35 yrs that's the highest I have seen so far
http://news.sky.com/story/1184152/ian-watkins-gets-35-years-for-sex-offences
http://news.sky.com/story/1184152/ian-watkins-gets-35-years-for-sex-offences
35 years in prison!
- Thread starter masona
- Start date
Sponsored Links
Not been reading in depth but Some concerns in this case about reports on his crimes being ignored were on the radio today.
Good to see a heavy sentence. Hope if any more comes to light it is added on pro rata.
Good to see a heavy sentence. Hope if any more comes to light it is added on pro rata.
Thirty-five years. Even if the latest reports, which seem to indicate only 25-or so years will actually be served in prison, with the rest out on licence, it is still 25 years of us poor taxpayers having to keep this piece of garbage in relative luxury. Due to his crimes. he will have to be in some sort of seclusion, just to ensure his "safety" and that his "human rights" are not breached. Imagine the costs! Far better, and far cheaper to say "Up Yours Brussels and the Human Rights Act" and deal with him "another way", along with career criminals who have committed serious crimes and have no regard for the human rights of their victims (and others).
If you mean execution, while that may be justice, it would lead to more victims being killed - as the tariff would be the same, but no incentive not to kill the witness.
We need to think through our initial emotional reactions .
Sponsored Links
Not if you have the same tariff for (in this context) child rape. Logically ,to the perpetrator, there is no benefit on leaving the witness alive.
So capital punishment for child abduction / rape would lead to more of the victims being killed.
Which is why,as I say, knee jerk reactions to dreadful crimes might need reconsidering.
On the general point of capital punishment being a deterrent, there is plenty of evidence that it is not the case in places where the tariff is that.
People often don't think they'll get caught, or aren't thinking about being caught, so the threat of punishment when caught is minimal.
Prison has three purposes.
1) Punishment.
2) Protecting the general population from any further crimes they may commit.
3) Rehabilitate them back into society.
Unfortunately, with so many focuses, it doesn't do any of them very well.
I'm against capital punishment as all too often, the punished gets a posthumous pardon. And also because due to all the appeals, it actually costs more to execute than to leave them in prison for the rest of their lives.
On the other hand, if a prisoner declares 'I can't take 10 years in prison, I'd rather die', then I'd have no problem with the state providing them with an 'early release'.
Prison has three purposes.
1) Punishment.
2) Protecting the general population from any further crimes they may commit.
3) Rehabilitate them back into society.
Unfortunately, with so many focuses, it doesn't do any of them very well.
I'm against capital punishment as all too often, the punished gets a posthumous pardon. And also because due to all the appeals, it actually costs more to execute than to leave them in prison for the rest of their lives.
On the other hand, if a prisoner declares 'I can't take 10 years in prison, I'd rather die', then I'd have no problem with the state providing them with an 'early release'.
Yes, I take your point.
Perhaps if they let their victim live they get a quick, humane hanging. If they kill them they are garotted after having all their teeth extracted without anaesthetic?
E
EddieM
You aren't allowed to take someones life. I know its difficult to abide by in certain cases, but you can't we would simply be as bad as the perpetrator and what if an innocent was put to death then we would all be complicit in a cold blooded murder. Sorry its a no from me and all civilised countries.
Only for the past 50 years or so in this country. Things change. I expect they'll change back again when things get bad enough.
Sponsored Links
