The legal system protects our children again! (NOT)
 

Sick

http://www.ntlworld.com/news/story_u...oryid=32174696

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

Indeed. I'd bet my cat that he'll re-offend when he gets released for this as well. He needs to be imprisoned for life, or have a labotomy and get his ******** cut off.

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

I agree, Sick

If anyone did anything that to my family the police better find them before i did.

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

I am sure if anyone did take action they would be labelled as a vigilante and prosecuted to the full extent of the law :mad:

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

And this is how long he will serve before his human rights defenders will get him out.

"But the recorder of Cardiff Judge John Griffith Williams QC ordered that Sweeney would spend a minimum of just five years and 108 days in prison."

Mark my words the do gooders will get him out just after this time done.

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

He got a *life sentence*, which you appear to have missed - the five years is a *minimum* tariff, after which he might, if he's very lucky, get released. It's more likely, given his history that he'll be inside for a good deal longer.

One reason he reoffended originally is that the Home Office cocked up on their duty to watch him, which is why John Reid is now trying to deflect attention, totally unfairly, onto the judge, who is only implementing the increasingly prescriptive sentencing guidelines that result in us having the most severe criminal justice system in Europe. You may, if you come down from Planet Froth, want to consider why we have such a high recidivism rate (well over 50%) if 'prison works' and the solution to everything is jail, jail and more jail.

People talk about victims not getting a fair say. What's never mentioned is the desirability of stopping there being a *next* victim, who might be you, me or anybody. In this case the *system* failed to stop there being a next victim, not the judge today.

unlimited - change the record, old son.

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

I feel really really sick! I am not a violent person but I would not be held responsible if some one touched my son

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

"kidnapped and assaulted a three-year-old girl just weeks after being freed early from jail for a similar crime"

"Sweeney would spend a minimum of just five years and 108 days in prison."

are these people thick? it's obviously some sort of addiction which we can not be sure he will not do again so he should be locked away - forever.

---------- Post added at 16:37 ---------- Previous post was at 16:35 ----------

I dont think we can use the 'prison doesnt work' argument on this one - nothing will change his sexual preferences.

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

Although I know, as you say, prison doesn't work. Until there's an alternative that's where this guy should be going.

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

Closed for a few minutes to clean up the language.

---------- Post added at 17:11 ---------- Previous post was at 17:08 ----------

There is no need for foul language and swearing, keep it out of posts please.

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

I haven't followed this story, as I have no children myself I tend to feel that I cant have opinions as strongly as those of you that do. I hope you will understand that I find this sort of thing disgusting and would like nothing more than see this guy hung up by his bits and beaten to death.

Does anyone know if the guy is from cardiff or newport, because the name is very familiar for some reason. I know a family (brothers) with that surname from newport who were always bother.

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

Not only did he rape the 3 year old but was involved in a drunken high speed car chase in which he threw the 3 year old out off his car at speed!

Give me five mins alone with him and I would cut off his dick with a tea spoon followed by his head! :mad:

And he was a resident of newport not cardiff!

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

Only after i have finished with him. Problem is there will not be anything left to cut off.

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

That is absolutely sickening.
I can't believe no one is taking note of how many pedophiles re-offend as soon as they are let out.
How many more people are going to be more victims.
They should never be let out in my opinion.

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

Unfortunately some people want to use human rights as well as clinging to the false hope by gambling that these people will no do the same again.

These sort of people are sick in the head, putting them in prison or a secure hospital will always carry the risk that they will be released or escape.

Also the equally sick QC who represented him said "there was no medical evidence the toddler had suffered any "serious, permanent medical damage" from her ordeal."

He said there was no more than a "possibility" of psychological damage in the long term.

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

I believe we have a desperate problem with overcrowding in our prisons. People are let out early because in order to bang up a new offender they hae to let out someone who's already doing time.

Politicians cannot change the laws of reality by suddenly passing new laws insisting more and more people should serve longer and more of their sentences if they don't follow it through by building more prisons and if necessary raising taxes to pay for it.

This is what I think they should do incidentally, and less people would get off early as they'd be no need to 'free up space' in our jails. It's a small price to pay to make sure those who commit serious crime do serious time.

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

I for one will vote for any party wishing to remove that stupid Human Rights law. Its now a cop out for any weak minded MP or Judge who cannot be bothered to carry out there public duty and lock these perverts up for life and i mean LIFE without any chance of ever getting out.

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

everything appears to be in favour of the criminal.

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

That's because it is, the punishment does not fit the crime anymore, in fact in many cases the system bends over backwards for them whilst decent hard working people suffer in silence.

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

But that 'stupid Human Rights law' also covers your right, for example, to a fair trial - it's designed to protect the innocent so, if you were accused of some crime, wouldn't you like the right to defend your case in the knowledge that you weren't guilty? If we got rid of the human rights legislation, you'd just be imprisoned with no right of appeal :shrug:

Don't forget, this guy pleaded guilty so didn't actually have a trial - as such, British law says that there should be some leniency in sentencing. Nothing to do with human rights legislation really...

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

Um, we had that right long before the human rights law.

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

why do we need a 'legal system' to protect our children?

Well, for me, I really don't understand these people, I cannot hope to empathise with someone who could even fantasise about such things, let alone, actually, do them...

So it is dealt, with, impersonally, in law.

But, I also think a re-offender, especially as alleged here, should be assessed more rigourously regarding re-release?

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

I know, but it's now enshrined - unfortunately, a lot of people fail to see that human rights legislation now covers their rights if they're accused. Simply saying that they'd just get rid of it because of a relatively small amount of high-profile cases is, in my opinion, woefully lacking in an understand of the issue of human rights :shrug:

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

You will probably find he has supplied all sorts of stuff that would disgust many to the right sort of people in the right places.

If someone of this nature reoffends then life should mean what it says and nothing else. any viablity of parole after doing such deeds just encourages it further.

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

Personally I don't think the sentencing in this case is connected to the Human Rights Act in any way. I know that the HRA is sometimes used in ways which we consider to be against the underlying principles it represents, but mostly it is a good thing.

Given the sentence I'm sure some crazy do-gooders would work their butts off to get this pervert out come the 5 years. I don't think the HRA would be used to do this though. The blame should be on the lenient sentencing. Life should mean life. What gives with this possible minimum sentence of 5 years?

I say just keep it at life, especially with these repeat offenders. I don't mind paying a bit more tax keeping them in their prisons. I don't even mind if they build one right next to me. Its not as if they could break free (if the gov't does its job). The only reason they don't want to keep them in there is because it costs too much to detain them at Her Majesty's Please and their pleasure.

They should be used as a workforce.Chain them up and get them to repay society for their keep by doing cleaning or whatever!

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

I dont think this is something which can necessarily be punished, as punishing is aimed at detering the person from being a criminal. in this instance I dont believe you can affect this man's post release sexual preferences by punishing him.

---------- Post added at 23:48 ---------- Previous post was at 23:47 ----------

the only safe place for US is if this man is in prison for the long term future.

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

In which case, should he be released at all, all these judges and social workers that know better than the rest of should consider this, would they leave their children with the likes of this Sweeny, of course they wouldn't, however they seem more than happy to risk other people's childrens well being, it's like playing Russian roulette with other people's lives and it is not on.

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

This hits the nail on the head. Finish that off by saying the reason he may well get out early is because of overcrowding in our prisons resulting in sentences being cut short to clear space for the next intake of prisoners and we start to get a clear picture of what's going on.

Solution? Build more prisons. The HRA has nothing to do with it.

---------- Post added at 02:30 ---------- Previous post was at 02:27 ----------

Would you rather this person served longer but the next offender simply goes free because there's no room in our prisons? The reason for people walking free early is prison overcrowding, not the HRA, not the judges.

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

Whether prisons are overcrowded is not really a job for the judiciary, their job is to interpret the law and sentence accordinly, they are surpossed to be impartial and even if there were no overcrowding I wonder if we would still see decisions like this http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/875729.stm I think we would.

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

overcrowding is not relevant. if there isn't space then you build it.

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.

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

and if you're in the process of trying to evade the police you get a KFC!

all the wrong signals are being sent out these days re sentencing and the softly softly approach.

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

Which, for the nth time, is a complete myth. Perhaps you can enlighten me where you get it from.

Let's see who gets the kneejerk no research award in this thread:

Salu kicks us off with "whereas we give them 5 years in a jail", which is untrue.
unlimited ducks out of it with "Here we give them holidays and perks and a slapped wrist if there really bad", which is untrue.

And now the smart guy awards for being switched on:
Xaccers, with "Notice how Labour (who introduced the guidlines) are trying to blame the judges!", which is perfectly true.
carlingman is spot on too, good work fella.
luvclub makes some good points, but although you correctly quote Article 2 of the ECHR, we've also signed up to Protocol 13 which abolishes the death penalty in all cases. It's worth noting that Sweeney wouldn't have been hanged for his offences since at least 1861, when the capital crimes were reduced to four (chocolate biscuit to anyone who knows them without cheating).

Special award of a nice lie down and a cup of Horlicks for budwieser who thinks that "all the judges who should be incarcerated". Why will this help, exactly? See Xaccers' point above.

Right. Fact time. The changes introduced by Labour since 2003 were a kneejerk response to the last 'lenient-judges-put-perverts-on-our-streets' campaign by the News of the World in 2001. Prior to this, judges in the Court of Appeal set the sentencing guidelines and judges had a bit more discretion. However, prior to this the Tories had knocked a big whole in the concept of 'life' sentences by introducing two-strikes-and-you-must-get-life for things like GBH, for which a shortish sentence (5-10 years perhaps) is adequate and judges should be allowed discretion. So the problem stems back to Michael Howard and, yes, another tabloid campaign. Spot the trend?

As a result of Howard's idiocy judges now had to give life for offence that patently didn't warrant it, and set out what they actually wanted in the tariff. This results in 'lifers' getting parole at the point they probably would have done anyway, or possibly slightly later. This has come home to roost in the '53 lifers out since 2000' non-story. I think it's too late for 'life' sentences, which are now so muddled that you've got to rename them, which is the suggestion of the highly impressive Lib Dem Home geezer Nick Clegg, who's impressed me recently.

Back to sentencing guidelines. Having been scared into action by the tabloids, the ghastly garden gnome Blunkett (who's a friend of the Sun's editor) sought some better headlines with the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which took over the sentencing guidelines from judges and put them in the hands of a quango of academics, ex-judges, policemen, prosecutors and various others (check them out on their website) *directly appointed* by Cabinet ministers (mostly the Lord Chancellor, but five are directly appointed by the Home Secretary, which he probably doesn't want anyone to notice, particulary since they include victims' groups already*). These people then issued the guidance for the 2003 Sexual Offences Act, which is what was used in the Sweeney case. Judges have been effectively cut out of the sentencing loop already *because* of a tabloid campaign, so the Sun blaming them now is nonsensical and highly irresponsible, as well as being an outright lie - the current system was partly brought about by their pressure.

Other facts - average sentence served by a lifer is 14 years, more than it was ten years ago, which presumably includes the aforementioned lifers who should be given normal custodial sentences, so criminals who deserve life are definitely serving a lot longer. The softer bits of the CJA 2003 have been postponed indefinitely (custodyplus) while the hard bits are already implemented. Really, anyone who still believes we're in any way soft on serious criminals is living in a pink fluffy cloud on Venus.

It seems to me that there's only one conclusion: however draconian and non-discretionary sentencing policy is made, the tabloids still won't be appeased, therefore we have to quietly tell them to go f*ck themselves and sort things out sensibly and professionally. This means getting politicians out of the loop and letting judges judge again. If the tabloids start it up again, we need brave men and women to point out their stupidity, ignorance and lies. This is unlikely at present owing to the absurd and undemocratic hold Murdoch has over the Blair government, which he can effectively bring down when he wants by swinging the Sun behind Cameron (he's already hinting at this), plus the evident incompetence and power-craze of the Home Office, which needs reform and preferably splitting into more manageable chunks with Cabinet level ministers in charge of justice (that's the Tories' idea, and one which Blunkett vetoed back in 2001 in favour of running the lot himself, which he proceeded to do very badly).

Overcrowding? It's getting worse and worse, mainly because of people being jailed for petty offences who previously wouldn't have been and probably shouldn't be there. There's always enough room for lifers, who are a relatively small part of the population.

* "Teresa Reynolds is Head of Policy at Victim Support where she has worked since 1990. In her role, she is responsible for developing policy and promoting the interests of victims and witnesses of crime in criminal justice and social policy. Teresa is the co-author of The Rights of Victims of Crime and has since worked successfully to see it adopted by the Government through the Victimââ‚Ã⠀šÃ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢s Charter and subsequent developments." - SGC website.

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

Fantastic post BBKing :clap:

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

That's all very interesting but do you feel the punishment of these child abusers befits the crime?

I was quoting the Independant newspaper. I'm sure they will appreciate being corrected by you.

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

Does it befit the crime? I have no idea, I wasn't in court and I don't have years of legal training. Neither were the people who drew up the guidelines, which is why I humbly suggest leaving it to the damn judge, that's what we pay him for.

As for the Independent, you've misread them and misunderstood the idea of life sentences with minimum tariffs*. I'd write more, but it would be unfair. Instead, go and read this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/5086978.stm

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

I suspect all this is moot.I reckon with all the publicity that he's unlikely to be allowed parole after the minimum period set..I think it will be a lot longer before he achieves parole of any kind as he will be now viewed as being extremely dangerous around children for a very long time.

but I could wrong..I seem to remember a case recently where someone was released by mistake after having their parole deferred.

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

If that was your child that had been horrendously abused, what would your opinion on the length of the sentence, takiung into condsideration that he was only reecently freed after sexually attacking ANOTHER child?

He hasn't misread anything - the disgusting pervert COULD BE eligible for parole within 5 years and 3 months. Free to attack another child. :tu: :rolleyes:

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

I think in 5 years it'll all be forgotten about and he'll be freed and then he may or may not go off and attack/murder or rape another child. I think it's likely he will as I believe this is not something that can be controlled for the rest of his life - at some point he will fail to control the urge if at all he wishes to control it.

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

I wasn't asking you for a legal judgement but if you "felt" that the punishment fitted the crime. You seem very capable of giving your opinion on everything else.....

I haven't misread anything. You have misread me. I was commenting on that fact that he has recieved 5 years, whether you call it "life" or not it's still a ridiculous punishment for what he has done. I havn't mentioned anything about a life sentence in this thread....

By the way your posting style can come across as very arrogant, hopefully I am misreading it....?

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

Then in that case i want my part of his very large wage back as in my opinion he made a complete hash of it. In 5 years time when this man is up for parole how many other young children will have been attacked by pedophiles who have been let out early by our over paid judges who dont know what they are on about half the time. And you can bet the same idiotic judges will be making the same mess ups as this one did in years to come.

---------- Post added at 16:51 ---------- Previous post was at 16:45 ----------

:tu: well said.

There is no doubt in my mind that this man will be out within 7 years at the most.

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

Labour set the guidelines for this - ultimately they're responsible?

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

There are several issues here, the biggest of which is the media's portrayal and the public image of the judicial system, which in many cases is incorrect.

Another issue is the fear that parole boards will release people who they deem fit to return to the general populus, who then go on to commit despicable crimes (although this is rare, once is once too many).

If there was public confidence in parole boards, then the idea of this person being ellegable for parole wouldn't worry people, because they would know that there's no chance of him getting out unless it was safe.

Unfortunately, due to those incorrectly assessed early releases which have lead to deaths, people cannot be certain that this man will not be out in 5 years.

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

Although I agree with your points Xaccers, unfortunately the parole board, surely, are always going to make an occasional mistake, which may or may not lead to a tragic and highly reported crime. However, does this mean the whole system is necessarily flawed, (with or without public confidence)?

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

Couple of interesting quotes have come my way from judgements where the Court of Appeal judges have tried to make sense of the stuff imposed by the Government:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2005/2864.html

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2005/2864.html

The second one in particular can be summed up in the football chant 'YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING'.

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

The public have the perception that the legal system is a farce, because quite frankly it is. Sure the serious crimes like the one in this thread go to court, and often sentencing is too low for the crime committed.

The less serious crimes however dont seem to get to court, I was in the police station this afternoon making a statement (No, I'm not in trouble) and the police officer agreed that the public in general are fed up of criminals not being persued or dealt with effectively if there is the odd chance they are.

His comment was quite ironic because the reason for my visit was an 8:30am phone call asking if they could have a statement, this was all to do with a crime committed back in April. They didn't appear to bothered to take a statement then, but it appears a few backsides have been kicked into action.

I expect the crime statistics have started to creep up again, so they need a little action to bring the figures down.:rolleyes:

I also note in my local rag this week a known sex offender has been jailed for 18 months, they didn't manage to get a conviction for the alleged assault on 2 teenage girls, so they have put him in prison for not providing his new address for the sex offenders register.

He apparently received a five and a half year sentence for ten sex offences with children under the age of 16 in 1997, the offences that he was recently in Court for were claimed to be in 2004. Looking at the dates, it appears he came straight out of prison and moved to this area (from up north) failed to comply by registering his address and committed the alleged offences.

Edit:Corrected mistake

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

Put them in a room full of women and give all the women a big stick each with a 6inch nail sticking out of the end then see how long the pedo would last.

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

http://www.guardian.co.uk/prisons/st...799756,00.html

Plus an excellent essay by Prof. David Wilson in yesterday's Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/prisons/st...799754,00.html

Later the articles discusses an initiative in Canada called, "Circle of Support and Accountability for released paedophiles", using the example of a released paedophile Charlie.


What, for me, this excellent essay establishes is that as much as we may not like to admit it, or as uncomfortable as the initiatives sound, unless we all work together in dealing with the problems, making loud noises about soft sentencing and leniant judges, will not reduce the problem. But of course, I wonder which one is easier?

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

The DNA system which we have in place at the moment is enough to nail any peadophile or muderer, since the DNA testing came about there has been no miscarrage of justice.

Any man who rapes a women or a child boy or girl they should be executed end of story. Sorry it's blunt but this sort of crime like any crime gets my back up big time, sod their human rights they don't deserve any they gave up that right when they committed the crime.

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

Are you from Saudi Arabia, by any chance, Nidge? That's the policy there, but not in any civilised countries. Still, it's nice to see a vote for strict Islamic theocracy on here, they get such a bad press usually. You haven't said whether you prefer stoning or beheading, by the way.

He was talking about public perception, not reality. If the two are as disconnected as this story indicates, then that's not necessarily a valid point.

Like I said, very tough sentences there. That's a *minor* crime he's been convicted of. There's an intellectual error there with the two 'theys', who are different (the CPS in the first case and the judge in the second, presumably).

This would be the offences for which he was *acquitted*, then? Go and look up the word 'acquit'. Actually, your post doesn't make it clear whether he was cleared by a jury or the CPS withdrew the charge due to lack of evidence, or the witnesses refused to testify or whatver. Perhaps you can enlighten us. Details are important, the law is about the particular, not the general, as someone said.

Yes there has, a student whose DNA was in the area of a crime was arrested for it and had extreme difficulty extricating himself from it. We leave DNA everywhere we go, would you really want to end up being executed for dropping a fag end near the scene of a future rape?

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

Well now you come to metion it I'm all for the law they have out there in Saudi, children can play without the risk of being kidnapped, women can go out on their own without the risk of being raped, pensioners can walk the streets without the fear of being mugged, you can leave your car windows down all night with your wallet on display along with your mobile phone and it will still be there in the morning.

If a person rapes a child or a woman take their heads off ("in public"). You see over the last 10 -20 years this country has become a joke where crime is concerned. A person committs a crime he gets 10 years, that's 10 years of luxury to him, he'll get 3 meals a day, wages at the end of the week, an account where relatives can deposit money so he can buy games to play on his playstation while he's watching SKY Sports on his TV, the best medical care money can buy, clean clothes each day, a room with an en-suite for his use only. Thats not a prison it's a holiday camp. The Russians have the right idea when it comes to prisons, bars on the windows, minus 25 at night, 1 meal a day if your lucky, 1 change of clothes a week and a little steel bowl in the corner as your toilet, "now thats a real prison".

This is the prison service in 2006 thanks to the human rights people. I have a family member who works at Franklin Top Security Jail near Durham, it houses some of the most dangerous people in the UK, child molesters, rapists I asked him if you get any time where you can roll them over or let some of the other inmates roll them over, he said you could but the prison service is full of people who are planted there to grass you up if you do anything wrong like give a child molester a ribbing, leave a rapists door open on purpose so the other inamates can get at him.

This is what the human rights people have done to this country, they have made it into a marshmellow.

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

Rather ironic, considering the thread title, that you support the laws in a country where 126 children are reported to be on death row. LINK

Those pesky human rights, they just get in the way :rolleyes:

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

So children were put on death row for murder? Eye for an eye tooth for a tooth, ask Jamie Bulgers mum if Venables and Thompson should have been spared the death penalty if we had their laws, I know what she'd have said.

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

Are you really listening to yourself?Have you by any chance read the thread title?You can't have it that children are innocent victims one minute and then advocate that children be killed for murder the next.I could sooo smack you...:bsmack:

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

Sorry, I disagree on one account there, you say "Any man who rapes a woman" that is sometimes not as clear cut as it appears, there are cases where the woman claims rape after the event but was more than happy at the time. In that situation DNA evidence on its own is not enough to execute someone.

The boy or girl is a different matter, if a sexual act is proven by DNA evidence with a minor I have no problem with a tough sentence being dished out.

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

So they committed murder between the ages of 13 and 18.
What's the age in this country that a "child" is considered responsible for their own actions? 10?

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

What exactly is your point here? Are you saying that it is acceptable for the death penalty for a crime that was committed when somebody was as young as 13? Are you happy that these individuals may have not had proper representation or due process? Is murder an absolute and should be punished the same in all cases, as your post implies? Are you saying that 13 is actually quite reasonable because criminal responsibility in the UK (England and Wales) is 10? Would you not say that a 10 year old child may not fully understand the implications of their actions, and in any case possibly deserves a second chance in a civilised society? (This does not mean that they should escape punishment).

Can you please clarify?

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

My only objection to the death penalty is the inablilty to be 100% certain in all cases that the person found guilty actually committed the crime.

I know 6 year olds who know that murdering someone is wrong.
Are you saying that if someone is fully aware of what they are doing, and murders someone, knowing that it is wrong, they shouldn't be punsished because of their age?

Please justify why you think there should be a difference in sentancing between someone aged 18 murdering a fellow human being, and someone aged 17 and 364 days murdering a fellow human being?

Incidently, just like in the UK back in the days when stealing bread was punishable by death, in Saudi, being sentanced to death does not automatically mean the sentance will be carried out.

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

A 6 year old may know that murdering somebody is wrong but this will be a very absolute understanding. A more mature understanding would take into account different scenarios where indeed murder may not be wholly justified, but at least understood. Would a six year old be able to give a full answer to the question, is murder ever justified?

No, I'm saying that they shouldn't be given the death sentence, especially if the crime was committed when very young.

Because a line has to be drawn somewhere.

Well, i'm sure that makes those 126 on death row feel a whole lot better.

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

Hence why in Saudi their maturity is judged (not just their physical maturity), notice all those mentioned are over 13? Notice also that the article doesn't mention that 125 committed murder at 17, one did it at 13?
It also doesn't mention the cases where as you say, the courts deemed that the action by the accused was justified, or recieved a custodial rather than capital sentance.

Personally I agree that the death penatly shouldn't be used for the reasons I've already stated.
So how about life inprisonment instead?
Why should a 15 year old who beats another teenager to death because he didn't like the look of them (a case I know about) not get the same sentance as someone aged 30 doing the same thing, if both are deemed mature enough to know what they did was wrong and the consiquences?

Yes, and while in Saudi they draw the line at the accused's actual level of maturity, we use an arbitary age where many criminals under that age are as aware of their wrong doings, as someone over that age, but get lighter sentances because of it.

Probably does.

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

Especially if they are completely innocent like the four Britons who were found guilty of a bombing campaign in Saudi and claim they were forced into confessing to the crimes through being tortured...Seems to me reading that article that there is every indication that the Saudi's are not interested in any form of human rights what so ever for anyone including children.I don't give a stuff that you think a child of 13 should be killed for a crime committed before the age of 10,13,17 because that's a totally barbaric attitude to take.


Some of you seem to have lost all sense of proportion.I am so angry with you all I'm going to have to leave this thread...

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

And who is judging the maturity level?


They may well for all I know. My objection was with the death penalty for children not punishment per se.



Again you make no mention of how this 'actual level of maturity' is measured, which could possibly be even more arbitrary than a standard age. The standard age as we have in this country is, I would have thought, guided by cultural norms and standards. This does not mean to say it is an infallible system however.

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

It's very interesting on this forum how a few seem to think people under the age of xyz should be treated with kid gloves when they commit a serious crime.

It makes me think back to a local case, where a 15yr old (I think) girl went out one night to a funfair with the intention of killing someone. The girl picked an innocent victim, another teenage girl. (one I seem to recall she didn't know) She then repeatedly stabbed the girl with a knife until a guy stepped in and physically immobilised her.

The court case made it clear, that there were many onloookers who did nothing. The one guy who stepped in and saved the victims life and danger to his own was himself threatened because he stepped in and assaulted a teenager who was in the act of commiting a multiple stabbing. the onlookers set about the good samaritan because he dared to harm a girl who was in the process of committing cold blooded murder.

I remember one memeber of this site saying words to the effect of "I would of dealt with him if that was my daughter he touched"

People need to get real, teenagers who commit violent acts should not be deal with any differently. A person stopping a child commotting a violent act should not be in danger of prosecution or physical abuse. The guy in question had a good pat on the back in court for his swift actions that saved a childs life, but I wonder if because of his experience, he would just stand back like the rest of the onlookers and watch a murder take place in future.

I know I couldn't stand back and watch, I know I would risk my own life in that situation. I have stepped in to a situation where two large guys were kicking a weedy kid in the head whilst on the floor, I am that sort of person.
Although deep down I know that if I was on the floor in that situation being kicked, I would most likely die if I had to rely on the majority of society who look the other way.:mad:

Edit: Put right some of the spelling mistakes and typos.

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

Where have you got that impression from. I don't think that arguing that a crime committed when somebody is a child shouldn't carry a death sentence is hardly treating offenders with kid gloves.

I find it all rather ironic considering the thread title, or are we singling out specific children for attention and protection rather than ALL children.

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

The thread title was about the legals system protecting children who are victims, the thread has been twisted in an attempt to combine those children who have committed serious crime.

The legal system should not protect children who commit serious crime, any more than it prevents adults who commit serious crime.

I do howeve feel that the government and parents are fully responsible for the majority of crime carried out by children. I dont consider myslef to be old, but in my childhood days I would be asked if I had done something wrong and punished if I did. These days the parents automatically say "My kids didn't do that" the effect is kids who think they can get away with just about anything.

Good old fashioned punishment, meant I didn't go stealing, vandalising or giving anyone who wlaked down the street a load of verbal abuse. On one occassion when I was accused of something I remember my parents questioning me and being happy that I had in fact not done what was claimed. Its about time naughty kids got their ar*ses smacked a bit more often instead of their parents providing them with an alibi.