Re: The legal system protects our children again! (NOT)
 

IMHO I think it is relevant and connected in some way. The judges all follow guidelines on sentencing. These guidelines are probably deliberately lenient to allow the system to cope with the number of prisoners.

We would all prefer if they build more prisons, but would the government listen?

What I want to see them do is cut costs, but this governement or previous governements never seem able to do this - whether if it is the NHS or I suppose the prison system. All they seem to do is chuck in more money and then more bureacracy. The money just seems to disappear in a black hole.

In the past I have read how much it costs to keep one prisoner in prison for one year. I cannot remeber the exact amount, but I do remember it is an unbelievably massive figure. This needs to be dealt with first, but I don't think society should put up with these criminals just because the system cannot work within a reasonable budget. I'm sure somebody gets paid to do this, but why aren't they doing something about it?

Maybe like what I suggested before the prisoners should work a little to pay for there free board. I'm not sure but I think I heard that in Singapore prisoners are used to maintain the city e.g. cleaning, repairs, tending to parks. That is why it is such a clean and tidy place.

Re: The legal system protects our children again! (NOT)
 

HUMAN RIGHTS...HUMAN RIGHTS...HUMAN RIGHTS...:D

Re: The legal system protects our children again! (NOT)
 

Why should the prisoner's human rights be considered when they clearly didn't give a hoot about their victim's human rights? Always puzzled me!
(Not aiming that at you, Escapee, just a general observation!)

Re: The legal system protects our children again! (NOT)
 

I think in the Geneva Convention it suggested that everyone should have the basic right of the dignity of a human being. So even if they're a depraved paedophile they could still say "I'm a human being!":mad:

In the HRA Article 2 it states:

"Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law."

Therefore if the government brings back hanging for serious crimes then it will satisfy the condition "penalty is provided by law". If this happens then we won't have to deal with this minimum sentence crap and worry about their human rights while they rot in hell! :)

Too bad this will never happen though! :no:

Re: The legal system protects our children again! (NOT)
 

Well, not wanting to take this thread off topic, but the reason that I personally am glad we don't have the death penalty (in general usage anyway) is because it'd be a right bugger if somebody was put to death, but was then found to be not guilty...

Re: The legal system protects our children again! (NOT)
 

If I remember correctly when abolished the British public were promised life would mean life, then as ever politicians know best.

Re: The legal system protects our children again! (NOT)
 

That is true! Maybe we need to have more than just "proof beyond reasonable doubt" and have "proof beyond any doubt". And then have a death row period when they could appeal, before finally ending it.

In this case I think there is really no denying the evidence, but I do believe he wouldn't have pleaded guilty if he knew that he would get a death sentence instead of the automatic reduction in his sentence by a third.

Re: The legal system protects our children again! (NOT)
 

The problem there is that, if you have 'proof beyond any doubt', there's no point in appealing. Unfortunately, having proof beyond doubt doesn't necessarily mean that you're right - in the classic case of Derek Bentley, the phrase 'Let him have it, Chris' could be used by both prosecution (ie 'shoot him, Chris) or defence (ie 'hand over the gun, Chris') :shrug:

In fairness, you're probably right in that Sweeney wouldn't have pleaded guilty if there was the death penalty - however, he would have had to face a jury of his peers who would probably have found him guilty anyway...

Re: The legal system protects our children again! (NOT)
 

Well at the time of the ordeal he was a resident of Newport living at a Bail Hostel on Caerleon Road in Newport., which after finding the child’s blood on his bed led them to believe this is where the original assault took place.

Although originally he is from Cardiff, Llanrumney High, and used to offer his services as a cheap baby sitter before he was originally jailed in 2003 for an attack on a six year old girl.

The law is an ass as they say.

The Judge acted in accordance with guidelines, as he must give a third off for a guilty plea and all criminals serving a determinate sentence are eligible for parole after half their time in jail.

Although on the plus side as a life sentence is the highest sanction a court can give he cannot be released until the parole board are satisfied he does not pose a danger.

In this case the judge determined the notional sentence as 18 years, cut it in half to reach the actual sentence and then he was obliged cut this by a further third in view of the guilty plea and then take of the 157 days he had already spent on remand.

F in stinks but the law is an ass.

:td:

Re: The legal system protects our children again! (NOT)
 

IMHO, If you commit a serious crime, you automatically give up your "Human Rights".
In committing the said crime you had no regard AT ALL for the "Human Rights" of the person you committed the crime so therefore you should just Rot in Jail with all the judges who should be incarcerated with you.
I really do think that Judges should be held accountable for their decisions and there should be comebacks on the judges and indeed Senior consultants who release a person convicted of a serious offence/mental patient who then reoffends.:dozey:

Re: The legal system protects our children again! (NOT)
 

Notice how Labour (who introduced the guidlines) are trying to blame the judges!

Re: The legal system protects our children again! (NOT)
 

Xaccers, that is what I've been trying to say. The guidelines do not seem to accurately reflect what the general public considers as reasonable sentences for these crimes and they do not seem to deter those who wish commit crimes.

What they seem to do is to temporarily allow overloaded prisons to cope with new prisoners by letting others out as early as possible. Unfortunately, these people promptly reoffend and overload the system yet again. So, they introduce new guidelines which yet again cut sentences and so on.

Re: The legal system protects our children again! (NOT)
 

Probably not the same family I was thinking of then, I came into contact with a family with the same name from the Somerton area about 10 years ago. I did a favour by towing a womans car (relative of another boyfriend of the ex-GF's sister Long story) and she lived in the Somerton area and had two troublemaking kids. (dont know where the father was) I know the name is not that common, and I remember the one son got caught stealing womens knickers off clothes lines. He eventualy moved onto other crime and they did move away from the area.

It seemed like a bit of a coincidence, but perhaps not.

Re: The legal system protects our children again! (NOT)
 

http://212.58.226.30/1/hi/world/asia...ic/5082642.stm

Interesting how the Vietnamese view child rape as punishable by death whereas we give them 5 years in a jail whilst waiving our fingers saying "and you must never do it again...."

Re: The legal system protects our children again! (NOT)
 

That's because they make the punishment fit the crime. Here we give them holidays and perks and a slapped wrist if there really bad.