This one's going down

Originally Posted by Derek S

Depends what you want prison to be. If its pure punishment then everyone should pretty much be in solitary for the duration but its not and people get some form of rehabilition for when they get out.

Of course, IMO, he should never have been convicted in the first place but that discussion has been done to death. He was convicted and is now being treated as if he were any other prisoner with no special treatment.

exactly ,and as such he is entitled to home leave ,as the other prisoners are ,he will probably be released next year anyway

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Derek S

Depends what you want prison to be. If its pure punishment then everyone should pretty much be in solitary for the duration but its not and people get some form of rehabilition for when they get out.

Of course, IMO, he should never have been convicted in the first place but that discussion has been done to death. He was convicted and is now being treated as if he were any other prisoner with no special treatment.

For people who cause death then hell yes prison should be all about punishment. I am usually vocal in support of rehabilitation due to my past occupations but when some one dies as a result of anothers crimes I can't show the same levels of understanding.

---------- Post added at 16:06 ---------- Previous post was at 16:04 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

Funnily enough, judges are generally well aware of exactly how long someone will actually spend inside for any given length of sentence, and tend to take that into account.

I bet he never envisaged him being let out for Christmas after serving a couple of months, what next caveats about no home leave and the like.

[LondonRoad]

Originally Posted by Chris

Then you have a *lot* to learn about the effects of crime on the families of criminals.

Perhaps, My sheltered life is such that I've had more contact with victims of crime rather than the perps and their families. I just don't move in those circles.

I can read though and can form opinion based on what I've read. Imho the perpetrators and their families are given far more consideration than the families of the victims.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

I bet he never envisaged him being let out for Christmas after serving a couple of months, what next caveats about no home leave and the like.

Given that his crime was dealt with as a serious motoring offence, rather than manslaughter, and that he poses no risk to the public, I'm quite sure the judge was aware that he would be treated as a low-risk, low-category prisoner and therefore eligible for everything that comes with that.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

I bet he never envisaged him being let out for Christmas after serving a couple of months, what next caveats about no home leave and the like.

he's done 8 months of a three year sentance ,given that most low security prisoners only serve 1/3 of their sentance he's due parole next year also entitled to home leave this year ...exactly the same as prisoners who's crimes are 10 times worse than his

[Derek]

Originally Posted by martyh

exactly the same as prisoners who's crimes are 10 times worse than his

Plus I'd imagine he had no prior convictions to this one unlike 99% of prisoners who are repeat offenders.

Originally Posted by LondonRoad

I can read though and can form opinion based on what I've read. Imho the perpetrators and their families are given far more consideration than the families of the victims.

Then your reading has been very one-sided. You need to put the tabloids down and take a look at what actually happens. Much is unavoidable, because criminals do need to be caught and dealt with, but making a conscious decision not to have any sympathy for families - especially children - who are affected by having a close relative jailed is just needlessly harsh.

[LondonRoad]

Originally Posted by Chris

Then your reading has been very one-sided. You need to put the tabloids down and take a look at what actually happens. Much is unavoidable, because criminals do need to be caught and dealt with, but making a conscious decision not to have any sympathy for families - especially children - who are affected by having a close relative jailed is just needlessly harsh.

I didn't say no sympathy.

You like to pigeon hole people don't you Chris. Do you mean you read something other than your Daily Mail?.

You have a *lot* to learn about not reading things that aren't in posts.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Chris

I'm quite sure the judge was aware that he would be treated as a low-risk, low-category prisoner and therefore eligible for everything that comes with that.

Maybe, not that we'll ever find out but it'd be interesting to know what the judge makes of this decision, I'd like to think he'd be a little annoyed

---------- Post added at 16:29 ---------- Previous post was at 16:29 ----------

Originally Posted by martyh

he's done 8 months of a three year sentance ,given that most low security prisoners only serve 1/3 of their sentance he's due parole next year also entitled to home leave this year ...exactly the same as prisoners who's crimes are 10 times worse than his

10 times worse, what they killed 10 young women

Originally Posted by LondonRoad

I didn't say no sympathy.
You have a *lot* to learn about not reading things that aren't in posts.

I'm sorry, I thought you made a pretty black-and-white statement about your sympathies when you said:

Originally Posted by LondonRoad

The guy was still in denial during his trial claiming he did nothing wrong and his driving was in line with his training. My sympathies lie with the families of victims not with the families of the guilty.

I.E, one and not the other. 'Not' leading, by a very small and entirely reasonable leap of deduction, to 'no' as in 'no sympathy'.

You like to pigeon hole people don't you Chris. Do you mean you read something other than your Daily Mail?.

I like to think I can get the measure of someone if I read their posts for long enough. You need to try a bit harder if you think I have any regard for the Daily Heil though ... except as a possible source of lavatory paper.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Maybe, not that we'll ever find out but it'd be interesting to know what the judge makes of this decision, I'd like to think he'd be a little annoyed


why would he be annoyed?if the judge wanted him to serve longer he would have given him a longer sentance

---------- Post added at 16:29 ---------- Previous post was at 16:29 ----------



10 times worse, what they killed 10 young women

this man wasn't tried as a murderer ,wasn't found guilty of murder ,wasn't tried for drug dealing yet all these crimes i would deem more offensive to society than his and yet these criminals are treated with similar leniency
this man deserved leniency they don't

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by martyh

this man wasn't tried as a murderer ,wasn't found guilty of murder ,wasn't tried for drug dealing yet all these crimes i would deem more offensive to society than his and yet these criminals are treated with similar leniency
this man deserved leniency they don't

Murderers aren't allowed out for New Year eight months into their sentence and a lot of people would say he has already recieved a lenient sentence.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Murderers aren't allowed out for New Year eight months into their sentence and a lot of people would say he has already recieved a lenient sentence.

you're absolutely correct they are not, but some will only serve a third of the sentence which this man has done (nearly)
whether you agree with the justice system or not doesn't matter the point is he is being treated exactly the same as other prisoners with a three year sentence and given that the privilege of home leave depends on prisoners behaviour i would suggest he has been a model prisoner

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by martyh

you're absolutely correct they are not, but some will only serve a third of the sentence which this man has done

and perhaps if they had murdered with a car they'd have only got 3 years to. Actually that is a little unfair, I have no doubt it was unintentional and he'll be carrying guilt around for the rest of his life.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

and perhaps if they had murdered with a car they'd have only got 3 years to. Actually that is a little unfair, I have no doubt it was unintentional and he'll be carrying guilt around for the rest of his life.

that's the whole point ,the judge recognised it wasn't intentional hence the three year sentance