You'll notice again, Einstein, that I edited that typo before you'd replied. Infact, 20 minutes before you replied...
Look here Samantha, that's a completely unreasonable thing to say.
You see unless you believe I, your Einstein, am capable of time travel I must have read and begun a reply before you attempted to erase your incompetence. How else would I know of it.
Your sulky appeal based on making an edit before I got round to submitting the reply might have some weight if you actually had a say on the time and focus I waste on forum messages. But you don't.
So when I come back many hours later and find you distressed that your editing wasn't noticed by the only person acknowledging your post, I have to tell you Samantha, it really is your problem that you didn't present it correctly the first time round.
Well, that and your earlier semantics which set you up for a deserved ribbing.
And you're now arguing a different point as before it was that he wasn't violent and so should have been let out. You're also wrong about selling your repentance pitch to the parole board, sentencing guidelines dictate the length of a prison sentence that is actually to be spent in prison.
So again I'll reiterate the point that you're ignoring. This individual was a proven threat - hence why he was jailed in the first place, in the same way that an arms dealer hasn't committed a violent crime it doesn't stop them being a danger. For the offences he'd committed at the time the maximum sentence allowed currently is 6 years. He served about a fifth of that. Short sentences are proven to not have an effect on re-offending and may actually be detrimental - this is accepted by the UK government who are actually in the process of abolishing the shortest jail terms (those under 6 months). Ergo the two options should be jail for a sufficient length to allow reform or no jail. Given he was a proven threat to public safety jail remained the only logical option. Therefore jail him for sufficient time to allow reform. That is not 1 and a bit years.
No, you're lying about how I previously mentioned violence and still retrospectively justifying more sentence which is completely worthless.
When I mentioned violence it was to accuse you of using his subsequent violence as a retrospective justification that the initial sentence wasn't enough, you're still doing it.
You'd have to be talking to a stereotypical red top rag reader to sell the knee jerk reaction to as you specified, quadruple the served sentence using the evidence that a now dead guy wasn't reformed by a prison sentence. Literally wanting revenge on remaining offenders because the actual offender isn't available. Very good political material to claim being "harder" on crime.
It wouldn't apply to the dead person you're using as retrospective evidence, it would apply to everyone else serving a minor terror offence. They'd all have theirs quadrupled (or whatever it may be) and you've ignored every instance of me mentioning problems with that, not least the huge injustice.
I've asked you about these studies you're in favour of. You've not shown what you're referencing except an actually void point of abolishing 6 month sentences, it's not the 18 month sentence he served is it which is also not 1/5 of 6 years but the 1/4 I've mentioned many times.
Slapping up sentences because of fear of lack of reform is not an attempt to give "more chance" to reform as you mentioned previously but an admission that prison is a **** hole to push problems down the line not a reformatory clinic.
In fact since you're not giving anything lets just hit up a search and see what a BBC article has to say:
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20180514-do-long-prison-sentences-deter-crime
It's all a bit arbitrary, time wasting and political whacking up sentences isn't it. I said it the first time that you didn't have the substance to justify longer sentences.