22 years - enough?

[Newboy]

At last a judge who seems to dish out a proportionate sentence

Anyone care to guess how long before somebody appeals it?


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-30273548

 

[JBR]

If it were 22 years I'd say it's about right but, as we all know, the actual term will be more like half of that. Still a longer term than the usual 15 years 'life' sentence for murder, though. Mind you, I believe in capital punishment for murder, assuming there is no doubt of guilt.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Yes, not a bad sentence, though here's the yin to your yang:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-north-east-wales-30268731

 

[jockscott]

Says in the news he'll be out in 11 (with good behaviour) About time we had a judge strong enough to say 22 yrs, not a day less. (perhaps the judge should have given him 44 yrs instead)

 

[EddieM]

If it were 22 years I'd say it's about right but, as we all know, the actual term will be more like half of that. Still a longer term than the usual 15 years 'life' sentence for murder, though. Mind you, I believe in capital punishment for murder, assuming there is no doubt of guilt.

Out of interest, why do you believe in the death penalty when is proven not to be a deterrent? Is it merely a cost saving exercise or a eye for an eye / tooth for a tooth thing? Just curious.

 

[Newboy]

Yes, not a bad sentence, though here's the yin to your yang:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-north-east-wales-30268731[/QUOTE]


The judge ordered Allen must serve a minimum of 11 years in jail - is that the same as the other judge passing sentence of 22 years?

 

[conny]

As already stated, a judge with balls at last!

He will be eligible for parole in 11 years but will not be given it if he is considered to still be a danger.

Considering he will only be 52 at that time there is a very strong possibility he will still be considered a danger. When/if he is ultimately released he will be on licence and subject to certain conditions such as where he can live, who he can associate with and what type of job, if any, he can apply for.

 

[Brigadier]

I wonder if he knew about this?

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/paedophile-mitchell-harrison-disembowelled-frankland-82885

 

[Trazor]

Out of interest, why do you believe in the death penalty when is proven not to be a deterrent? Is it merely a cost saving exercise or a eye for an eye / tooth for a tooth thing? Just curious.

Why would you WANT to keep this piece of scum alive? Just curious.

 

[JBR]

If it were 22 years I'd say it's about right but, as we all know, the actual term will be more like half of that. Still a longer term than the usual 15 years 'life' sentence for murder, though. Mind you, I believe in capital punishment for murder, assuming there is no doubt of guilt.

Out of interest, why do you believe in the death penalty when is proven not to be a deterrent? Is it merely a cost saving exercise or a eye for an eye / tooth for a tooth thing? Just curious.

Both. A cost-saving exercise (especially when our prisons are more like five-star hotels) AND retribution.

I also believe it WOULD be a deterrence. What evidence do you have that it wouldn't be a deterrence, bearing in mind that hanging hasn't been used for fifty years in this country. Public hanging would, I think, be even more of a deterrence.

 

[JBR]

I wonder if he knew about this?

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-new...arrison-disembowelled-frankland-82885[/QUOTE]

Yes, ritual disembowelling would be acceptable in the worst cases. I think some criminals have more of an idea of 'corrective' punishment than do our lenient judges.

 

[JBR]

Out of interest, why do you believe in the death penalty when is proven not to be a deterrent? Is it merely a cost saving exercise or a eye for an eye / tooth for a tooth thing? Just curious.

Why would you WANT to keep this piece of scum alive? Just curious.

Perhaps he's a religious do-gooder!

 

[AronSearle]

Out of interest, why do you believe in the death penalty when is proven not to be a deterrent? Is it merely a cost saving exercise or a eye for an eye / tooth for a tooth thing? Just curious.

Why would you WANT to keep this piece of scum alive? Just curious.

Because the state can't be trusted with the power to kill it's citizens.

 

[planenut]

We are after all, mere animals.... if a dog viciously bites and attacks continuously then it is put down, if the animal is a threat to it's community it should be destroyed, for the good of the community, not necessarily for retribution.
With absolute proof of intent then I think Capital Punishment is appropriate, with a dog the community wouldn't necessarily have to prove intent.
There has to be a deterrent, not a need to keep people employed in the investigation and preservation of persistent dangers to the community.

 

[empip]

Well, if the not so affluent are 'at it' then in my mind the affluent must be rampant ! Why ? Because they can !
Jimmy S - Vilified - Why ? Is it because it shifts the focus ? They
, whoever 'they' may be, were sh_t scared of speaking out whilst he was alive, why ? Because I reckon many were of the same ilk... Dead men cannot fight !
-0-