Watched Little Boy Blue the other day and the killer got life with a minimum of 22 years. At 19 he could be released at 41!
I also read today that the killers of a baby (by torture) got 11 years!
Diluting sentences in all but the most exceptional cases dilutes the crime and worth of the victim.
Life should mean life or we will get to the point when the electorate demand the reintroduction of the death penalty.
|
Life does mean life. When you are deemed safe enough and after serving at least the minimum jail term decided by the trial judge you are allowed to serve the rest of your sentence under licence in the community. Your behaviour is strictly monitored and it does not take much to get you recalled to prison again.
Everyone is entitled to a chance to reform, however hideous their crime.
|
>>Everyone is entitled to a chance to reform, however hideous their crime.
If that were true why have some people been told that they will never leave prison?
|
I also read today where a clever young woman was told by a judge she wouldn't go to prison as it would affect her promising career as a surgeon.
She punched and stabbed a bloke....would a bloke have been treated the same had he have done that to a woman?
Pat
|
>>She punched and stabbed a bloke....would a bloke have been treated the same had he have done that to a woman?
Don't forget she is pretty!
Its a joke and the victim must be furious. I would hope that the CPS appeals the sentence if she doesn't go down.
|
>> I also read today where a clever young woman was told by a judge she
>> wouldn't go to prison as it would affect her promising career as a surgeon.
The judge has seen all the reports and seen/heard from defendant herself. It seem drink and drugs were significant factors and she's got to complete treatment for that which was one reason sentence was deferred.
Rather than focussing on 'what if a man stabbed a woman' there's a point of view that says what good does jail do in this sort of case:
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/18/lavinia-woodward-stab-boyfriend-prison-oxford
|
>> I also read today where a clever young woman was told by a judge she
>> wouldn't go to prison as it would affect her promising career as a surgeon.
Suspended sentence:
www.theguardian.com/law/2017/sep/25/oxford-student-lavinia-woodward-gets-suspended-sentence-for-stabbing-boyfriend
|
>> If that were true why have some people been told that they will never leave
>> prison?
A whole of life tariff applies to a handful of prisoners such as Peter Sutcliffe Denis Neilson, Rosemary West, Levi Bellfield and Robert Black who's crimes were multiple, premeditated etc.
|
>> Watched Little Boy Blue the other day and the killer got life with a minimum
>> of 22 years. At 19 he could be released at 41!
Presumably because of the TV programme the judges sentencing remarks in that case were (re?) published this week:
www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/sean-mercer-sentencing-remarks-mr-justice-irwin.pdf
There is only one sentence for murder and it's life. The judge sets a tariff which is the minimum that must be served before parole is considered; the 22 years in Rhys Jones case. In practice even somebody who'd been a model prisoner from day one is very unlikely to get parole immediately their tariff is served. They can also be recalled at ANY time if they transgress after release on licence.
If Sean Mercer were to be a reformed character in his mid forties what purpose is served by keeping him in prison?
|
>>If Sean Mercer were to be a reformed character in his mid forties what purpose is served by keeping him in prison?
Absolutely. Although the %age of people returned to prison is high enough to think that the process for determining character reform could be better.
|
He probably will be a reformed character within the confines of a prison but facing the temptations of a life of relative freedom is a very different matter.
Pat
Last edited by: Pat on Thu 18 May 17 at 17:54
|
>>
>>
>> Absolutely. Although the %age of people returned to prison is high enough to think that
>> the process for determining character reform could be better.
>>
Too many people are sent to prison in cases where an effective community service would benefit both them and society at large, causing overcrowding and insufficient resources to properly deal with those who are in their.
Prison should be reserved for the violent, the dangerous and the repeat offenders.
|
>>Too many people are sent to prison in cases where an effective community service would benefit both them and society at large, causing overcrowding and insufficient resources to properly deal with those who are in their.
<<
I agree, but Sean Mercer isn't one of them.
Pat
|
>>I agree, but Sean Mercer isn't one of them.
I don't know. He was 16 at the time, wasn't he? So I'd guess he's around 26 now. Plenty of time to change or stay the same. He could be anything.
I don't think there is any way of knowing what he is like now unless you have contact with him. There's no standard test or rule of thumb to be applied. He did a bad thing, of that there is no doubt, but he didn't set out to murder the boy. Its his fault, and his responsibility, and he should certainly suffer the consequences, but it isn't the same thought process as someone setting out to shoot a kid in the back.
Our approach to sentencing is unsatisfactory. Its driven by public and media opinion, its inconsistent both from incidences of the same crime, and between different crimes. We have no idea what we want to achieve with it. It is affected too much by both the vocal revenge seekers and the overly tolerant forgivers of all. Its damned expensive and worst of all, its pretty ineffective.
It needs work. Work that I doubt it will ever get.
|
>>Prison should be reserved for the violent, the dangerous and the repeat offenders.
I entirely agree. But many people see a prison sentence as some kind of retribution or revenge, a sentiment played upon by the media, hence the reason that so many others go unnecessarily to jail.
|
|
When did life stop meaning life? In the UK, life has NEVER meant life. "In Jail Till you die" has never been an option to the judiciary when sentencing.
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 18 May 17 at 18:48
|
>> life has NEVER meant life. "In
>> Jail Till you die" doesas never been an option to the judiciary when sentencing.
Oh yes it does.
Jeremy Bamber, Peter Sutcliffe, Rose West, Denis Neilson etc.
Harold Shipman, who MAY have killed my maternal Grandmother while a houseman in Pontefract, is another.
|
>> >> life has NEVER meant life. "In
>> >> Jail Till you die" doesas never been an option to the judiciary when sentencing.
>>
>>
>> Oh yes it does.
>>
>> Jeremy Bamber, Peter Sutcliffe, Rose West, Denis Neilson etc.
>>
No it doesn't, all of them can be released.
|
>> No it doesn't, all of them can be released.
Were in danger of getting into angels/head/pin territory here but the 'whole of life' order is as tool available to the judiciary:
www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/about-sentencing/types-of-sentence/life-sentences/
There is a prospect of review in exceptional circumstances for example, but not limited to, end of life. Aside from Irish prisoners freed under Good Friday agreement the only example of such release was Reginald Kray.
|
>> >
>>
>> There is a prospect of review in exceptional circumstances for example, but not limited to,
>> end of life. Aside from Irish prisoners freed under Good Friday agreement the only example
>> of such release was Reginald Kray.
>>
And Reggie Kray was only released because he was dying of cancer and his care was being paid for by the prison service. By releasing him the costs then all fell the the NHS.
|
>> was being paid for by the prison service. By releasing him the costs then all
>> fell the the NHS.
Prison Service = Taxpayer
NHS = Taxpayer.
|
>>
>>
>>
>> Prison Service = Taxpayer
>> NHS = Taxpayer.
>>
Yes indeed. But both the prison service and the NHS have a budget to balance from a fixed allocation of that taxpayers money, so if one of those can foist a particular cost off on the other then they gain.
Which is why the prison service wanted shot of Reggie Kray.
Last edited by: Robin O'Reliant on Fri 19 May 17 at 16:42
|
>> Yes indeed. But both the prison service and the NHS have a budget to balance
>> from a fixed allocation of that taxpayers money, so if one of those can foist
>> a particular cost off on the other then they gain.
Whose budget, staff count, risk register etc something falls on occupies significant management time in the public sector.
Not just between departments but within them too.....
|
>> Whose budget, staff count, risk register etc something falls on occupies significant >> management time in the public sector.
>>
Not just in the public sector either
|
>> I also read today that the killers of a baby (by torture) got 11 years!
For whatever reason they were cleared of murder. The conviction was for causing or allowing death for which max sentence is reportedly 14yrs
www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/may/18/cynical-charade-cover-up-baby-death-london-bus-jailed
Both parents seem to be a sandwich short of a picnic and drugs were involved. One wonders if social services could or should have done more but they're in a cleft stick either way.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 20 May 17 at 17:30
|
>>For whatever reason they were cleared of murder
You, of all people, should know better. They were NOT cleared of murder, whatever The Grianuad says. At most they were found "not guilty", and that was more around what could be proven, not what they were or were not actually guilty of.
They couldn't be sure of which person was responsible for which act, and thus couldn't prove intent to kill by either of them, despite it being obvious that whichever of them had done it, they had intended serious physical harm.
|
>> You, of all people, should know better. They were NOT cleared of murder, whatever The
>> Grianuad says. At most they were found "not guilty".
Cleared and not guilty are technically synonymous.
The 'loophole' that allows joint murderers, particularly in this sort of scenario, to get off by muddying the waters around who did what is a scandal that desperately needs parliament's attention.
That it won't is perhaps one of the many opportunity costs of Brexit swallowing so much time/
My point was simply that they could only be sentenced for the offence of which they were convicted and that a sentence at top end of range was best law could do in circs.
|
>>Cleared and not guilty are technically synonymous
Don't be silly.
|
>> Don't be silly.
Which bit of 'technically' do not grasp?
|
?
Its cack and you know it.
Best you just admit you mis-wrote and move on. Or don't, your call. People can read.
"technically synonymous". What s***e.
|
>> ?
>>
>> Its cack and you know it.
>>
>> Best you just admit you mis-wrote and move on. Or don't, your call. People can
>> read.
>>
>> "technically synonymous". What s***e.
Whatever.
They could only be sentenced for offences of which they were convicted.
|
Well according to Black's Legal dictionary albeit an American publication but an authoritative one cleared means
Definition of Cleared.
the term that is applied when a person is declared innocent and is forgiven or acquitted.
|
I believe that originally in Scots Law the verdict was either Proven or Not Proven.
Not Guilty came along as a way of the jury expressing the innocence of the defendant as opposed to simply a lack of proof of guilt.
Hence the choice of 3 verdicts up here.
|
>> I believe that originally in Scots Law the verdict was either Proven or Not Proven.
Thanks for that. I'd thought 'not proven' was the interloper whereas in fact its 'not guilty'.
Fuller explanation here:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_proven
|
>>I'd thought 'not proven' was the interloper
As do most Scots I expect - now Not Proven is more like "we think he did it but conviction would be unsafe on the evidence presented" and is rare.
|
When Did Life Stop Meaning Life? - Robin O'Reliant
