RIP UK Justice

Giz said:
This reads like the start of a dystopian sci-fi novel.
I'm no bleeding heart, and have been known to sympathize with 3-strikes-you're-out , but this is horrific.
Click to expand...


I am very hard line when it comes to violent crime, and I think Baron's idea is truly terrible. For one thing,"worth to society" is hopelessly subjective.
And look at the countries which adapted usefulness as a criteria when it came to criminal justice....Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia,China under Mao. Not exactly a recommendation in it's favor.
 
dudalb said:
I am very hard line when it comes to violent crime, and I think Baron's idea is truly terrible. For one thing,"worth to society" is hopelessly subjective.
And look at the countries which adapted usefulness as a criteria when it came to criminal justice....Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia,China under Mao. Not exactly a recommendation in it's favor.
Click to expand...

Indeed. I tremble at the idea of government functionaries being able to look at a citizen's records and based on their subjective opinion, choose life or death.
 
The courts should have given them no jail time whatsoever; for who is going to take care of the remaining 23? Think about the children!
 
3point14 said:
Well, it's either that or let them die.

And anyway, it's not a payment, it's an investment. Well looked after and well educated, those kids will pay back in taxes much more than they cost.

Not investing in their future would probably leave the taxpayer paying for their life as adults either by provision of social safety net or at her majesties pleasure.



Edit: I do hope that whoever it was that cause the ******** 'taxes are evil' meme to be spread around the world is burning in agony in a hell I don't believe in.
Click to expand...

Well, it sounds like they might not be too well looked after by those parents.

If the kids grow up to be state supported, it doesn't seem like the tax benefit would materialize?
 
dudalb said:
I am very hard line when it comes to violent crime, and I think Baron's idea is truly terrible. For one thing,"worth to society" is hopelessly subjective.
And look at the countries which adapted usefulness as a criteria when it came to criminal justice....Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia,China under Mao. Not exactly a recommendation in it's favor.
Click to expand...

There are a few wrinkles to iron out.
 
baron said:
If it's easier, let's cut through the terminology ('murder', 'manslaughter', 'causing or allowing the death of a child') and say that 'causing or allowing the death of a child' should attract the same penalty as murder. I see little difference between this and joint enterprise, where a person may be convicted of murder without ever having touched the victim. Indeed, the only difference is that in the latter case the perpetrator is known.

This is of course completely different to saying that two people who may have committed a murder should be convicted if the evidence doesn't point clearly to one of them, and the other having been complicit.
Click to expand...

Joint enterprise requires that somebody is complicit. Causing or allowing a death requires only that somebody in the household knows a child is at risk and fails to take reasonable steps to protect the child. If failing to take action to protect a child from harm carries the same penalty as murder, I suspect you will find juries more reluctant to convict where there is no proof of direct involvement.
 
dudalb said:
In the US prison system, he would be a dead man walking. Even the toughest criminals hate people who abuse or kill kids.
Click to expand...

Yes, and that is certainly one of the problems of the US prison system. Essentially, anyone who is unpopular enough with the hardest elements of the prison will be punished by the other prisoners. This incentivizes gangs and the hardening of relatively inexperienced criminals. I think the US penal system is utterly atrocious.
 
LTC8K6 said:
Well, it sounds like they might not be too well looked after by those parents.

If the kids grow up to be state supported, it doesn't seem like the tax benefit would materialize?
Click to expand...



If you or I grow up to be state sponsored it doesn't seem like the tax benefit would matericalise.

If anyone grows up to be state supported it doesn't seem like the tax benefit would materialise.

What's your point? It seems like you've made a useless qualified statement that could apply to any child at all anywhere. I doin't understand at all what your point is with that.
 
Pretty much everyone grows up state supported to varying degrees. These children just need a bit more support. Let's give it to them.
 
LTC8K6 said:
If the kids grow up to be state supported, it doesn't seem like the tax benefit would materialize?
Click to expand...

Sounds like these guys may have done the state a favour by eliminating one of the burdens? Maybe instead of locking them up we should give them a £500 bonus and see if they do a few more?

Or we could pay the unemployed to hunt each other Hunger Games style?
 
Worm said:
Pretty much everyone grows up state supported to varying degrees. These children just need a bit more support. Let's give it to them.
Click to expand...

Quite.
My kids go to state schools, for example.
 
Have I been under a misunderstanding, I thought it was when you've served 50% of your sentence you were eligible for parole but that was conditional not automatic.
 
3point14 said:
If you or I grow up to be state sponsored it doesn't seem like the tax benefit would matericalise.

If anyone grows up to be state supported it doesn't seem like the tax benefit would materialise.

What's your point? It seems like you've made a useless qualified statement that could apply to any child at all anywhere. I doin't understand at all what your point is with that.
Click to expand...


I really wanted to know what the poster I was responding to thought they were saying. I'm not holding my breath.
 
3point14 said:
I really wanted to know what the poster I was responding to thought they were saying. I'm not holding my breath.
Click to expand...

I assume it was a plea for the state to up their support of disadvantaged kids to maximise the chances that they won't grow up to continue to require further state support?

Do you think?
 
Darat said:
Have I been under a misunderstanding, I thought it was when you've served 50% of your sentence you were eligible for parole but that was conditional not automatic.
Click to expand...

For life sentences and certain long term offences before 2005, you have to apply, but...

(From gov.uk)
A prisoner serving a determinate sentence is normally released automatically halfway through their sentence.

If their sentence is 12 months or more, they’ll be released on probation.

A Parole Board is not involved.
Click to expand...

I think there are conditions about your behaviour while in prison, but I'm not sure how strict they are about things.
 
Last edited:
Thanks don't know why but I had it in the back of my mind that those sentenced for a violent crime it wasn't automatic parole.
 
There is an exception for

"fixed-term sentences of 4 years or more, given before 3 December 2012 for a serious violent or sexual crime committed before 4 April 2005"

Not quite sure why those specific dates, but no doubt there's some technical legal reason why.

If your sentence is in that category, you have to apply for parole - it's not automatic.
 
Compare the OP sentence - 11 years for torturing a baby to death then trying to cover up the evidence - with this sentence - 9.5 years for a young girl who pretended to be a boy to get into relationships with other young girls.

It makes you wonder if these lawmakers and judges inhabit the same planet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom