Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
barryw,the sun is a paper in the sence that it contains news of sorts,and is all so supporting the conservative party.in this sence it infulences the readers to vote one way or another.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
And what exactly has that to do with the discussion that we were having Brian? I totally fail to see the relevance.
Guest 670- Registered: 23 Apr 2008
- Posts: 573
Barry i am still awaiting your reply on how you would make the justice system better.
Guest 693- Registered: 12 Nov 2009
- Posts: 1,266
Steady on, Barry. It was you who asked whether or not The Sun was a newspaper, Brian just gave his opinion, that's all. We all know The Sun isn't a newspaper, just a comic. Sadly, though, it does hold sway over millions of voters, as IDS found out to his cost.......
True friends stab you in the front.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Andy - when I posed that point about The Sun it was a tongue in cheek comment, hence I continued with 'Seriously though' to start the next sentence. Indeed what Brian said is absolutely nothing to do with the conversation in which The Sun was brought up.
Dave1 - I have responded to that in a discussion on elected police chiefs also in charge of the prosecution service. If you want my personal opinion I would bring back the death penalty, the birch and much longer prison sentences, get some real punishment back into the system. Again all discussed elsewhere at other times!
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
barryw,you asked a question to howard i aswered,and i thought i was the cynic around here.
Guest 670- Registered: 23 Apr 2008
- Posts: 573
I take it Barry that as you did not specifically reply to my posting22 in the thread "totally confused" and the absolute twaddle in your post 25 of this thread, that you don't really know. No shame in that at all.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
I do know what I would do Dave1, I have said so. You might think punishing criminals properly is twaddle but I choose to disagree.
Today we get news of a monster, who cannot be named (why?) who raped his daughters and was responsible for 19 pregnancies. Yes, that would mean a minimum of 19 rapes. What was his original sentence? 19.5 years, reduced on appeal to 14.5 years. By my reckoning that is about .7 of a year per pregnancy, not rape instance.
I ask again, how can this be called justice? When are we going to see some sentencing that really punishes the perpetrators of this type of behaviour, and sends out a message to those tempted to do the same thing?
It really is all in the sentencing isn't it? Adequate, visibly appropriate sentencing would satisfy victims (up to a point...), protect the rest of us, and manage the offender. Job done.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
i see that he got 25 life sentences, no idea what that means.
i reckon the name of the perpetrator is being withheld to protect his daughters, it would be difficult for them to start a new life as it is.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
But I bet those 25 life sentences are being served concurrently, not consecutively, like they should be.
That has got to be the biggest problem with sentencing - concurrent instead of consecutive.
Roger
Guest 693- Registered: 12 Nov 2009
- Posts: 1,266
What's the point in issuing 25 consecutive life sentences? Like anyone would live long enough to serve that long........
1 life sentence is enough, provided it means life, not 20 or 30 years, life.
True friends stab you in the front.
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
Andy
I may be wrong but I suppose if you're a parent or relative of one of the victims there is some comfort in knowing that the thug received a life sentence for that murder,rape or assualt as well as his crimes committed against others.
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
The trouble is Andy that one life sentence nowadays doesn't mean life, usually about 12 years, so giving a life sentence for each murder, would mean he would die in gaol, not be let out early to commit again.
Roger
Guest 693- Registered: 12 Nov 2009
- Posts: 1,266
My point exactly Roger. If the requirement is for a criminal to serve 12 years, give the sentence as 12 years. If the requirement is life, give life; or is that too simplistic a view for the rules to be changed?
True friends stab you in the front.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
It seems too simplistic for the judges Andy, or the government ministers who make the laws and guidelines.
Roger
The trouble is all the knee-jerk legislation: new laws are often made without real thought given to their impact on existing legislation and they often overlap, collide and therefore over-complicate.