 
RoboCod said:
I wasn't tracking this story but yesterday the "model" was sentenced for life for killing her one and three year old children since they got in the way of her sex life. She strangled them both within weeks of one another so she could go and do sordid sex work.

Shocking that a mother could do that to her children but 32 years? (which it won't be). Surely she shouldn't see light of day. [..]
Click to expand...

She was, of course, sentenced to life. She was not sentenced to "32 years (which it won't be)"

The 32 years mentioned is the minimum time before which she can apply for parole. So yes, it will be at least those 32 years unless the original sentence is overturned. She might never be released - being allowed to apply for parole doesn't mean it'll be given.
 
Angilion said:
She was, of course, sentenced to life. She was not sentenced to "32 years (which it won't be)"

The 32 years mentioned is the minimum time before which she can apply for parole. So yes, it will be at least those 32 years unless the original sentence is overturned. She might never be released - being allowed to apply for parole doesn't mean it'll be given.
Click to expand...
Still, it's an insufficient length of time. Thank you for correcting my mistake, like others did, though.

What's your opinion on the matter instead?
 
With any luck at all a distracted prison officer will fail to see her crudely and slowly eviscerated in some dark corner of her prison by inmates to whom a child is still precious. I'd like to witness it, my lips would remain sealed, my testimony worthless. My targeted misogyny grows monthly.
 
Should be taken from the court, fed a last meal and hanged. Would save the taxpayers millions in keeping it fed and watered inside, no doubt in a cushy unit away from all the other nasty, violent inmates who would like to smear the walls with it's entrails.
 
robfosters said:
Life, no parole.
Click to expand...

Well yes, that's the only answer to that question isn't it. But then you are dismissing any notion of rehabilitation within the justice system and treating it as punitive only.

Malevolence said:
Should be taken from the court, fed a last meal and hanged. Would save the taxpayers millions in keeping it fed and watered inside, no doubt in a cushy unit away from all the other nasty, violent inmates who would like to smear the walls with it's entrails.
Click to expand...

But if it's anything like the American legal system, it's more costly in legal fees for a death sentence than it is for life time incarceration!
 
Don't kill her, no chance. Let the woman live a mental break down until she begs to die, but then keep her alive to live all the pain and hate she put on those lovely little babies and then repeat this process until she loses her mind and breaks to the shin bones. Never give such people an easy way out, that's if we had such a death penalty of any choosing (which we don't).

Rehabilitation went out the window.
 
Freakbro said:
Well yes, that's the only answer to that question isn't it. But then you are dismissing any notion of rehabilitation within the justice system and treating it as punitive only.



But if it's anything like the American legal system, it's more costly in legal fees for a death sentence than it is for life time incarceration!
Click to expand...
She deserves no chance at rehabilitation, and is probably well past that stage anyway. She’s an abhorrent excuse for a human being and should never see the light of day again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom