Non-motoring > Correct sentence?	Miscellaneous
Thread Author: MD	Replies: 32

New Mon 3 Apr 17 20:05   Correct sentence? - MD

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-39483801 Reply to this message | Report message

New Mon 3 Apr 17 20:12   Correct sentence? - No FM2R

Yes. But there should be more to it also. They need to be out of society, but how are they being forced to help society or pay for their board and lodging?? Reply to this message | Report message

New Mon 3 Apr 17 20:14   Correct sentence? - Bromptonaut

Life. What more do you want? Reply to this message | Report message

New Mon 3 Apr 17 20:25   Correct sentence? - Haywain

"Life. What more do you want?" Rather more than 7.5 years. You'll be telling us next that they had a difficult start in life, bad upbringing etc. (cue violins). Reply to this message | Report message

New Mon 3 Apr 17 20:33   Correct sentence? - Bromptonaut

>> Rather more than 7.5 years. That's 7.5yrs before they can apply for parole. Probably twice that before they can convince board they're eligible. And they're still subject to recall. Reply to this message | Report message

New Mon 3 Apr 17 20:39   Correct sentence? - MD

You just don't 'get it' do you Bromp? Reply to this message | Report message       1

New Mon 3 Apr 17 20:40   Correct sentence? - No FM2R

What more do I want? Them to die without the State having to kill them. Failing that, life. Meaning life. And forced to work for the benefit of society for as long as they are able. And I can't get excited about "subject to recall" SFW. Last edited by: No FM2R on Mon 3 Apr 17 at 20:40 Reply to this message | Report message

New Mon 3 Apr 17 20:47   Correct sentence? - MD

See Brompers my little fellow. REAL men get it. Go and have a hot chocolate and shuffle off to bed, there's a good chap. Night night. X Reply to this message | Report message

New Mon 3 Apr 17 20:50   Correct sentence? - CGNorwich

Why do you always have to be so offensive? You really are an unpleasant and ignorant man. Reply to this message | Report message       1

New Mon 3 Apr 17 20:58   Correct sentence? - MD

You're a softie too I believe. Do you not grasp the enormity of just what those two animals did? Robbery is one thing. Robbery with violence is something completely different. Robbery and pouring boiling water over another human being?????? I suggest you and your mate both have a hot chocolate and discuss. Reply to this message | Report message       1

New Mon 3 Apr 17 21:28   Correct sentence? - Bromptonaut

>> Robbery and pouring boiling water over another human being?????? For which they got life. As before, what more (within current laws, no gallows etc) do you want. Reply to this message | Report message

New Mon 3 Apr 17 21:45   Correct sentence? - No FM2R

I don't think you can say "as before" in such a manner if at the same time you change the question. Reply to this message | Report message

New Mon 3 Apr 17 21:57   Correct sentence? - MD

Perhaps for the law to change to truly reflect the enormity of crimes like this. There is far too much behaviour like this happening now or is news coverage just greater? 7.5 years and then possibly out on parole. It would do them no good. They will more than likely be of no use on the outside after that period in establishments where the powers that be cannot control even drug use. If it were me I would come out very bitter, not that I'm going in in the first place, but a short sharp painful shock (of the heavy duty kind) would likely make me think VERY differently about transgressing again. We have seemingly come to accept this behaviour or so it seems in sentencing terms. Wielding a bigger stick 'may' not work, but what we have now certainly isn't. Remember though that they poured BOILING WATER over two human beings. I am not unpleasant. Just VERY angry at watching scum erode my way of life. Reply to this message | Report message

New Mon 3 Apr 17 22:04   Correct sentence? - CGNorwich

If you are angry at the sentence, and you seem to have a problem with anger, there is no need to make offensive comments to other forum members who are just as entitled to their views as you are. Reply to this message | Report message

New Mon 3 Apr 17 22:10   Correct sentence? - MD

A problem with anger. Are you never angry about anything? Perhaps if you liberals kicked up just a bit now and then........or are you just content to take whatever the state deems appropriate? Having a cup of tea now as thankfully we've run out of hot chocolate. See you in the morning dear. Pistols at dawn? Reply to this message | Report message

New Mon 3 Apr 17 22:29   Correct sentence? - No FM2R

We've been here before; For the majority, a short, sharp shock does not work. It makes us fel better, but tempting though it is, revenge is wrong. Our youth, or much of it is no longer as aspirational as it once was. Mostly because we do not look down upon failure as we once used to. On the face of it you would think a good thing, but an unintentional side effect is that shame, expectations, respect, fear, call it what you will, are no longer the drivers that they once were. So how do we really expect that a short sharp shock is going to impact someone so much that they will change their behaviour when the disapproval of society, lack of respect from others, mistreatment from others has not? So for those that we think are redeemable, or where we should at least try, then prison is not and never will be the answer. Or at least not alone. For those who are not redeemable, or from whom society needs protection, they must be incarcerated. But that is entirely at society's expense. Why should they not be making restitution for that in some way? Now of course some criminals have not lead a tough life, do not have practical problems or other challenges and they are some level or form of sociopath to one degree or another. If society doesn't need physically protecting from them, then they should be put to work outside prison. Whatever work. Of course, the longer term goal is to try to address the problem. In my opinion that starts in a child's early life. You;d hope that parents would lead the way, but I think the best that we can hope for is that educational system begins the direction of travel. We will always have criminals. Always. And to some extent we need that type of thinking in our society. We just need to minimise , contain it and consider how we will handle it. However, in the case of this lost, removal from society is required. the boiling water was horrific, but did you also see the drive by shooting and other crimes? Life. And enforced contribution to society, probably work. Killing by the State is wrong, it snot unlike hitting your child as a punishment for them hitting someone else. But sometimes its damned tempting. Reply to this message | Report message

New Mon 3 Apr 17 21:12   Correct sentence? - No FM2R

>>You really are an unpleasant and ignorant man. As Travis Bickle said, "you talkin' to me?" Reply to this message | Report message

New Mon 3 Apr 17 21:21   Correct sentence? - CGNorwich

No ,not you. Reply to this message | Report message

New Mon 3 Apr 17 22:31   Correct sentence? - Ted

They actually got a minimum of 12.5 years for an unrelated case of conspiracy to murder in a drive-by shooting. But why do these soft judges always seem to make the sentences concurrent. Consecutive would add up to 27.5 yrs each . Bring back Albert and his little leather case for beasts like these . Reply to this message | Report message       1

New Tue 4 Apr 17 08:18   Correct sentence? - Falkirk Bairn

UK Prisons are full despite the fact that many crimes have sentences that have been cut over the years - 30/40 years ago a drug dealer carrying say £x,000 worth might have received 2-4 years inside. A local 23 yr old (with a long line of previous - assaults, resisting arrest/police assault, thefts, criminal damage over a 7/8 year period) was caught with £5,000 drugs & £2K cash was given 200 hours of community service - not even the threat of a suspended sentence!! Despite his record over all that time he has never be detained either under youth custody or prison. Reply to this message | Report message

New Tue 4 Apr 17 14:08   Correct sentence? - Ambo

>> Consecutive would add up to 27.5 yrs each And, without parole, would be about right IMHO, except that preventing parole would take a powerful control measure away from prison staff. Reply to this message | Report message

New Tue 4 Apr 17 14:22   Correct sentence? - No FM2R

>> except that preventing parole would take a >> powerful control measure away from prison staff. Now that's an important point that had never previously occured to me. I can quite see how that would be needed. Reply to this message | Report message

New Tue 4 Apr 17 09:32   Correct sentence? - Zero

>> No ,not you. But it was a close run thing. Reply to this message | Report message

New Tue 4 Apr 17 09:46   Correct sentence? - tyrednemotional

>> >> No ,not you. >> >> But it was a close run thing. >> ......I bit my tongue (as I thought, "well, no, not this time") ;-) Reply to this message | Report message

New Tue 4 Apr 17 09:32   Correct sentence? - Mapmaker

I'm missing something here. They were given three life sentences each, to be served concurrently (lucky, that...). How much more severe would you like them to be? (Unless something has been changed in the article since it was first published.) Reply to this message | Report message

New Tue 4 Apr 17 09:36   Correct sentence? - Hard Cheese

>> They were given three life sentences each, to be served concurrently (lucky, that...). How much more severe would you like them to be?>> How about three life sentences to be served consecutively? Reply to this message | Report message

New Tue 4 Apr 17 10:01   Correct sentence? - Falkirk Bairn

>>How about three life sentences to be served consecutively Quite common in the USA & no parole - life is a life sentence! Reply to this message | Report message

New Tue 4 Apr 17 11:09   Correct sentence? - Dog

>>life is a life sentence Tell me about it!! Reply to this message | Report message

New Tue 4 Apr 17 10:46   Correct sentence? - Duncan

>> >> They were given three life sentences each, to be served concurrently (lucky, that...). How >> much more severe would you like them to be?>> >> >> How about three life sentences to be served consecutively? How about one death sentence to be served immediately? And yes, I would. Reply to this message | Report message

New Tue 4 Apr 17 11:06   Correct sentence? - Hard Cheese

>> >> How about one death sentence to be served immediately? >> No, two wrongs don't make a right ... Reply to this message | Report message

New Tue 4 Apr 17 13:55   Correct sentence? - Manatee

>> >> >> >> How about one death sentence to be served immediately? >> >> >> >> No, two wrongs don't make a right ... Intellectually I agree. But then I think, of what use are these people and will they do something similar again if they get the chance? No doubt many lynching parties have been full convinced of the rightness of their actions. That's why we have to leave it to the system, which has more chance of getting it right than mob justice. Last edited by: Manatee on Tue 4 Apr 17 at 13:55 Reply to this message | Report message

New Thu 6 Apr 17 09:17   Correct sentence? - Wibble

What these criminals did is horrific. I would like to think that their crime will be seen in the same light as Ian Brady and Myra Hindley's, that is, so horrific that there will be real reluctance to grant them parole. I guess near parole time that the papers will print the story again to horrify people and public sentiment will win out over political correctness and it is a shame that the papers / victims did not show photos of the injuries (which of course are up to the victims) but it would further the prosecutions case. Perhaps the CPS will appeal at such a light minimum tariff if they can? Reply to this message | Report message

New Fri 7 Apr 17 14:20   Sentence Corrected - Bromptonaut

Man given suspended sentence for serious domestic violence has been recalled to court and given 18 months after lies about cricket contract exposed: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-39529714? This was case that hit the headlines because of judge's description of victim (in context of sentencing) as not particularly vulnerable. Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 7 Apr 17 at 14:21 Reply to this message | Report message