|
|
Post by Arthurdollar on Jun 9, 2010 10:37:31 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by PickSCFC on Jun 9, 2010 10:39:59 GMT
thats partly the reason that 'Great' Britain is in such a mess, giving scum like this a second chance
|
|
|
|
Post by ravenonthewing on Jun 9, 2010 10:43:39 GMT
I was thinking - I thought this government was all about getting tough on crime but then again I don't think the government has many powers left on this subject
isn't it all in Europe( Brussells) hands now
cunts
ps
times like this I think we should have sharia law
|
|
|
|
Post by jpm64 on Jun 9, 2010 10:53:01 GMT
I was thinking - I thought this government was all about getting tough on crime but then again I don't think the government has many powers left on this subject isn't it all in Europe( Brussells) hands now cunts ps times like this I think we should have sharia law FFS how is it Europes fault ?? Besides all this means is that he will now be 83 instead of 93 before he can even apply for parole .... I think it's safe to say the only way he's coming out is in a box ( Good thing too !! ) |
|
|
|
Post by ravenonthewing on Jun 9, 2010 10:57:52 GMT
European laws on human rights whatever bullshit
if I'm wrong and they don't have any control
then I would expect this government to put a a stop to it within days
Europe run most of our country jpm I just took it for granted that's another law we lost to the flibble pots
|
|
|
|
Post by jpm64 on Jun 9, 2010 11:13:30 GMT
European laws on human rights whatever bullshit if I'm wrong and they don't have any control then I would expect this government to put a a stop to it within days Europe run most of our country jpm I just took it for granted that's another law we lost to the flibble pots Don't hold your breath for that ! A previous Labour Home Secretary imposed the 50 year tarriff it has now been found that politicians should not be involved in sentencing and tbh I think that is quite right...... Even though I'd be more than happy for this man to rot in jail till he dies  |
|
|
|
Post by ravenonthewing on Jun 9, 2010 11:56:36 GMT
It's disgusting that we have to feed the bastard at all, let alone until he's 82  |
|
|
|
Post by mermaidsal on Jun 9, 2010 12:31:17 GMT
It's reduced to 40 years, way way higher than regular murder tariffs or most other life sentences. No-one's saying this guy isn't a monster but the mood at the time of his trial was like a media lynch mob and the courts were influenced by that, a token reduction doesn't seem such a big deal to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Jun 9, 2010 12:36:29 GMT
if sentancing was done properly at the time we wouldnt have these issues, governments shouldnt get involved, leave it to the judges but judges need to be consistent and stay awake during trials
|
|
|
|
Post by jpm64 on Jun 9, 2010 12:40:54 GMT
if sentancing was done properly at the time we wouldnt have these issues, governments shouldnt get involved, leave it to the judges but judges need to be consistent and stay awake during trials Correct Salop Good Lord that's twice we've agreed in the past few weeks.....3 times if you include the fact we agreed the Police ( the band ) are wank ;D |
|
|
|
Post by french toast on Jun 9, 2010 13:09:18 GMT
what's the point, he's dead anyway, wasting more fucking money reducing it  |
|
|
|
Post by ravenonthewing on Jun 9, 2010 14:06:38 GMT
It's reduced to 40 years, way way higher than regular murder tariffs or most other life sentences. No-one's saying this guy isn't a monster but the mood at the time of his trial was like a media lynch mob and the courts were influenced by that, a token reduction doesn't seem such a big deal to me. and that's my point. There should have been a lynch mob in the first place. What is the point of wasting peoples time and money on that fcukin dirt! Cushy life in jail with private security he should have been thrown head first down the incinerator |
|
|
|
Post by Arthurdollar on Jun 9, 2010 14:53:17 GMT
America is the best, you are sentenced to 200 yrs imprisonment with 10 years off for good behaviour. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by swampySCFC on Jun 10, 2010 22:15:13 GMT
:(What bothers me is that when all we ever hear is we need to tighten our belts and stop public spending and we are spending money on cunts like this.
Hang the filthy cunter
|
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Jun 12, 2010 16:42:35 GMT
You mean his FIRST parole hearing when he will be 83. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2010 21:57:22 GMT
Fornside,
When a piece of filth takes a childs life , then the sentence dished out should also be life.
The only excuse should be insanity.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hiram on Jun 12, 2010 22:26:36 GMT
I think there's an argument for saying anyone who takes a child's life being insane.
I also heard Sarah Payne's dad saying it didn't matter if it was 40 years or 50 - he's never coming out.
|
|
|
|
Post by supersmashinggreat on Jun 12, 2010 22:43:36 GMT
Child & adult , does it matter? 40 or 50yrs years is a good sentence, he prob won't get out , but if he does then i suppose he's done the time, he has got long enough to think of his actions in prison. people have killed many more & got less time |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2010 23:03:45 GMT
Child & adult , does it matter? 40 or 50yrs years is a good sentence, he prob won't get out , but if he does then i suppose he's done the time, he has got long enough to think of his actions in prison. people have killed many more & got less time ''He probably wont get out'' Sarah Payne doesn't have the chance.! Remorse won't bring this child back. |
|
|
|
Post by Ariel Manto on Jun 12, 2010 23:09:59 GMT
More hyperbole from the majority.
JPM64 is pretty much spot on with this.
|
|
|
|
Post by supersmashinggreat on Jun 12, 2010 23:18:18 GMT
Fornside, When a piece of filth takes a childs life , then the sentence dished out should also be life. The only excuse should be insanity. Mumf My family are all in the police,prison trade, do you know how easy it is to play the insanity card? too easy mate. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2010 23:25:02 GMT
This bastard should do life.....until it ends in prison.
End of.
|
|
|
|
Post by madasasnake on Jun 13, 2010 11:14:33 GMT
The 40 year term is a minimum term, which means that he is not eligible to apply for parole before 40 years has passed.
The prospect of him being granted parole on the first occasion are very slim indeed, and it is only likely to occur if he cannot (either through infirmity or otherwise) pose a continuing danger.
The Appeal had to be allowed to ensure that the consistency in sentencing (demanded by all) is maintained.
There are now very strict guidelines for sentencing most types of offenders, including murderers.
There are various starting points for the minimum term in murder cases depending on a variety of things such as: use of a firearm, sexually motivation; racial motivation; multiple victims etc.
The sentence remains one of life and if somebody who has been released is even suspected of some trivial offence - they go straight back inside.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ariel Manto on Jun 13, 2010 22:00:07 GMT
The 40 year term is a minimum term, which means that he is not eligible to apply for parole before 40 years has passed. The prospect of him being granted parole on the first occasion are very slim indeed, and it is only likely to occur if he cannot (either through infirmity or otherwise) pose a continuing danger. The Appeal had to be allowed to ensure that the consistency in sentencing (demanded by all) is maintained. There are now very strict guidelines for sentencing most types of offenders, including murderers. There are various starting points for the minimum term in murder cases depending on a variety of things such as: use of a firearm, sexually motivation; racial motivation; multiple victims etc. The sentence remains one of life and if somebody who has been released is even suspected of some trivial offence - they go straight back inside. Good post. I'm afraid some on here aren't interested in rationale, though.  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2010 23:10:50 GMT
The 40 year term is a minimum term, which means that he is not eligible to apply for parole before 40 years has passed. The prospect of him being granted parole on the first occasion are very slim indeed, and it is only likely to occur if he cannot (either through infirmity or otherwise) pose a continuing danger. The Appeal had to be allowed to ensure that the consistency in sentencing (demanded by all) is maintained. There are now very strict guidelines for sentencing most types of offenders, including murderers. There are various starting points for the minimum term in murder cases depending on a variety of things such as: use of a firearm, sexually motivation; racial motivation; multiple victims etc. The sentence remains one of life and if somebody who has been released is even suspected of some trivial offence - they go straight back inside. There should never be any parole....40 50 60 years.... When a case like those we have seen where DNA evidence proves beyond any doubt that such offenders have commited a crime , then in my opinion there should only be one outcome... Death. If you had lost a child to such filth then the chances are you would probably think the same. As for the ''rationale'' , well there can be nothing more rational unless of course you're on another planet. There is no point in paying several million pounds in keeping these verey high risk inmates behind bars.Many are suicidal , and those who aren't, have a very high chance of themselves being murdered . I have no doubt that it would not prevent this type of murder, but at least it would be cheaper killing them than having to pay for 40 or 50 years behind bars. |
|
|
|
Post by Ariel Manto on Jun 13, 2010 23:26:24 GMT
When a case like those we have seen where DNA evidence proves beyond any doubt that such offenders have commit ed a crime , then in my opinion there should only be one outcome... Death. If one believes in the science of DNA evidence, shouldn't one listen to the scientists behind it? DNA evidence does provide proof "as close as we can get it" to place biological evidence at scene - but it is not an absolute and will evolve and change over the years ahead. For that very reason there is always a sense of doubt about the death penalty, Mumf. No matter how horrific the crimes committed against people, and without intending to get too Biblical about it we need to remember that societies are as bad as the treatment they give to the most evil amongst them. If you abhor death, why legalise it? Just my view, I appreciate that others may disagree. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2010 23:36:21 GMT
There is no doubt over ...Fred West. Myra Hindley,Ian Brady,Harold Shipman,....and yes society is as bad as the treatment dished out....which is exactly why it should mean a life for a life.
Is the war in Afghanistan is legalising murder...then the same should apply in Hanley as it does in Helmand province.There is no difference under the eyes of god....
I don't abhor death, it is a part of every day life.Life is so very, very precious that to commit murder should mean that the perpetrator should suffer the same fate.
Dead murderers don't do it again.
|
|
|
|
Post by madasasnake on Jun 14, 2010 18:35:36 GMT
I don't abhor death, it is a part of every day life.Life is so very, very precious that to commit murder should mean that the perpetrator should suffer the same fate. Dead murderers don't do it again. Mumf My post was simply a comment on the thread generally. It was not intended to spark a debate on the death penalty; about which, the majority of the British Public agree with you. That is why it will never, in the forseeable future, be the subject of a referendum. But before demanding that the perpetrator suffer the same fate, it is worth pausing to reflect on the fact that the vast majority of prisoners serving life sentences for Murder, did not intend to kill their victims. The prosecution need only prove an intention to cause really serious harm for an offence of Murder to be proved and such an intent might only have been momentary (such as being attacked, lawfully defending oneself and then, in the heat of the moment and rightly outraged, delivering a single, unlawful but fatal kick at the end of the incident). And although any of us would want exacting revenge for offences committed against our loved ones and especially a child - that is precisely why the victims and their families ought not, in a civilised society, to be the ones to choose the sentence. There have to be rules in place so that we are not; as far as is possible; ourselves motivated by malice or revenge. If we fail in that - we are no better than them. |
|
|
|
Post by swampySCFC on Jun 17, 2010 22:34:57 GMT
Hang the cunt. Then argue the toss |
|
