The legal system protects our children again! (NOT) - Page 2

iSteve · 12-06-2006, 21:39

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.

12-06-2006, 21:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Escapee

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.

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.

etccarmageddon · 12-06-2006, 22:08

everything appears to be in favour of the criminal.

TheDaddy · 12-06-2006, 22:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by etccarmageddon

everything appears to be in favour of the criminal.

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.

Nugget · 12-06-2006, 22:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by unlimited

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.

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

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...

**Paul** · 12-06-2006, 22:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nugget

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?

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

12-06-2006, 23:00

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?

Nugget · 12-06-2006, 23:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul M

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

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

NitroNutter · 12-06-2006, 23:24

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.

luvclub · 12-06-2006, 23:40

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!

etccarmageddon · 12-06-2006, 23:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

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.

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.

TheDaddy · 12-06-2006, 23:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by etccarmageddon

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.

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.

iSteve · 13-06-2006, 02:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by luvclub

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.

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 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

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.

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.

TheDaddy · 13-06-2006, 07:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by iSteve

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.

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.

etccarmageddon · 13-06-2006, 07:41

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