I had a mate I went to school with and who got into heroin in a big way, and aquisitive crime that normally accompanies addiction to that disgusting drug. He got sent down, got clean and was released. Habitually. He would come out show his face in the pub and say how he was clean and within a fortnight be committing burglaries to fund his habit again and the whole cycle would start again. Prison was a break for his parents and everyone who felt anything for him. Then he was ousted into society again to pump more shit into hos veins and visibly destroy his very decent family. One day he took an overdose and died. 100% true story and I know it is not a unique one sadly.
My mates name was lee piper and was a lovely kid at one point and not born into a scummy family but his multiple jail terms did not rehabilitate him one jot. If anything he met more vermin mates and learned more scummy tricks of the trade and how better to secrete stolen goods and drugs up his rectum.
and to my knowledge has never had trouble with minor vices ...ever since . But quite a few major ones?:-) Only a joke Lincs...
Although the 'he may be innocent' argument has some merit, my onw view is that the state should be there to protect life, not to take it. Some years ago I met some Japanese who thought that to imprison someone for life was more cruel than capital punishment - hence their support for Japan's system. An interesting argument whichever side of the debate you stand.
I agree with Chizz and his explanation of the practical effect of the current life sentence and parole. The idea that a life sentence is a deterrent to others is risible. It didn't work with hanging. I doubt that Ronnie and Reggie Kray eagerly looked up the latest Sentencing Guidelines before going out to offend. Back in the 1800s there were vast numbers of offences for which a person could be hanged and gave rise to the saying 'you might as well be hung (for stealing) a sheep as a lamb'. It was well known that at public executions the pickpockets were out in numbers, so no deterrent there. As for capital punishment in this country, it cannot return while we remain part of the EU.
Glad you made that final point LA.
For the record I am against capital punishment personally but strongly feel as a matter of principle that it is something a British government should decide rather than effectively the EU on our behalf.
I agree with Chizz and his explanation of the practical effect of the current life sentence and parole. The idea that a life sentence is a deterrent to others is risible. It didn't work with hanging. I doubt that Ronnie and Reggie Kray eagerly looked up the latest Sentencing Guidelines before going out to offend. Back in the 1800s there were vast numbers of offences for which a person could be hanged and gave rise to the saying 'you might as well be hung (for stealing) a sheep as a lamb'. It was well known that at public executions the pickpockets were out in numbers, so no deterrent there. As for capital punishment in this country, it cannot return while we remain part of the EU.
Glad you made that final point LA.
For the record I am against capital punishment personally but strongly feel as a matter of principle that it is something a British government should decide rather than effectively the EU on our behalf.
Len (serious question here) is there any subject at all that you can't relate to the EU?
Len Glover said "For the record I am against capital punishment personally but strongly feel as a matter of principle that it is something a British government should decide rather than effectively the EU on our behalf." Actually Len the UK voted to abolish capital punishment (except bizarrely for some obscure offences which had been overlooked such as arson in the Royal dockyards) in 1965. My point was that no member of the EU can retain capital punishment. Those overlooked offences have since been included.
Len Glover said "For the record I am against capital punishment personally but strongly feel as a matter of principle that it is something a British government should decide rather than effectively the EU on our behalf." Actually Len the UK voted to abolish capital punishment (except bizarrely for some obscure offences which had been overlooked such as arson in the Royal dockyards) in 1965. My point was that no member of the EU can retain capital punishment. Those overlooked offences have since been included.
If you were a Palace fan you could call yourself LegalEagle.....
For homocide (other than self defense), why not let the closest family members of the victim's decide? Some of the offenders would be praying for a simple (whole) life sentence.
Len Glover said "For the record I am against capital punishment personally but strongly feel as a matter of principle that it is something a British government should decide rather than effectively the EU on our behalf." Actually Len the UK voted to abolish capital punishment (except bizarrely for some obscure offences which had been overlooked such as arson in the Royal dockyards) in 1965. My point was that no member of the EU can retain capital punishment. Those overlooked offences have since been included.
Yes I know the history LA. Sidney Silverman was the MP who introduced the bill I believe but that was nearly 50 years ago now.
My point (even though I disagree with capital punishment) is that the UK cannot review that decision whilst in the EU which I think is wrong.
Leroy, the tentacles of the EU reach into every area of life it seems once you analyse it a bit. Even football. Bosman and all that.
I read about a guy who got convicted of manslaughter today in The Metro. The basic facts were his friend was riding a bike on the pavement in Bournemouth, a 40 year old guy who had Asbergers complained that he shouldn't be riding on the pavement, the guy punched him in the head, he fell hit his head on the pavement/road and subsequently died of his injuries (I think from the resulting fall, although I can't remember the article fully). The assailant got four and a half years for manslaughter, I believe he was out on remand for armed robbery or some other crime. Apologies I am sketchy with the details, I know they determine what sentences get passed down etc, however, I find this sentence disgusting. Four and a half years for killing a man (regardless of intention, I know what constitutes the difference between murder and manslaughter before I get a legal briefing) is absolutely shocking. And I would imagine he serves half that.
I read about a guy who got convicted of manslaughter today in The Metro. The basic facts were his friend was riding a bike on the pavement in Bournemouth, a 40 year old guy who had Asbergers complained that he shouldn't be riding on the pavement, the guy punched him in the head, he fell hit his head on the pavement/road and subsequently died of his injuries (I think from the resulting fall, although I can't remember the article fully). The assailant got four and a half years for manslaughter, I believe he was out on remand for armed robbery or some other crime. Apologies I am sketchy with the details, I know they determine what sentences get passed down etc, however, I find this sentence disgusting. Four and a half years for killing a man (regardless of intention, I know what constitutes the difference between murder and manslaughter before I get a legal briefing) is absolutely shocking. And I would imagine he serves half that.
Heard the Attorney General's Office is reviewing the sentence.
Also interesting:
The sentence was imposed by Judge Keith Cutler, who was criticised for his handling of the inquest into the gangster Mark Duggan, whose shooting by police sparked the riots of 2011.
I read about a guy who got convicted of manslaughter today in The Metro. The basic facts were his friend was riding a bike on the pavement in Bournemouth, a 40 year old guy who had Asbergers complained that he shouldn't be riding on the pavement, the guy punched him in the head, he fell hit his head on the pavement/road and subsequently died of his injuries (I think from the resulting fall, although I can't remember the article fully). The assailant got four and a half years for manslaughter, I believe he was out on remand for armed robbery or some other crime. Apologies I am sketchy with the details, I know they determine what sentences get passed down etc, however, I find this sentence disgusting. Four and a half years for killing a man (regardless of intention, I know what constitutes the difference between murder and manslaughter before I get a legal briefing) is absolutely shocking. And I would imagine he serves half that.
The Attorney-General is said to be going to appeal that sentence.
Should of been trussed and gagged and brought back into court to hear the verdicts for the crime they committed, big men to carry it out but not to hear there sentence.
I read about a guy who got convicted of manslaughter today in The Metro. The basic facts were his friend was riding a bike on the pavement in Bournemouth, a 40 year old guy who had Asbergers complained that he shouldn't be riding on the pavement, the guy punched him in the head, he fell hit his head on the pavement/road and subsequently died of his injuries (I think from the resulting fall, although I can't remember the article fully). The assailant got four and a half years for manslaughter, I believe he was out on remand for armed robbery or some other crime. Apologies I am sketchy with the details, I know they determine what sentences get passed down etc, however, I find this sentence disgusting. Four and a half years for killing a man (regardless of intention, I know what constitutes the difference between murder and manslaughter before I get a legal briefing) is absolutely shocking. And I would imagine he serves half that.
Heard the Attorney General's Office is reviewing the sentence.
Also interesting:
The sentence was imposed by Judge Keith Cutler, who was criticised for his handling of the inquest into the gangster Mark Duggan, whose shooting by police sparked the riots of 2011.
Yes I subsequently read this too. For me, and I know this doesn't sit with some people, I would think it appropriate that this guy gets 25/25+ years. I know, but I don't see the difference between murder & manslaughter in this case. If you throw a punch at someone in aggression and unprovoked, and that person dies, then they must accept a long sentence. This was a clear case of an unprovoked attack. Just as interesting, were Michael Adebajolo's QC's argument that he shouldn't be given a life sentence. Again, that hotbed of factual digest 'The Metro' quoted the QC in saying that he has already committed the murder and doesn't plan to take another life, therefore a life sentence would not be appropriate???? I can't remember if that is it word for word, but that is a ridiculous defence. There literally is very little argument for these guys and many others, that whole life sentences are not appropriate for such crimes (aside from the cost to the taxpayer). The guy who got 4 and a half years for manslaughter had previously been to prison for another offence (rehabilitation obviously didn't work). What in the hell good would it do releasing the two that killed Lee Rigby back into society?
When you compare our justice system to the U.S and lack of capital punishment, I actually think we're are quite lenient as a justice system in the western world. Whole life sentences are more than just.
In some parts of South Central Los Angeles, if a black kid takes a gun and uses it to shoot someone dead in a premeditated attack, he risks being caught, charged, tried and convicted and sentenced to death. Which will mean that his life expectancy increases.
That's one shocking statistic from a country where certain people have a very low life expectancy; and where a death sentence usually means spending many, many years on death row, waiting for a laborious legal process to be completed.
@Chizz - I've never considered that underlined point you made and have to say that is both a shocking and saddening fact.
It's weird and horrible isn't it? What message does it give out when you say that a Death sentence means you'll live longer in prison that you would have if you'd stayed out?
In some parts of South Central Los Angeles, if a black kid takes a gun and uses it to shoot someone dead in a premeditated attack, he risks being caught, charged, tried and convicted and sentenced to death. Which will mean that his life expectancy increases.
That's one shocking statistic from a country where certain people have a very low life expectancy; and where a death sentence usually means spending many, many years on death row, waiting for a laborious legal process to be completed.
The convicted dont have to spend years on death row, they choose to. They can get it all done a dusted in about a year if they don't appeal.
I prefer our system to the one in large parts of America, a life sentence in a prison is a shite existence.
Capital punishment is wrong, not because the scum don't deserve it, but because society should be better than them. That doesn't mean they should ever be free though- I don't care if they rehabilitate, it doesn't take back what they have done and for me imprisonment is about punishment.
That psycho who punched the autistic chap and killed him only got 4 years - I was shocked. If a sentence is shocking, it should always be because it feels too long, not too short. Scum are better locked away.
Comments
My mates name was lee piper and was a lovely kid at one point and not born into a scummy family but his multiple jail terms did not rehabilitate him one jot. If anything he met more vermin mates and learned more scummy tricks of the trade and how better to secrete stolen goods and drugs up his rectum.
Although the 'he may be innocent' argument has some merit, my onw view is that the state should be there to protect life, not to take it. Some years ago I met some Japanese who thought that to imprison someone for life was more cruel than capital punishment - hence their support for Japan's system. An interesting argument whichever side of the debate you stand.
For the record I am against capital punishment personally but strongly feel as a matter of principle that it is something a British government should decide rather than effectively the EU on our behalf.
Please anyone who thinks they are in favour of capital punishment watch this programme.
My point (even though I disagree with capital punishment) is that the UK cannot review that decision whilst in the EU which I think is wrong.
Leroy, the tentacles of the EU reach into every area of life it seems once you analyse it a bit. Even football. Bosman and all that.
Minimum 45 year prison term for Adebowale, 22.
The mitigating factor between the two was their ages at the time, which led to the difference in the sentencing.
Also interesting:
The sentence was imposed by Judge Keith Cutler, who was criticised for his handling of the inquest into the gangster Mark Duggan, whose shooting by police sparked the riots of 2011.
RIP Lee Rigby
When you compare our justice system to the U.S and lack of capital punishment, I actually think we're are quite lenient as a justice system in the western world. Whole life sentences are more than just.
That's one shocking statistic from a country where certain people have a very low life expectancy; and where a death sentence usually means spending many, many years on death row, waiting for a laborious legal process to be completed.
I prefer our system to the one in large parts of America, a life sentence in a prison is a shite existence.
That psycho who punched the autistic chap and killed him only got 4 years - I was shocked. If a sentence is shocking, it should always be because it feels too long, not too short. Scum are better locked away.