Just to show that we *do* have a functioning justice system...

Indy500

Indy500

Indy500

Soldato
Joined
7 Mar 2005
Posts
17,481
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/8530035.stm

Nicolle Earley - one of Scotland's youngest female murderers - was 16 when she killed Ann Gray in her home in Crosshill on 14 November 2008.

At the High Court in Edinburgh, the 18-year-old was ordered to serve a minimum of 14 years in prison.

Mrs Gray, 63, died as a result of a head injury after she was knocked to the ground and repeatedly stamped on.

...

The judge said: "There is only one sentence I can pass following a plea of guilty to murder and that is detention for life."
Click to expand...

Sad that someone had to die over owing a couple of cigarettes, but there you go.

Admittedly this is in Scotland so it won't satisfy some, but hey justice has been served :)
 
She should be in jail until she is at least 50, I think that would pass as an acceptable "life" sentence in my opinion.
 
silworth said:
It still isn't right:

Life should mean life, as in, until you die, no chance of parole, do not pass go, do not collect dole.
Click to expand...

Not a fan of rehabilitation I take it? She did admit guilt after all, so I suspect the judge agrees with me on the possibility of reforming this young woman...
 
at 14 years, im guessing they will take into account the 2 years already served, so she will be free to start her life again at 30
 
In most cases there's little point in condemning someone to an actual life of imprisonment; especially when it's for a crime committed as a minor, even if they are above the age of criminal responsibility.

If this girl educates herself, shows outstanding behaviour, diligently completes her work and generally becomes a nice person, then if she is 66 you have to think "how relevant is her crime as a minor of 50 years ago to her standing as a person today?" It would be hard to come to the conclusion that she is still such a threat to society that she must continue to be imprisoned. Fifty years is a very long time, and people do change.
 
sr4470 said:
Not a fan of rehabilitation I take it? She did admit guilt after all, so I suspect the judge agrees with me on the possibility of reforming this young woman...
Click to expand...

I don't believe someone who is capable of murder is ever fully able to rehabilitate. Life should be life, you take a life you should give a life in prison time.
 
PMKeates said:
In most cases there's little point in condemning someone to an actual life of imprisonment; especially when it's for a crime committed as a minor, even if they are above the age of criminal responsibility.

If this girl educates herself, shows outstanding behaviour, diligently completes her work and generally becomes a nice person, then if she is 66 you have to think "how relevant is her crime as a minor of 50 years ago to her standing as a person today?" It would be hard to come to the conclusion that she is still such a threat to society that she must continue to be imprisoned. Fifty years is a very long time, and people do change.
Click to expand...

But the thing is, what of the life she took away? Why should she get the chance at a life that she prevented another from living?
 
Dkore-DeX said:
I don't believe someone who is capable of murder is ever fully able to rehabilitate. Life should be life, you take a life you should give a life in prison time.
Click to expand...

Eye for an eye is hardly a civilised approach when it comes to punishing people for their crimes, I truly believe that anyone can be rehabilitated if they try hard enough, no matter how severe the crime is, although I do think that certain individuals should be monitored closely after leaving prison, gps tracking etc depending on the severity and nature of their crime.

If we don't believe that people can be rehabilitated what hope do we have.
 
Last edited:
jamief said:
But the thing is, what of the life she took away? Why should she get the chance at a life that she prevented another from living?
Click to expand...
It's a tough call, I realise that. "Tit for tat" justice doesn't work - instead of realising a tragedy for what it is, you force that tragedy on to another, as if it somehow heals the first.

We as humans are fallible beings. We do stupid and wrong things. What we should do is look at how we can prevent those stupid and wrong things from happening the first place, at the root cause. We only need to imprison people for as long as they are at risk of re-offending.
 
Life for a life is great but it theory it would not stop people killing, cost a fortune to implement and if you are going to keep someone locked up for their entire life with no input to society then why not just kill them and save all the hassle.
 
There should be a chance of reform, kids don't think nowadays. By the time she gets out she will have realised.
 
Sinque said:
There should be a chance of reform, kids don't think nowadays. By the time she gets out she will have realised.
Click to expand...

Perhaps she should have thought beforehand?

Ignorance isn't an excuse.

It's not "eye for an eye" anyway, as it's not like we are suggesting she is given the death penalty. But she should have no interraction with normal society from this point in.

I'm all for rehabilitation for lesser crimes, but taking a life deserves punishment not rehabilitation.
 
Hatter The Mad said:
Given that the majority of murders in this country are emotionally driven, you're wrong.
Click to expand...

And if you are of the state of mind where your emotions can impair your judgement that much, do you not think that they perhaps have underlying pshychological issues? You know, the kind that prevent you from ever being truely a beneficial part of society?

So no, you're wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom