|
|
Post by Vinny on Nov 22, 2023 12:59:38 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Nov 22, 2023 13:15:02 GMT
They have been sentenced to minimum terms in excess of 40 years though meaning none of those convicted will leave prison before their 70s. Frankly as life expectancy for those serving long sentences is much reduced compared to normal population I doubt any will ever reach their minimum term. Of course some future Home Secretary may decide that keeping men of advanced years in jail for excessive periods at a cost of £50k per year is silly and commute the sentences earlier.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Nov 22, 2023 13:39:24 GMT
Not enough, she'll never be able to do anything ever again, yet they'll be able to rebuild their lives. Why? They deliberately broke into her house with one of these: ![]()  And killed her. That's a sub machine gun. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Nov 22, 2023 13:50:38 GMT
No one will defend the drug dealers who committed this murder as part of drug turf wars or the partner of the victim who was similarly a drug dealer.
Quite rightly the perpetrators will go to jail for a long time and certainly should be in jail until they are judged not to pose a further threat to the public.
The trend for pandering to the tabloids with ever longer minimum sentences is however simply willy waving - it will be up to a future Home Secretary/Justice system in say 2053 whether or not to keep these men in prison then whatever the sentence imposed now is.
Even ignoring that reality what does a minimum sentence of 40 years compared to a minimum sentence of 30 years achieve. Keeping people in prison is expensive - roughly £50,000 per year.
With a minimum sentence of 30 years, sensible people would review the situation in 2053. If these men are judged not safe then to release, they stay in jail. If they are judged safe to release, they will be released on license
Delaying that review by ten years makes no difference if the men are still judged dangerous but if they are now safe to release costs the state £500,000 in today's money for no benefit whatsoever. Its frankly barking.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dogburger on Nov 22, 2023 14:34:17 GMT
No one will defend the drug dealers who committed this murder as part of drug turf wars or the partner of the victim who was similarly a drug dealer. Quite rightly the perpetrators will go to jail for a long time and certainly should be in jail until they are judged not to pose a further threat to the public. The trend for pandering to the tabloids with ever longer minimum sentences is however simply willy waving - it will be up to a future Home Secretary/Justice system in say 2053 whether or not to keep these men in prison then whatever the sentence imposed now is. Even ignoring that reality what does a minimum sentence of 40 years compared to a minimum sentence of 30 years achieve. Keeping people in prison is expensive - roughly £50,000 per year. With a minimum sentence of 30 years, sensible people would review the situation in 2053. If these men are judged not safe then to release, they stay in jail. If they are judged safe to release, they will be released on license Delaying that review by ten years makes no difference if the men are still judged dangerous but if they are now safe to release costs the state £500,000 in today's money for no benefit whatsoever. Its frankly barking. I think the years that they are deemed no threat to the public are the most important ones . This is the time they will feel remorse and maybe understand what they did not only to the girl they murdered but the families and friends who grieve . The cost of keeping people in jail is ludicrous by the way . At the very least they should be made to work to contribute to their stay . |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Nov 22, 2023 17:41:07 GMT
They have been sentenced to minimum terms in excess of 40 years though meaning none of those convicted will leave prison before their 70s. Frankly as life expectancy for those serving long sentences is much reduced compared to normal population I doubt any will ever reach their minimum term. Of course some future Home Secretary may decide that keeping men of advanced years in jail for excessive periods at a cost of £50k per year is silly and commute the sentences earlier. Indeed Dappy, incarceration is an expensive business. They should have been executed. |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Nov 22, 2023 17:58:04 GMT
Rope is 100% effective at preventing murderers from reoffending. Unfortunately it isn't a legal option any more.
|
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Nov 22, 2023 18:51:51 GMT
Life should mean just that in cases like this.
Whilst the judge was sentencing their relatives shouted and swore at the judge,I’d have given them time for contempt.
|
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Nov 22, 2023 19:15:26 GMT
No thanks Red and Vinny - morally wrong and frankly simply not going to happen.
You may be right re family if what you say is accurate.
As for “life” meaning life in prison - exactly the same argument as the 30 yrs v 40 yrs above.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Nov 22, 2023 20:24:54 GMT
When capital punishment was banned [For most capital crimes] in 1969 we were told a life sentence would mean life. That was a lie. We should have capital punishment or life sentences, but we have neither. This does not instil public confidence in the penal system.
|
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Nov 22, 2023 20:36:10 GMT
You don’t talk for the public.
Murderers do get life sentences. Usually however not all their sentence is served inside a prison.
|
|
|
|
Post by Equivocal on Nov 22, 2023 20:38:54 GMT
No thanks Red and Vinny - morally wrong and frankly simply not going to happen. You may be right re family if what you say is accurate. As for “life” meaning life in prison - exactly the same argument as the 30 yrs v 40 yrs above. I tend to agree in principle, but wonder if the possibility of a full life order being handed down in the crown court has had the effect of reducing the homicide rate since 2003. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Nov 22, 2023 20:39:30 GMT
No one will defend the drug dealers who committed this murder as part of drug turf wars or the partner of the victim who was similarly a drug dealer. Quite rightly the perpetrators will go to jail for a long time and certainly should be in jail until they are judged not to pose a further threat to the public. The trend for pandering to the tabloids with ever longer minimum sentences is however simply willy waving - it will be up to a future Home Secretary/Justice system in say 2053 whether or not to keep these men in prison then whatever the sentence imposed now is. Even ignoring that reality what does a minimum sentence of 40 years compared to a minimum sentence of 30 years achieve. Keeping people in prison is expensive - roughly £50,000 per year. With a minimum sentence of 30 years, sensible people would review the situation in 2053. If these men are judged not safe then to release, they stay in jail. If they are judged safe to release, they will be released on license Delaying that review by ten years makes no difference if the men are still judged dangerous but if they are now safe to release costs the state £500,000 in today's money for no benefit whatsoever. Its frankly barking. That's why we should have the death penalty. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Nov 22, 2023 20:41:31 GMT
No thanks Red and Vinny - morally wrong and frankly simply not going to happen... No, it's morally right but not going to happen in our morally bankrupt country. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Nov 22, 2023 20:49:49 GMT
You don’t talk for the public. Murderers do get life sentences. Usually however not all their sentence is served inside a prison. Don't talk bloody rubbish. A life sentence with a proviso the accused must serve a minimum of 12 years is not by any stretch of the imagination a life sentence. |
|
