Pre-meditated assault where the victim was followed out of a pub, then headbutted and punched to the ground before a second (unidentified) assailant lays in with the boot... perp 1 then slots in a few more punches before stamping on the victim's head, leaving an imprint of his footwear that led to his arrest.
Victim unconcious with broken jaw, etc.
Charged with attempted murder, pled to assault to severe injury.
Click for the answer: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-18506080
That'll teach 'im.
Last edited by: Lygonos on Tue 19 Jun 12 at 15:26
|
|
9 months in prison would have been better than 9 months of evenings in his own home! Perhaps this sort of assault is seen as friendly horseplay North of the Border? 10 months to come to court too
|
|
It is really difficult to get jail time, and the low life know it.
|
Have to say, had I been the victim, the the assailant would find himself pinned under some stolen car, by some unidentified driver at some time in the future.
Dish best served cold and all that
|
|
That's the perp's 'excuse'
|
Hmmm,
There was previous between them and the victim had visited several pubs and consumed a large amount of alcohol. Not justifying it but I wonder if there was provocation......
|
|
probably, stranger assault (without a theft) is very rare
|
>> Have to say, had I been the victim, the the assailant would find himself pinned
>> under some stolen car, by some unidentified driver at some time in the future.
>>
>> Dish best served cold and all that.
A dark night with no witnesses has sorted many old scores.
|
>> It is really difficult to get jail time, and the low life know it.
>>
+1
|
Every time I see a story like that, whatever the punishment, I wonder what use such people are and why we should put up with them at all.
I don't suppose we can send them to Australia any more, and we've rather painted ourselves into a corner on capital punishment.
|
Ive never understood why it is people who think this sort of behaviour is acceptable under any circimstances are ever allowed out into civilised society. What exactly do you have to do to get a proper stretch nowadays?
Say what you like about the yanks, but they know how to put the victims first when it comes to locking people up for proper amounts of time.
|
>> Ive never understood why it is people who think this sort of behaviour is acceptable
>> under any circimstances are ever allowed out into civilised society. What exactly do you have
>> to do to get a proper stretch nowadays?
>>
>> Say what you like about the yanks, but they know how to put the victims
>> first when it comes to locking people up for proper amounts of time.
>>
+1
|
American gaol terms (often into hundreds of years) are frankly ludicrous. Take the case of Allan Stanford - 110 years for fraud? 110 years? what a stupid sentence and completely meaningless.
UK prison sentence terms are fine if:
a: they are actually handed out. Not in their case
b: if they actually mean what they say. 7 years for example frequently means 3-4 years.
c: Life does not mean life. It should, its a simple term that is quite easy to understand, and does not mean 30 years!
|
>> American gaol terms (often into hundreds of years) are frankly ludicrous. Take the case of
>> Allan Stanford - 110 years for fraud? 110 years? what a stupid sentence and completely
>> meaningless.
Actually not.
He wasn't sentenced to 110 years as a 'one off' sentence, he got various sentences on 13 different charges, totalling 110 years.
So... if he wins an appeal on one or two, he's still inside for the rest of his natural etc etc etc.
|
He is 62 years old. Of course 110 years is stupid, by anyones terms - concurrently or consecutively, he would have got less for assault, And there is the obscenity of US jail terms, money counts as much as a life.
You are jailed for life for embezzlement? Makes a mockery of, and meaningless of any other sentence handed out.
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 19 Jun 12 at 19:44
|
>> You are jailed for life for embezzlement? Makes a mockery of, and meaningless of any
>> other sentence handed out.
>>
Not if you were somebody whose life savings/inheritence he'd stolen, it wouldn't. You are now destitute, and your descendants aren't going to get their slice either...
|
Oh so you are in the sexual abuse of minors counts the same as nicking their pocket money camp are you?
|
Nope. Sexual abuse should be a mandatory death sentence.
Defrauding people of their savings - effectively stuffing up their lives - should be a life sentence.
maybe other scumbag bankers will learn from it?
|
>> Nope. Sexual abuse should be a mandatory death sentence.
>> Defrauding people of their savings - effectively stuffing up their lives - should be a
>> life sentence.
Whats the difference? Whats to stop someone sexually abusing someone and then killing them as apposed to just abusing them?
Where is the scale of sentence for the scale of crime? You are still cheapening life.
|
"Defrauding people of their savings - effectively stuffing up their lives - should be a life sentence"
Bit difficult to justify jailing individual for life when governments make it their policy to devalue the currency hold interest rates artificially low and thus destroy a large element of peope's life savings and pensions.
Where's the moral difference?
|
>>Where's the moral difference?<<
Intent.
|
So if a fraudster steal my money because he thinks he can use it better than me or a government steal my money because they think they need it more than I do their is a difference?
Both the government and the fraudster have the intent to relieve me of part of my savings by subterfuge do they not?
|
|
In the majority of cases, Fraudsters are only able to operate due to the greed of their victims. This is applicable in all cases where a ponzi scheme is involved. The victim(s) in Stanfords case have an element of blame.
|
|
Which makes government morality worse than most fraudsters.
|
>>American gaol terms (often into hundreds of years) are frankly ludicrous. Take the case of Allan Stanford - 110 years for fraud? 110 years? what a stupid sentence and completely meaningless.<<
If someone, for instance abused my son, id not think a 100 year sentance ludircrous, id think yes I know the sentance will outlive the convict, but it says to them and the public he will never see the light of day again for what they did, there is no place in society for them so they will remain outside of it.
Many crimes stay with the victims for a lifetime and sometimes have a knock on effect to the next generation who often suffer with the victims, so a symbolic sentance that reflects how far reaching crime is seems quite appropriate to me.
|
|
So you rate fraud on the same scale as sexual abuse of your son?
|
No, you stated sentances in the hundreds of years were ludicrous, that was the statement I responded to.
Fraud however is a passive aggressive crime, which can destroy multiple lives in some cases and have far reaching consequences for the victims involved.
Its not the same sort of crime as child abuse or murder, but it still deserves a stiff sentance.
I never suggested they were on the same level, but to suggest that fraud isnt also a very serious and harmful crime is quite short-sighted.
|
Ok, how much worse is sexual abuse of a minor than fraud? 10 times? At the very least I would say.
So thats 1,100 years for the abuse. Tell me thats not ludicrous and makes a mockery of sentencing. Meaningless.
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 19 Jun 12 at 19:56
|
>> makes a
>> mockery of sentencing. Meaningless.
>>
Not for the bloke who's facing that porridge it isn't!
|
But it does for people who might commit the crime. If you know you get the same stupidly long sentences for fraud or murder, whats to stop you going on a shooting spree and robbing banks at the same time and shooting cops while doing it.
Oh! Excuse me, in the states they do.
BY making financial crime penalties the same as murder, you cheapen life. As they have,
Your really want to emulate America?
|
>>Ok, how much worse is sexual abuse of a minor than fraud? 10 times? At the very least I would say.
So thats 1,100 years for the abuse. Tell me thats not ludicrous and makes a mockery of sentencing. Meaningless.<<
Depends on the depth of the sentance. Its not just a factor of time, but of suffering during that time, how hard the sentance is. I think death is too easy for the worst crimes, I think a lifetime of hardship would add an element to the length of a sentance. I dont need lectures on what abuse victims deserve though thanks all the same :-/
On the fraud question, say someone is taken for their life savings and this leads to their suicide, or perhaps alcoholism and a fatal drunk rage - is it such a lesser crime if someone dies as a consequence of the fraud, perhaps years after the original day in court?
|
Its money. Its not the same as human life. Life for nicking money and life for killing someone.
You have put a price, pretty low as it happens, on human life. Not the society I want thank you.
And as it happens you have placed a pretty low price on any abuse of your son.
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 19 Jun 12 at 20:09
|
>>You have put a price, pretty low as it happens, on human life. Not the society I want thank you<<
Im sure, should someone take you for every penny, as your sitting in your carboard box, you will be hoping the fraudster only gets 10 years so we can give 100 years to the worst crimes.
>>And as it happens you have placed a pretty low price on any abuse of your son. <<
Seriously, you have to go there? You can be quite vile sometimes.
|
|
Wasn't me. You brought him into the argument and compared him with financial crime. Not me, you, and all I have done is shown you subsequently what "scale of sentence" means. Painfully maybe but think about it
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 19 Jun 12 at 20:20
|
>>Wasn't me. You brought him into the argument and compared him with financial crime. Not me, you, and all I have done is shown you subsequently what "scale of sentence" means. Painfully maybe but think about it <<
At no point did I compare the crimes Zero. I referenced my son as an example of how I would feel about sentances of hundreds of years and that as a father and as a victim of abuse, id support symbolic sentances.
I did say that child abuse and murder were more serious crimes but fraud also deserved a stiff sentance and outlined that to take account of the limitations of the length of human life, the way in which the sentance is served could be adjusted to meet the crime.
Perhaps you should read before you type.
|
|
No you need to read what you have written.
|
>>No you need to read what you have written. <<
I did, so quote the bit were I said the crimes were on the same level? Unless you cant.
|
>> >>No you need to read what you have written. <<
>>
>> I did, so quote the bit were I said the crimes were on the same
>> level? Unless you cant.
quote
Its not the same sort of crime as child abuse or murder, but it still deserves a stiff sentance.
|
I said it deserves a stiff sentance, I didnt say the other two crimes didnt deserve a stiffer sentance.
Since child abuse and murder are two very different crimes, you know very well that I was referring to the level of severity when I used the word 'sort'. A weak effort just so you could say something unpleasent, talk about twisting to fit - not related to my ex are you? :-)
|
Not twisting it at all, its what you said and the meaning of all your subsequent posts.
I am really not going to go into the matter of throwing the abuse of ones son into the argument. You know what you did.
|
Your interpretation only, the meaning is what I meant, not what you want it to mean.
I know what it is to be a victim of such abuse so ill take no lectures from you on my ideals for sentancing.
|
|
Maybe, but you don't know what its like to be murdered do you.
|
|
Congratulations for finding an even more pointless cul-de-sac than the last one.
|
Still can't see it can you. Scale.
Edit. And deterrent.
Let me explain, again.
Perp abuses child. gets life or death sentence.
Perp abuses child, perp kills child after as he has less chance of getting caught, he is and gets life or death sentence.
Where is the deterrent for that ultimate fatal escalation of act?
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 19 Jun 12 at 21:15
|
Let me break this down for you - child abusers dont stop at a certain point to decide what likely sentance they will get, they dont have a checklist of do's and dont's - they do what they do because they want to and at that moment in time, circumstances allow them to do so.
These people are not altogether sane and you are trying to apply cold hard logic to some very twisted individuals, they do not operate to the same rules as you and I.
The protection of the public is THE most important issue - any pedophile should be behind bars and stay there, you dont let one out earlier for being 'nicer' than another, they are all dangerous, full stop.
Say you only give the killers life sentances - what do you say when a non-killer gets out and repeat offends?
Im sure you will save more children from harm by sending the message that touch a child, do life, than you will by saying dont kill them, you will get out again for another shot when your older.
Perhaps the wrong crime for your example, I CAN see how it would work were fights turn bad, but child abusers are a rather unique type of criminal.
|
>> These people are not altogether sane and you are trying to apply cold hard logic
>> to some very twisted individuals, they do not operate to the same rules as you
>> and I.
They have logic ok. Preparing, Grooming and concealing the crime takes cold hard logic and shows deep knowledge of the consequences of getting caught. They know the rules by which they play. Child abuse takes so many different forms and levels its impossible to categorise them all. But above it all is the sanctity and the value of life.
There are of course complete nutters. They should be hospitalised. Jail terms all too often are handed out instead of treatment these days.
|
>> Ok, how much worse is sexual abuse of a minor than fraud? 10 times? At
>> the very least I would say.
>>
>> So thats 1,100 years for the abuse. Tell me thats not ludicrous and makes a
>> mockery of sentencing. Meaningless.
All you've achieved there is to show why sentencing is difficult. There are at least four considerations for sentencing -
Containment of dangerous people
Rehabilitation
Retribution, put another way, what society as a whole considers the offender deserves.
Deterrence - both general, and in the reduction of recidivism.
Child abusers with no real prospect of rehabilitation need to be kept locked up even if we think they are "ill". Mass fraudsters stealing numerous peoples life savings and effectively ruining many lives arguably should receive a similar punishment for different reasons.
|
Alas, the Americans have reduced their use of any of those contributory options by blanket large jail sentences.
Retribution should never be a consideration in a civilised society.
|
>> Alas, the Americans have reduced their use of any of those contributory options by blanket
>> large jail sentences.
>>
>> Retribution should never be a consideration in a civilised society.
>>
BUT Zero did you not say this "Have to say, had I been the victim, the the assailant would find himself pinned under some stolen car, by some unidentified driver at some time in the future.
Dish best served cold and all that".
Well?
|
|
Thats personal vengence, the judiciary and the law is supposed to be above that. And of course, if caught It would be illegal and usually attracts a stiffer sentence than the original offence.
|
>> Retribution should never be a consideration in a civilised society.
>>
Why ever not?
|
>> we've rather painted
>> ourselves into a corner on capital punishment.
>>
Indeed.
Up until a few decades back, young offenders of this nature in this country were sentenced to caning.
None of the Beano six of the best stuff (or Max Mosely fun and games) - the miscreants were taken to the local prison, lashed to an easel-like structure, and it was 'lay on with a will, Sarn't Major!' for a dozen strokes.
Not pleasant, but a definite deterrent to further wrongdoing..
|
|
Doesn't matter how pie eyed the victim may have been or to be fair how much verbal provocation was involved. No justification for the response. I am in Knowuns camp for sure.
|
|
Hey kids in Bangor get this for doing less !
|
Quite a bit about anti-social behaviour in Bangor on BBC1 this morning.
Apparently unaccompanied mis-behaving under 18s can be ordered to leave the town centre by the heddlu.
|
|
If somebody is on the floor and you boot his head the damage can be lethal.Reminds me as a youngster when I got into a argument.I was into judo then and I managed to trow him before he attemped to smash my face in.He rolled up into a ball and I told him to get up and shake hands.I wonder if he done the favour if I had been on the deck.Best not to get into any dispute not worth it.Got attacked once with a knife I was very lucky to get out of that one.
|
>> Hey kids in Bangor get this for doing less !
>>
... the sentence or the beating?
Sometimes the world isn't fair at all. On simple sporting news you find one footballer gets fined €100k for showing his Paddy Power underpants (Paddy Power to pay the fine) and a tennis player gets fined €10k for injuring an official.
Going back to the OP - I assume the jails are too full to take him. He deserves locking up!
|
This is a banal incident surely? Scuffles of that sort happen every day. It only made the news because of the trainer footprint on face detail and the broken jaw.
The victim had beaten up some time earlier the unjailed youth's cousin (who was presumably the other assailant). The unjailed youth and the cousin jumped the victim when he was drunk and tried to give him a battering. They obviously weren't experts or especially 'tasty' because the victim's injuries weren't all that serious really by gross battering standards.
Of course it's a dangerous thing to do to kick someone in the head or stamp on their face even if you aren't a genuine thug wearing hobnailed and steel-toecapped boots for the purpose. But silly young men do worse things all the time. Seems abhorrent to me, but I can imagine circumstances where it might seem necessary, God forbid eh? That sort of thing becomes less likely as you get older thank goodness.
|
In England, it's the kicking while the victim is on the ground which tends to make the difference between immediate prison and a non-custodial sentence.
The punters know this, so will admit the offence 'on the basis' there was no kicking.
A case I covered today went along these lines.
Defendant admitted assault occasioning actual bodily harm on the basis there was no kicking.
For once, the prosecution dug their heels in and the court had what's called a Newton Hearing - a fact finding exercise.
That found the defendant did kick the victim to the head.
The judge said kicking was 'tantamount to using a weapon', and locked up the defendant for 12 months.
Few tears from the lad, he knew the ropes from his previous assault cases and obviously thought he'd be watching tonight's England game in the pub, not courtesy of HMP Durham.
|
"Hey kids in Bangor get this for doing less ! "
I went into Bangor town centre once a few years ago. Was looking for a chip shop 'cos we had arrived at a Youth Hostel nearby rather too late to get the school party we were with fed at the YH. Couldn't find anything open at the very late hour of about 9pm.
So, 2 points
a. There isn't much to do in Bangor town centre.
b. Is ther a "Bangor town centre?"
|
|
Bangor, twinned with Headbanger, Louisiana
|
And for a piece, forgive the thread drift Lygonos, of really gratuitous playground thuggery the case of Ian Tomlinson which has just resurfaced is a better example in a way.
Seeing the video shown on the news tonight I was struck by the bovine posture of the other police, too shut into their armour and riot squad duties to have the sense to help this pathetic geezer or even stop their colleague from giving him that savage shove.
Of course one supposes the copper didn't intend real harm but it was pretty poor behaviour for anyone let alone a copper - even a riot squad copper.
|
|
Less playground thuggery, more a case of kindergarten tots temper tantrum compared to the case of the LAPD and Rodney King, who died recently.
|
>> Less playground thuggery, more a case of kindergarten tots temper tantrum compared to the case
>> of the LAPD and Rodney King, who died recently.
>>
There was a lot more to that. Crack cocaine had just come in and Mr King was believed to be high on it.
Many police officers over there greatly feared the effects of crack cocaine on suspects, because they were utterly uncompliant, in a society that habitually does as it told with the cops. People on crack could/can take enormous amounts of restraint to deal with and were/are execepionally aggressive, even failing to slow down much when shot.
Same principle as pit bulls in this country about 20 years ago. We all were shown a video of a pit bull savaging an American cop...and thought '****, what do we do with that'. The first call I went to with a pit bull going wild, I drove my police car up the kerb and used the p.a. to tell the owner he had 30 seconds to get hold of it before I drove over it...and I would have done too.
I do agree that Rodney King took one savage beating.
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 20 Jun 12 at 01:11
|
>> I do agree that Rodney King took one savage beating.
Oh I dunno. Looked pretty mild by LAPD standards. Whatever happened to 7,000 rounds of assorted ordnance into and all round the victim?
|
Some of us may think we live in quite violent times, but my brother was a 'gangster' in the 40 and 50's and 'to do' someone with an iron bar was the order of the day for him and his ilk.
He knew the Krays / Richardsons / mad Frankie Frazer, the Tobins etc. etc. they wouldn't bother you,
(unless you upset them)
Today though, there are far too many "real" nutters (psychos?) out there, whether its the drugs they consume or the strength of the sherbet (or a mixture of the two) I know not.
If you look back in time though, its always gone on, in one form or another.
"I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me".
Hunter S. Thompson
|
Quite Perro. In my youth I knew a junkie in Notting Hill, a nice friendly fellow old and wise before his time, who came from the East End. It was a pretty desolate area after the war and for some time thereafter. I used to go there myself sometimes in the late fifties.
He told me that when he was a teenager in Stepney he had witnessed the murder of a tramp by some of his friends. They had found the guy helpless and smashed his head in with a crowbar on some dreadful bombsite.
People who weren't there don't know what London looked like in the fifties. Altogether different place, a different age. Skyscrapers now, quite old ones, were holes in the ground then. Everywhere.
|
If we forget about all the halcyon days when the State could legally thrash, torture and murder its citizens (whether guilty or not) and return to civilisation...
I think the sentencing for repeat offences should escalate sharply.
eg. Serious assault (broken bone but no real danger to life) = 1-2yrs.
Second offence for same = 5-10yrs.
Even morons can learn, and if they can't why should they have rap-sheets totalling dozens of offences before they get to stay away from the rest of us?
|
>> If we forget about all the halcyon days when the State could legally thrash, torture
>> and murder its citizens (whether guilty or not) and return to civilisation...
There are plenty of people i'd be quite happy for the State to thrash, torture or kill.
The chap who killed Sarah Payne for starters.
|
>> Maybe Stefan Kiszko too?
>>
How predictable.
So one person wrongly convicted, means no one else can ever be properly punished?
There are some truly despicable people on this planet and the strong should look after the weak, all you hand wringers do is allow some other poor innocent soul to suffer.
If there was the odd Stefan Kiszko and the State had wrongly executed him....but...several hundred of the truly awful in the world e.g. sadistic child killers, had met their maker...then that's a sad but necessary risk to take.
|
He spent 16 years in jail as a (stitched-up) child killer - wasn't exactly having a holiday now, was he.
|
I'm sure you'll agree bent coppers should get the rope too.
And those who stitch people up should do serious time.
|
>> He spent 16 years in jail as a (stitched-up) child killer - wasn't exactly having
>> a holiday now, was he.
Who stated he or hinted that he was?
He was exceptionally hard done by.
|
>>He was exceptionally hard done by.
Indeed, since we know he was innocent, but if he had indeed commited the crime he'd have served a significant punishment without the need for shoving a spike up his harris and letting him die slowly over 2-3 days or whatever method of torture you wish to inflict.
|
>> Indeed, since we know he was innocent, but if he had indeed commited the crime
>> he'd have served a significant punishment without the need for shoving a spike up his
>> harris and letting him die slowly over 2-3 days or whatever method of torture you
>> wish to inflict.
>>
See you know damned well I don't mean that...don't you.
I mean lethally injecting or something similar.
|
>> Maybe Stefan Kiszko too?
>>
I had forgotten about this case.
Link to wiki
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Lesley_Molseed
|
It wouldn't just have been Kiszko. The Birmingham Six and Guildford Four, those originally convicted of Carl Bridgewater's murder and plenty of others would have gone to the gallows as well. There's at least one case in the States where the executed 'perp' was the wrong 'John Smith'.
Aside from any moral and humanitarian considerations the risk of the state murdering the innocent is simply too high.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 20 Jun 12 at 20:31
|
|
There is the danger of kinda descending to his level, and giving thrashing torturing and killing some legitimacy.
|
|
I would not want to live in a state that tortures and kills people in my name.
|
|
Best keep away from hospitals then ;-)
|
>> I would not want to live in a state that tortures and kills people in
>> my name.
>>
I'd agree with the torture...but the thrashing or killing we'll have to agree to disagree.
That fellow who killed Sarah Payne...are you really happy for him to be sat there eating three good meals a day, watching his colour t.v. and exercising in his well equipped gym?......because I'm not.
some content removed at authors request
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 21 Jun 12 at 01:14
|
Myra Hindley had a right old larf in jail. These rapists and kid-killers are control/power junkies - they don't enjoy being caged and told what to do, whatever the Sun says.
If you decide that Whiting is 100.00% guilty and thus can be safely disposed of, what level of certainty do you decide to simply give them a life sentence 'just in case they didn't do it.'
Considering the number of successful appeals and known miscarriages, a simple "guilty" after a trial just doesn't carry that level of certainty for me.
|
>> Considering the number of successful appeals and known miscarriages, a simple "guilty" after a trial
>> just doesn't carry that level of certainty for me.
>>
Fine, up the game then. before a judge can attach the black cloth to his/her head there has to be 'x' safeguards...
....to do nothing and let some out again does a huge disservice to the innocent, vulnerable, frail, etc.
If you haven't noticed, things are getting worse.
|
No of course I'm not happy - It's a ridiculous word to use but he is safely behind bars and unable to re-offend.
Judicial killing and torturing people (you did originally support the idea) in my opinion demeans a society and its implementation would put us all on the slippery slope from civilisation to barbarity.
|
>> That fellow who killed Sarah Payne...are you really happy for him
>> to be sat there eating three good meals a day, watching his colour t.v. and
>> exercising in his well equipped gym?......because I'm not.
>>
Too true, WP. Neither am I. I listened to the Lesley Anne tapes a generation ago. It broke my heart to hear this little soul pleading for her life. I visit her grave near here when I'm checking on SWM's family plot. Always have a tear in my eye.
Hindley and Brady, together with the Black Panther, Sams, Roberts and co... and many others should have ended their miserable lives on the end of a rope.
Ted
edited to remove part of quoted message
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 21 Jun 12 at 01:15
|
I am quite happy they were left alive. Ian Brady has been suffering mentally for years and subsequently trying to kill himself, and not being allowed to do so must be some kind of torture - thankfully.
They are better left alive to be vilified and abused, than dead forgotten and past history.
|
>> They are better left alive to be vilified and abused, than dead forgotten and past
>> history.
>>
I don't agree.....and object to my taxpayer's money giving them a reasonably comfortable life.
|
If it costs me 20 or 30 quid a year to ensure that these scumbags are locked away from us, and a few innocent men aren't murdered by the state, I can live with that compromise.
|
...giving them a reasonably comfortable life...
That may apply to some prisoners doing short stretches in open or lower category prisons, but I don't think it applies to lifers.
I've gathered, mostly in snippets, a lot of inside information about Frankland top security jail in Durham over the years.
"Hell on earth" is the simplest way to put it.
|
>> "Hell on earth" is the simplest way to put it.
>>
Eric Allison's accounts of prison life in the Guardian say much the same.
|
>> "Hell on earth" is the simplest way to put it.
>>
>>
I have a long term friend who spent most of his working life on the staff of Frankland high security jail and the nearby Durham remand centre. Believe me you do not want to go there.
|
>>That fellow who killed Sarah Payne 8< snip<<
Good God!, is that true Wp (it must be, coming from you) how come I've never heard of that then?
At the time I followed that case like a next-of-kin, these people are beasts, not men, and need to be treated as such.
part of quoted message removed
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 21 Jun 12 at 01:17
|
There may be a good reason why this information is not in the public domain - maybe the mods should remove mention of it?
Similarly with respect to the 'hang 'em high' brigade:
Sara Payne has openly expressed her firm opposition to the death penalty in the media on many occasions.
'nuff said.
|
>> - maybe the mods should remove mention of it?
>>
>> Similarly with respect to the 'hang 'em high' brigade:
>>
>> Sara Payne has openly expressed her firm opposition to the death penalty in the media
>> on many occasions.
Why?
You are allowed to express your honestly held opinion. Why shouldn't people who believe in capital punishment be allowed to express their opinion?
Sara Payne is against capital punishment. So?
|
Opinion expression is necessary and vital - I just wonder if the content of WPs post is at risk of breaching some media/court/good taste guideline somewhere as I'm sure the redtops would have mentioned it.
|
If it's true and has been withheld by the media in interest of the feelings of the family it seems wrong to publish it here. If it isn't true then its needlessly distressing.
|
|
content removed, as followed on from an earlier post that was requested to be edited / removed
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 21 Jun 12 at 01:19
|
>> Good God!, is that true Wp (it must be, coming from you) how come I've
>> never heard of that then?
Dog,
I'm having trouble remembering why I think that. I can remember it was discussed 'in house' at the time, but it's unlikely I would have had any contact with anyone investigating it (different force) although if I had, it wouldn't be right and proper to disclose it.
Due to my vague memory and the slight chance that someone has discussed something they shouldn't have then, with me (and I've then posted it, years later), i'll ask a Mod to remove that part of my post.
It also ensures accuracy on a subject that to my mind would be wholly wrong for me to speculate incorrectly and although i'm fairly sure that was knowledge shared at the time, I can't back it up with anything.
Regards
|
>> i'll ask a Mod to remove that part of my post.
Hopefully I've removed everything?
VxF.
|
>> Hopefully I've removed everything?
>>
>> VxF.
>>
Thank you, sorry for the extra work.
Timely point to thank all the mods for their work, regards.
|
>> I think the sentencing for repeat offences should escalate sharply.
I would agree with that. Any dumb sprauncy youth can make a mistake, even accidentally break a bone, but any appearance of repetition - that having hurt someone badly, the individual seems to want to repeat the experience instead of avoiding it - would tend to indicate bad character.
Not that banging bad characters up for years together is likely to do them any good. But I suppose it keeps them out of everyone else's hair.
|
|
Are there guidelines for jail sentences, and if so who makes up the guidelines?
|
It's a combination of precedent/historical guidelines, and Parliament.
Ultimately Government makes the Law.
|
|
Ultimately (at present) the E.U. make most of the law, although perhaps not sentencing guidelines.
|
>> Ultimately (at present) the E.U. make most of the law, although perhaps not sentencing guidelines.
Not a great deal of EU influence in criminal matters Roger. The European Convention on Human Rights and it's incorporation in UK Law as the Human Rights Act is relevant. The ECHR however is a post war treaty we signed up to long before the 'Common Market' was on the UK political agenda.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 20 Jun 12 at 16:57
|
Yes there are extensive guidelines.
Work out how long you can expect before you do the crime ;-)
sentencingcouncil.judiciary.gov.uk/guidelines/guidelines-to-download.htm
|
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18522383
Assuming the story is as portrayed by the man and his 5yo daughter I think few would argue with this outcome.
Most people don't enjoy killing other human beings - even this guy seemed quite distressed that the perp appeared to be dying.
|
|
Oh good God. The lower depths. What a cartload of goddam monkeys we are.
|
>Oh good God. The lower depths.
You don't read the online African news sites then AC?
|
>> Another reason why I can't support a death penalty:
>>
>> www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-18556183
>>
>>
Concealment of evidence that might acquit the defendant or cast sufficient doubt that a jury won't convict is a scandal running through the last 40 yrs.
Stefan Kisko, various Irish 'terrorists' and the much more recent case of Sam Hallam exemplify.
|
It must be horrendous being in the clink as an ex-copper... but an ex-copper who is jailed for stitching up a case that led to 2 guys serving 10 years each for murder...
I'd rather be a paedo inside.
|
Don't they regard it as 'swings and roundabouts'?
They all know they've got away with crimes they committed, so being 'fitted up' for something they may or may not have done comes with the territory.
|
Imagine you are arrested and charged with excesive speeding, say 100 in a 70 zone.
Maybe you've done that before a few times and gotten away with it.
But the one time you are charged it's a bent cop trying to get his figures up and you didn't do it.
Yeah, I bet you'd be philosophical about that ;-)
|
How much jail time... - Meldrew
