View Full Version : Human rights
highlander
19-May-06, 00:38
why does the guilty seem to get away with more than the innocent.
Kingetter
19-May-06, 00:42
Who said Life was going to be fair?
highlander
19-May-06, 00:56
Very true, kingetter, but when you have a gulity person let off, because he feels his human rights has been violated, why should the innocent be the one to feel gulity
Kingetter
19-May-06, 01:05
I guess you have to believe in a "hereafter" where everyone (no exceptions at all) get "theirs" whatever "theirs" is. Only way to survive I find.
why does the guilty seem to get away with more than the innocent.
It started in the 1960s and has progressed from there. Suddenly Society (that's you and me) had failed the poor little dears and it wasn't really there fault. They shouldn't be punished because Society had made them like that and Society should bear the responsibility. All the poor little dears needed was a little help to learn better ways and all would be fine. If they re-offended it was because the system had failed them giving even more proof it was not them to blame. The system must not punish them, it must show them compassion and understanding.
The next development was that it was the victims fault for either tempting them or antagonising them in some way. (The "well if you didn't have it in the first place they wouldn't be tempted to take it from you") Suddenly it was not only Society but the victim who was to blame.
We have now arrived at the situation where the offender must be protected from both the Victim for complaining and Society for trying to prevent the offender's right to create even more Victims.
The whole system has been turned round so those who do right are wrong and those who do wrong are right and should be protected from the newly invented wrong doers.
So that's it folks and get used to it, you are all evil and the poor little offender must be protected from you and your vicious ways.
How dare you wish to restrict their rights to do wrong, how dare you wish to see them punished you uncaring thugs! You should be ashamed of yourself!
Kingetter
19-May-06, 01:26
I know exactly what you're saying and I can't say you are wrong, though I wish you were.
But this "upside-down" "back-to-front" state we are in isn't that new. Try and think of a book (well known) published before the 60's where things were in reverse. Holler when you come up with the book.
I know exactly what you're saying and I can't say you are wrong, though I wish you were.
But this "upside-down" "back-to-front" state we are in isn't that new. Try and think of a book (well known) published before the 60's where things were in reverse. Holler when you come up with the book.
You wouldn't be thinking in terms of Ingsoc and Newspeak and a recently returned TV Programme would you?
Kingetter
19-May-06, 02:46
I don't read newspapers or watch television or even listen to the radio, so I guess the answer is no.
Kingetter
19-May-06, 02:58
http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/animalfarm/
TTFN
I don't read newspapers or watch television or even listen to the radio, so I guess the answer is no.
"All animals are equal -but some are more equal than others." Of course.
I was thinking 1984 and Big Brother. The one where the facts were twisted to suit the current situation and inconvenient facts were air-brushed out of History.
"All animals are equal -but some are more equal than others." Of course.
I was thinking 1984 and Big Brother. The one where the facts were twisted to suit the current situation and inconvenient facts were air-brushed out of History.
Reminds me of a certain poster not a million miles away from here!!!
Whilst the "Good and the Great" and certain groups in this country anguish and sympathise over poor murderers being sentenced to a Life, which they think is a short 14 years (I have already exceeded this by over four times so they must think I am some sort of long lived Super Human) there are other Countries with a more realistic timescale.
When even the most dangerous Murderers are sentenced to 30 years they howl in horror at the length.
In Spain, two men who committed a common or garden murder involving two British tourists, have just been found guilty of their kidnap and murder and of numerous offences of fraud.
They have been given heart-wrenching and tear jerking sentences of 62 years and 54 years.
Now, now, I didn't mean to cause you such anguish, if you need more tissues to dry your eyes there are plenty in most general stores.
Can you imagine the fuss from the usual suspects that they won't be out in the usual seven years they could expect here. We would be told it was disgraceful and inhuman and that it will couse them serious psychological harm, that they would be better serving their sentence in the community to make them better citizens - I needn't continue, you all know the usual repetitive excuses.
The Human Rights Brigade would be on their high horse screaming about their rights and how society was just being vengeful and barbaric.
Seems that doesn't impress the Spanish in the least, perhaps our wonderful system, the "Best in the World", should come down from their ivory towers and go and seek advice from a system with a real sense of Justice.
Kingetter
19-May-06, 08:56
Fiction becomes Fact? or did Orwell believe it had already happened (then)?
Kingetter
19-May-06, 08:57
Too obscure for me - I'd need that explained, if it mattered.
why does the guilty seem to get away with more than the innocent.
No system is perfect.
Take immigration, there will always be times when people who we would consider guilty are allowed to stay in the country and there will always be some who we consider innocent who are forced to leave. There will also be a lot of times when guilty people are deported and innocent people allowed to stay but you won't read about them in the papers or see them on TV. You never see a headline saying that the system worked as it should, all you ever see is guilty people who we let stay and innocent people who we deported.
Kingetter
19-May-06, 09:23
Well, of course, "Good News" is never news, only "Bad News" - that's how the media work, and is one reason why I don't read newspapers - except for the obits, and that's only to see if I'm in them!
The other thing is - we are in an upside down world where now, descendants of the convicts in Botany Bay claim they as "First There", are of special importance - they founded Australia!
Human rights are nothing new we as the UK signed up to this European Act in November 1950, probably before a lot of Orgers were born, see the link
http://www.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1044360377428
Kingetter
19-May-06, 09:31
Seems to me there was a book/story written once about "The Rights of Vegetables". Does that ring bells with anyone?
Reminds me of a certain poster not a million miles away from here!!!
I don't think you quite understand what Orwell was saying.
Political language... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.
George Orwell
Kingetter
19-May-06, 09:49
I don't think you quite understand what Orwell was saying.
It's becoming unclear as to who is responding to whom. Maybe best get back to original message and start again?
I feel a large coffee moment coming on!
Whilst the "Good and the Great" and certain groups in this country anguish and sympathise over poor murderers being sentenced to a Life, which they think is a short 14 years (I have already exceeded this by over four times so they must think I am some sort of long lived Super Human) there are other Countries with a more realistic timescale.
I can just imagine your ancestors going on about the "Good and the Great" sympathising about them poor sheep stealers getting hung.
But if you look at the real world not your fantasy world you would see that just yesterday a rapist and murderer was jailed for life in Britain, he will probably never be freed. Myra Hindley has been behind bars for 40 years and will probably never get out.
If you give a full life sentence to an ordinary murderer who just takes a gun and shoots someone what sentence do you give to someone like them?
connieb19
19-May-06, 11:42
Myra Hindley has been behind bars for 40 years and will probably never get out.
I should hope not, she's DEAD!!!:roll:
Kingetter
19-May-06, 11:47
Lol !!!!!!!
I should hope not, she's DEAD!!!
:lol: :lol:
I can just imagine your ancestors going on about the "Good and the Great" sympathising about them poor sheep stealers getting hung.
But if you look at the real world not your fantasy world you would see that just yesterday a rapist and murderer was jailed for life in Britain, he will probably never be freed. Myra Hindley has been behind bars for 40 years and will probably never get out.
If you give a full life sentence to an ordinary murderer who just takes a gun and shoots someone what sentence do you give to someone like them?
Myra Hindley is dead fred - she died in 2002 aged 60. And what do you mean "just takes a gun and shoots someone" How is any murder ordinary???? How does this opinion square with what you said about victims elsewhere on the board. Should the killer of the two teenage girls shot dead in Birmingham in 2004 be dealt with more leniently because it was an "ordinary murder". Are they less dead? Are their families grieving less than those of the moors murder victims? Are their pleas for justice any less important than the parents of the victims of hindley and brady? The decision not to free Myra Hindley was a political decision made by politicians based on popular opinion.
I can just imagine your ancestors going on about the "Good and the Great" sympathising about them poor sheep stealers getting hung.
But if you look at the real world not your fantasy world you would see that just yesterday a rapist and murderer was jailed for life in Britain, he will probably never be freed. Myra Hindley has been behind bars for 40 years and will probably never get out.
If you give a full life sentence to an ordinary murderer who just takes a gun and shoots someone what sentence do you give to someone like them?
Life, and life should mean just that. Multiple murder, murder in the furtherance of crime, murder involving illegal possession of a weapon, murder of people as a result of their particular occupation and various others, Life no remission or release for any excuse.
The rapist and murderer, if I remember correctly , had committed more than one rape for which he had been imprisoned previously and the Judge sentenced him to a full life tariff because he considered the offender was so likely to do the same again that for him to be released would mean that no woman would be safe.
Such sentences are very rare in this country, very rare indeed.
Society was unlucky with Brady and Hindley. When they committed their crimes hanging was still the punishment for the type of murder thy committed, unfortunately, by the time they came to court it had been abolished.
Nice people, they even recorded their torture of Leslie Anne Downey, next time you hear the Christmas Record "The Little Drummer Boy" remember, it makes nice background music for a child pleading to be allowed to go home to her mother whilst Hindley told her to "Shut up and put it back in!" What she was talking about I leave to your judgement.
Pauline Reade, John Kilbride, Eddie Evans, Leslie Anne. Nobody knows it there were any more and they certainly would not have stopped there except for the fact that Hindley took one of her young relatives along for the last murder and he phoned the Police as soon as he left them.
You want me to feel sympathy for them? My only regret is that when Hindley died, if she did in fact die, it was not long enough and painful enough to free my mind from what they did.
Leslie Anne's mother suffered from not being certain if her young daughter was even dead when she was buried, her little hand was sticking out of the ground.
That is the fantasy world I live in. The standard length of sentence for murder is 14 years unless the Judge, which is not all that often, sets a higher tariff. Normally, with good behaviour and full remission a murderer will be released after seven years and most are. That is also the fantasy world I live in.
The apologists for Hindley were intending to try to obtain her release using her Human Rights as an excuse. My poor heart bleeds for her.
For the families of the victims it is more like a nightmare than a fantasy.
Myra Hindley is dead fred - she died in 2002 aged 60. And what do you mean "just takes a gun and shoots someone" How is any murder ordinary???? How does this opinion square with what you said about victims elsewhere on the board. Should the killer of the two teenage girls shot dead in Birmingham in 2004 be dealt with more leniently because it was an "ordinary murder". Are they less dead? Are their families grieving less than those of the moors murder victims? Are their pleas for justice any less important than the parents of the victims of hindley and brady? The decision not to free Myra Hindley was a political decision made by politicians based on popular opinion.
Are you saying that all murders are equal? That killing someone is as bad as it gets?
A wife who has been abused by her husband for years one day decides to put an end to it and stab him with the carving knife while he's watching TV is the same as a drug dealer killing another drug dealer to take his territory is the same as someone who shoots a policeman while he's robbing a bank is the same as someone who kidnaps children and murders them?
I should hope not, she's DEAD!!!:roll:
Is she?
It was a life sentence then.
Such sentences are very rare in this country, very rare indeed.
There was another one today, sentenced to life with the judge recomending he never be released.
Are you saying that all murders are equal? That killing someone is as bad as it gets?
A wife who has been abused by her husband for years one day decides to put an end to it and stab him with the carving knife while he's watching TV is the same as a drug dealer killing another drug dealer to take his territory is the same as someone who shoots a policeman while he's robbing a bank is the same as someone who kidnaps children and murders them?
I would say that all murders are equal. It is only our own prejudices that make them unequal.
I would say that all murders are equal. It is only our own prejudices that make them unequal.
I...think....yes I'm almost sure.....yes I definatly do...........I AGREE!!
...first time for everything......;)
I would say that all murders are equal. It is only our own prejudices that make them unequal.
So murdering ten people is no worse than murdering one person?
So murdering ten people is no worse than murdering one person?
No, it is murder except it is repeated ten times. One murder is the same as another.
So murdering ten people is no worse than murdering one person?
Didn't somebody once say, "One death is a tragedy. A million deaths are a statistic!" I can't just remember his name.
I suppose when you are responsible for presiding over the deaths of millions of people then one murder or ten becomes an irrelevance.
Is she?
It was a life sentence then.
What better way to release Hindley?
The whole business was spoken about a great deal but everybody, except those with an interest in her being fred, were kept well away from seeing anything. The whole thing was kept very secretive to anybody not involved. And after all that, nobody will be going looking for her.
Her lawyers were about to go to the Court of Human Rights to obtain a release date from them. Thier argument was that her Human Rights were being violated because her imprisonment had exceed the maximum term set by the Judge. I am not certain, without checking, but I think the Sentence was 30 years. The Government was saved an awful lot of embarrassment, which the Court of Human Rights finding in her favour would have caused, when they were able to announce her death, after a short smoking induced illness before the case was taken to that Court.
Just a thought that crossed my mind, nothing more. Saves all the problems that have been caused keeping other criminals protected and their whereabouts kept secret. "No, it couldn't be, she's dead isn't she!"
After all, as you are very well aware, this Government is well known for lying to the public and even Parliament when it suits them!
There was another one today, sentenced to life with the judge recomending he never be released.
If you mean the Prison Guard who raped many young women and children, he was not given life at all.
He was sentenced to 25 years, with a recommendation that he must serve at least twelve and a half years. The Judge told him to bear in mind that he may never be released.
That is not the Judge sentencing him to life. Even with a Life Sentence, because of the Human Rights Act, the Judge must set a tariff as to which part of the Sentence is concerned with punishment", that gives the minimum sentence before release should be considered. He then sets a Maximum Period for Imprisonment to satisfy the Human Rights of the Prisoner because it is not fair to let the poor little dear not to have a release date to look forward to.
Only rarely is a Judge in the position, because of the nature of the Crime, able to set a Full Life Tariff. In that case, and only in that case, is the prisoner expected to be kept in Prison until death.
Three thugs who went on a rampage, beating, stabbing and robbing people, during which they battered a 69 year old to death and threw his body over a hedge were also sentenced yesterday. Two got a recommendation for a 22 year Tariff and one eight years for Manslaughter for the same offence.
22 years is rather a short “Life” by modern day life expectancy. The left the Court laughing and mocking the victims relatives.
I’m glad somebody could find the joke in it, but perhaps I’m losing my sense of humour about murder and murderers.
Can anybody remember the sentence the “Happy Slappers” (Now there’s a term which sums attitudes up if ever I heard one) got, including the girl who was with them filming it on a mobile. They were caught on the security camera mob handed beating someone to death on an underground platform. They beat, kicked and jumped on the guy, who was immobile on the ground, for a considerable length of time, one of them jumping on his head with both feet after leaping as high as he could into the air? They too had carried out and filmed, simply for their own enjoyment, many other such attacks in the weeks before.
They were only charged with mans-laughter, (now that was a joke) and certainly didn’t receive a long sentence for their crimes.
Even manslaughter, if I remember correctly, can carry a full life tariff but I’ve never know it given, or even anything close. If I remember correctly, they got less than 10 years. .
Such is the cosy little fantasy world I live in, It’s not the real world, just the one that happens day in day out. But you only see it on TV, hear about it on the Radio and read it in the press and on the Web, so it’s not real, it’s only make believe.
I wonder how fantastic it is when you have to sort out the aftermath. I wonder how fantastic it is for those left behind?
Just so everybody knows that I am not being very selective in my examples, I’ll make a prediction.
In the last couple of days a young lad was stabbed to death as he left school. If his assailant is caught and convicted he will not receive a “Whole Life Tariff” for his murder of that I am certain.
Does anybody wish to say that he will? My guesstimate is that it is unlikely to go as high as 15 to 20 years.
Remember that poster, it’s here on the Org for anybody to check back on if and when it happens,
If the Recommended Minimum Tariff for the sentence exceeds my guess please feel free to bring this up and mock me with it!
That is an invitation open to you all, but I suspect I’m on fairly safe ground because in 2001 there were only 23 people in England and Wales who were actually imprisoned and serving a Whole Life Tariff.
That is not a figure for those Sentenced in 2001 but the total figure for all those who had been given that sentence in all previous years and were still in prison.
That’s the reality of the severity with which murderers and dangerous criminals are dealt with in this day and age.
No, it is murder except it is repeated ten times. One murder is the same as another.
But is putting a bomb on an aeroplane knowing it will kill a lot of people a worse crime than taking a gun and shooting one person?
pultneytooner
20-May-06, 08:17
Somebody should present the publicity seeking idiot with a Dirty White Raincoat because that's what he's short of.
What about his human rights.;)
He was sentenced to 25 years, with a recommendation that he must serve at least twelve and a half years. The Judge told him to bear in mind that he may never be released.
He was sentenced to 25 years with the judge recomending he serve the full 25 years.
Just so everybody knows that I am not being very selective in my examples, I’ll make a prediction.
In the last couple of days a young lad was stabbed to death as he left school. If his assailant is caught and convicted he will not receive a “Whole Life Tariff” for his murder of that I am certain.
Does anybody wish to say that he will? My guesstimate is that it is unlikely to go as high as 15 to 20 years.
Remember that poster, it’s here on the Org for anybody to check back on if and when it happens,
If the Recommended Minimum Tariff for the sentence exceeds my guess please feel free to bring this up and mock me with it!
Not being selective with your examples? You have got to be joking.
In every one of your cases the offender was under the age of 18 when they committed the offence, classed as minors under the law and covered by UN regulations for the protection of children. You were being very selective.
Earlier in the thread you compared Britain to Spain where two murderers were sentenced to 54 and 62 years, you neglected to say that in Spain the maximum time anyone can spend in prison (baring terrorist offences) is 30 years whereas in Britain we have no limit. Myra Hindley and Ian Brady would have been released from prison ten years ago had they been in Spain.
In 2004 there were 5,445 people serving life sentences in England and Wales which is more than every other EU country added together.
You read in the newspapers of a few people getting sentences which you decide are too lenient without hearing what the Judge hears and you build a picture in your head of a country which is soft on criminals. That's all it is, your fantasy world and no matter how you try to twist the facts to match the picture in your head we are not.
He was sentenced to 25 years with the judge recomending he serve the full 25 years.
Not being selective with your examples? You have got to be joking.
In every one of your cases the offender was under the age of 18 when they committed the offence, classed as minors under the law and covered by UN regulations for the protection of children. You were being very selective.
Earlier in the thread you compared Britain to Spain where two murderers were sentenced to 54 and 62 years, you neglected to say that in Spain the maximum time anyone can spend in prison (baring terrorist offences) is 30 years whereas in Britain we have no limit. Myra Hindley and Ian Brady would have been released from prison ten years ago had they been in Spain.
In 2004 there were 5,445 people serving life sentences in England and Wales which is more than every other EU country added together.
You read in the newspapers of a few people getting sentences which you decide are too lenient without hearing what the Judge hears and you build a picture in your head of a country which is soft on criminals. That's all it is, your fantasy world and no matter how you try to twist the facts to match the picture in your head we are not.
I have not gone searching for the examples I have given. The tube killing was well publicised on TV and the rest of the Media. The Moors murderers are not unknown to people, in fact I would think most people have heard of then and some have personal interest. All the rest are recent and have been in the media and I am sure are well known to almost everybody. I have not gone searching for unusual or obscure cases to make a point.
My prediction for the recent School Murder still stands. I chose that because it is current and well publicised and most people will have heard of it.
The numbers given for Life Sentences I am well aware of. The reason for that was that, in the 1960s the Government which abolished Capital Punishment made the Sentence for Murder to be a Mandatory Life Sentence. That was in order to convince the public that it did not need to worry about Murderers no longer being hanged because they would get "Life in Prison" and would pose no threat. (The rights and wrongs of Capital Punishment are another subject altogether)
The result is that if you are convicted of Murder you are sentenced automatically to a theoretical Life Sentence. Even if the judge says there are strong mitigating circumstances, and of course there can be, and decides that five years would be and appropriate period in prison, after which you will be released you would still be classed as having received, and would go under the statistics for, being in prison serving a Life Sentence.
Once you are released from prison after serving the number of years recommended by the Judge or having been released by the Parole Board you are released on License which means that you can be recalled to Prison under certain circumstances to serve the rest of you sentence. I am not personally aware of this ever having happened but I am willing to admit that this may well have occurred.
The reason we have such a high proportion of prisoners serving Life Sentences is that almost all other Countries in Europe operate a different system. That means that a prisoner sentenced to 25 years for murder elsewhere would not show up in that countries statistics as serving a life sentence but a similar prisoner here who had a Tariff of 25 years in Britain would show up as serving a life Sentence because that is simply the term used here. Both receive the same sentence and serve the same time in prison but only one is imprisoned “For Life”..
Unless there has been a very dramatic increase, and it would have to be ridiculously dramatic, the numbers of Prisoners in Britain actually sentenced to serve the rest of their life in prison will be far less than 50.
I wonder how that figure, which more correctly reflects a Life Sentence compares with the rest of Europe because of the 5,445 prisoners serving “Life” Sentences fewer than 50 have been sentenced to serve the rest of their life behind bars. A Life Sentence in Britain in most cases means just about anything but Life.
I will continue my very selective process of picking and choosing my cases and figures created in my fantasy world with the following information.
“The average time served by life sentence prisoners first released on life licence has gradually increased over the last decade from under 12 years in 1989 to nearly 15 years in 1999.”
In 1999 the average time served by a person getting a Life Sentence had risen from 12 to 15 years. The Average” time would indicate that, because some are serving very long periods in prison, some must be serving considerably less.
And where did I find my fantasy, very carefully selected figures? From the biased press? From a quick report on the TV?
No, from figures provided by the Home Office.
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/prischap5.html
Of the three sentenced for killing the 69 year old man, the two convicted of Murder were 18 years old and therefore adults and the one convicted of manslaughter was 17 years old.
John David Hall, the Prison Officer was convicted of three kidnaps. two attempted Kidnaps and three indecent assaults on five girls aged 12 to 17. He had been convicted in March of five rapes, one attempted rape and 2 assaults on women aged between 17 and 25.
The Judge passed a 25 year sentence with the recommendation that he should not be considered for parole until he had served a twelve and a half year period in Prison and that he should be aware that it is probable that he will never be released. Unless the system has changed recently, the Recommendation will go to the Lord Chief Justice who will consider it and having done so will advise the Home Secretary of his considered opinion. The report from the BBC concerning the case is at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_yorkshire/4996864.stm
The Guidelines from the Sentencing Advisory Panel which advises Judges on Sentencing Policy points out that adult offenders usually expect to be considered from release after they have served between half and two thirds of their sentence and that this should be born in mind when passing sentence.
This would account for the Judge giving a Sentence of 25 Years.
A list of Sentencing Guidelines from the Advisory Panel can be found at
http://www.sentencing-guidelines.gov.uk/advice/index.html
It makes rather interesting, if lengthy, reading.
But is putting a bomb on an aeroplane knowing it will kill a lot of people a worse crime than taking a gun and shooting one person?
Not sure of the answer that you want out of me. My belief is that murderers should be executed. So, yes, in those terms every murderer should be treated the same. Of course, if I was a judge in my fantasy, then I would be sorely tempted to send multiple-murderers to a painful-slow death and the murderers of passion etc to a quick one. But the do gooders would have the day and they will only allow me to give the multi-murderers the same as the others.
Murder is murder, no matter how you dress it up.
Not sure of the answer that you want out of me. My belief is that murderers should be executed. So, yes, in those terms every murderer should be treated the same. Of course, if I was a judge in my fantasy, then I would be sorely tempted to send multiple-murderers to a painful-slow death and the murderers of passion etc to a quick one. But the do gooders would have the day and they will only allow me to give the multi-murderers the same as the others.
Murder is murder, no matter how you dress it up.
How about if a group of men force a 15 year old boy into a canal at gunpoint, see he can't swim but say they will shoot him if he tries to get out then they stand there and watch him drown?
Would you sentence them to a quick death or a slow painful one?
Would you sentence them to a quick death or a slow painful one?
It depends what the human rights do-gooders allow me to do.;) A quick one probably.
It depends what the human rights do-gooders allow me to do.;) A quick one probably.
Well I wouldn't go blaming any do-gooders if they walk away free men.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4966046.stm
I have not gone searching for the examples I have given.
Forget examples just look at the facts.
The UK has a higher prison population per 100,000 than any other country in the EU.
Forget examples just look at the facts.
The UK has a higher prison population per 100,000 than any other country in the EU.
Quite true, just shows that over 40 years of blaming everybody for the crime except the criminal has been a complete failure.
Now it's time that the "be nice to the because they can't help it" excuses stopped and prisons were returned to what the ought to be, a place where people who do not know how to live without resorting to crime are sent for punishment and to protect society from their behaviour.
In many cities, and certainly the one I lived in, it's decent people who live like prisoners. Blocks of flats surrounded by 10 foot railings with electrically operated gates and a security office at the entrance to check people in and out. And these are not posh flats for the idle rich, these are average Council Flats full of ordinary working people.
They are the ones who's Civil Rights are being abused because, through no fault of their own, they have to live in prison like conditions every day of their lives. And if you wish to believe that is also a product of the Fantasy World I live in then I can give you directions to the places.
One thing I am certain of is that people living in some areas of most large cities will be living, if that's what it can be called, under the same conditions.
The fact that we have such a large number in Prison is because it is no longer a place you wish to avoid at all costs.
British Society has been forced to pander to the Criminals by those who wish to excuse them. Pampering prisoners and failing to protect the general public is not the sign of being Civilised, it is a sign that those in power have ceased to care.
If it was made clear that Criminal Behaviour would not be tolerated there would not be so many people in the prison system.
Prison Officers have now been given guidelines on how prisoners should be addressed to save their delicate feelings. What a load of nonsense, how wonderfully Politically Correct,. What next, having to tuck them in a night an reading them a bed-time story?
The thing that I find disgraceful is not the fact that we have so many in prison but that we have so many who are quite willing to volunteer to go there and treat it as home from home. Prison. should be a place you never want to volunteer for once, never mind again and again.
Quite true, just shows that over 40 years of blaming everybody for the crime except the criminal has been a complete failure.
Yes, all those people wrongly convicted of crimes they didn't commit, the Birmingham Six, Guilford Four, Maguire Seven while someone who takes a rifle, takes careful aim at an unarmed person and shoots them in the back gets no blame at all.
A complete failure.
Well I wouldn't go blaming any do-gooders if they walk away free men.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4966046.stm
That isn't murder and the events don't fit your description of what happened, they didn't intend to kill the boy.
That isn't murder and the events don't fit your description of what happened, they didn't intend to kill the boy.
"Murder is murder, no matter how you dress it up." ?
Yeh, right.
The operative word is 'intention'. Otherwise every unfortunate motorist who kills a kiddie who jumps out will get the rope.
Yes, all those people wrongly convicted of crimes they didn't commit, the Birmingham Six, Guilford Four, Maguire Seven while someone who takes a rifle, takes careful aim at an unarmed person and shoots them in the back gets no blame at all.
A complete failure.
Oh dear, Back to that. Not a problem, they were just unlucky and not typical of the system and that doesn't explain anything about the average person in Prison. Unless you are suggesting that the reason for our numbers in Prison is because all the excess is made up of people who are innocent.
Funny how you choose those particular examples, doesn't that tell it's own story. We are back to State Terrorism again.
I am willing to agree that what happened to them was terrible, they made an awful lot of money out of us.
That does not alter the fact that the problem lies with the excusers who have done their best to turn the prisoner into the victim.
"It is something everyone should question in a time of enlightenment and compassion. To lock more and more people up is a mad policy because sending people to prison simply creates more crime and more victims."
Who said that? The Howard League for Penal Reform, but then they would, wouldn't they.
To prove we are an "enlightened" society we should take pity on all the prisoners and turn them loose on the public.
Increases in Prison Populations created more crime. How could anybody be s stupid as to believe that an increase in the numbers of people willing to commit crimes leads to an increase in Prison Populations? How obvious it must be to all sensible people that the only reason for a rise in crime is because more people are being sent to Prison.
Presumably, if that is true, if we never send anybody to prison at all then there would be no crime at all.
It's nearly as bad as the lawyer who tried to convince a court that his clients Criminal Record would not be as bad as it was if the Police didn't keep arresting him.
It's the typical reverse logic I have heard many, many times to excuse people's criminal acts.
If people didn’t have so many expensive possessions then they wouldn’t get Burgled.
The shops are to blame for Shoplifting because they make their displays too tempting.
He should have known he’d get mugged if he went down there.
All you need to ask is if schools are now in a position to control really disruptive pupils. If society refuses to allow children in schools to be made to behave in some sort of reasonable manner how on earth are we to expect them to behave when there is nobody there to keep an eye on them.
A certain number will arrive at the conclusion that they can do as they wish and nothing can be done about it.
“I know my rights” was the eternal cry of the “I’ll do as I wish” brigade. The one thing they haven’t learned is their responsibilities towards others.
Oh dear, Back to that. Not a problem, they were just unlucky and not typical of the system and that doesn't explain anything about the average person in Prison. Unless you are suggesting that the reason for our numbers in Prison is because all the excess is made up of people who are innocent.
Well sending innocent people to prison isn't going to help the prison population figures much at all now is it?
Paul Blackburn, served 25 years, innocent.
Steven Downing, served 27 years, innocent.
Andrew Evans, served 25 years, innocent.
Judith Ward, served 18 years, innocent.
Stefan Kiszko served 16 years, innocent.
Bridgewater Four, three served 18 years one died in prison, innocent.
Peter Fell, served 17 years, innocent.
Now according to you a murderer can expect to get out in 7 years if he's guilty and the least of the innocent ones did 9 years more than that so if what you say is true then that would seem to be a logical explanation.
Well sending innocent people to prison isn't going to help the prison population figures much at all now is it?
Paul Blackburn, served 25 years, innocent.
Steven Downing, served 27 years, innocent.
Andrew Evans, served 25 years, innocent.
Judith Ward, served 18 years, innocent.
Stefan Kiszko served 16 years, innocent.
Bridgewater Four, three served 18 years one died in prison, innocent.
Peter Fell, served 17 years, innocent.
Now according to you a murderer can expect to get out in 7 years if he's guilty and the least of the innocent ones did 9 years more than that so if what you say is true then that would seem to be a logical explanation.The length of sentence, according to Home Office Stats, has increased to an average of 15 years. That's an average, some serve more than 15 years so to average out at 15 years some must serve less. The guidance given to Judges is that when setting a sentence that they should bear in mind that an adult prisoner normally would expect release after having served half to two thirds of the sentence. All you do is see the length of the sentence the Judge sets and a prisoner can expect release after half that time.
There is a very good reason why the ones you mention above would be refused release.
When the prisoner becomes eligible for release he is interviewed by a Parole Board, and for those above that creates a problem.
Some of them, if not most, would probably have been released earlier by a Parole Board.
All they had to do was to admit their guilt, be chastened and contrite and shown the Board that they had learned their lesson and were reformed people.
Of course, if they did none of the above, especially admitted their guilt, then the Board would not release them because they obviously had not come to terms with their crime.
It's not so much that they lost their Get Up and Go but more that they lost their Cough Up and Go. (Sorry)
I make no comment on the fairness of that system but, as far as I am aware, it is still the one in force.
The way the system operates would mean that had it taken 40 years for their innocence to be decided then they would still have been in prison.
Lie, cough and go free or maintain your innocence and remain. It's a choice which I must confess is one I hope I am never faced with.
The length of sentence, according to Home Office Stats, has increased to an average of 15 years. That's an average, some serve more than 15 years so to average out at 15 years some must serve less. The guidance given to Judges is that when setting a sentence that they should bear in mind that an adult prisoner normally would expect release after having served half to two thirds of the sentence. All you do is see the length of the sentence the Judge sets and a prisoner can expect release after half that time.
There you go again looking for complicated convoluted excuses as to why the version of reality in your head doesn't match the real world when if you would only have considered the possibility you were wrong you would have spotted your error immediately.
The average time in prison for someone serving a life sentence is 15 years, that is all people serving life not just murderers, it includes kidnappers, rapists, armed robbers and people convicted of manslaughter all considered lesser offences.
The mandatory sentence for murder is life with a minimun sentence of 15 years, that is 15 years before even being considered for parole.
There you go again looking for complicated convoluted excuses as to why the version of reality in your head doesn't match the real world when if you would only have considered the possibility you were wrong you would have spotted your error immediately.
The average time in prison for someone serving a life sentence is 15 years, that is all people serving life not just murderers, it includes kidnappers, rapists, armed robbers and people convicted of manslaughter all considered lesser offences.
The mandatory sentence for murder is life with a minimum sentence of 15 years, that is 15 years before even being considered for parole.
With the exception of Murder no other offence carries a Mandatory Life Sentence.
In my version of reality, if there is a sentence other than a Mandatory Life Sentence then the Judge will use it. In other words he will set a sentence that he thinks is appropriate. If the Judge thinks a sentence of 5 years or 30 years then that is the sentence he will pass.
If, for such offences, a Judge passes a Life Sentence then that is what he means, Life. Otherwise he would set the sentence at the particular number of years he thinks is suitable.
No Judge, where he has a choice, is going to pass a Life Sentence if he means the offender should be released after a short number of years.
If he did then the Court of Appeal would immediately reduce the sentence on Appeal because "Life" would obviously be too long a sentence.
It therefore follows that any offender sentenced to Life, for an offence other than murder, will not normally, even by the Parole Board, be released for many, many years.
Life sentences, in such circumstances, are usually reserved for the most violent offenders, offenders who it is considered are almost certain to re-offend and offenders who have previously received very long sentences and have, once again, committed a very serious offence.
The fact that such offenders are included in the figures would raise the average, not lower it. Unless, that is, Judges pass such sentences for the fun of it.
The fact that such offenders are included in the figures would raise the average, not lower it. Unless, that is, Judges pass such sentences for the fun of it.
Now I know you are just arguing for the sake of argument.
No one in Britain can spend less than 15 years in prison if convicted of murder, that is the mandatory minimum, they can't expect to be out in 7 as you said.
No one in Spain can serve more than 30 years in prison barring terrorists, in Britain we have no limit.
These are facts.
Now I know you are just arguing for the sake of argument.
No one in Britain can spend less than 15 years in prison if convicted of murder, that is the mandatory minimum, they can't expect to be out in 7 as you said.
No one in Spain can serve more than 30 years in prison barring terrorists, in Britain we have no limit.
These are facts.
I had a look at the site for the Panel set up to advise Judges on Sentencing Policy. I think it speaks for itself on sentencing in Murder cases and only Murder Cases.
http://www.sentencing-guidelines.gov.uk/docs/press_23apr02.html
SENTENCING ADVISORY PANEL
23 April 2002
For adult offenders, the Panel proposes three separate starting points, reflecting the wide variety of circumstances in which murder is committed.
· The middle starting point, for cases with no significant aggravating or mitigating features, would be 12 years.
· The lower starting point, for cases where the offender's culpability is significantly reduced, would be 8 or 9 years. This would apply to a mercy killing, or to a case where the offender was suffering from a mental disorder or disability, or was provoked, or overreacted in self-defence.
· The higher starting point would be 15 or 16 years. This would be appropriate for murders where the victim was in a particularly vulnerable position; or for cases such as contract killings, multiple murders, politically motivated murders, or those involving sadism, gratuitous violence or sexual abuse of the victim. The minimum term could be significantly higher for a case at this level involving several aggravating factors.
The following extract explains, in simple terms, the number of offenders released from prison in 2000, the average tariff, the lowest and the highest tariff amongst various other explanations. Just to argue for the sake of arguing that is.
3. In 2000, 336 defendants (including both adults and juveniles) were tried for murder in England and Wales, and 261 of them were found guilty and sentenced. The Lord Chief Justice's Practice statement (Life sentences for murder) [2000] 2 Cr App R 457 sets a starting point of 14 years as the tariff for a case with no aggravating or mitigating factors, and lists the factors which might suggest either a higher or a lower than normal tariff in an individual case.
4. During the year 2000, 119 adult offenders were released from life sentences for murder. The average tariff was 12.6 years. The lowest tariff was 7 years (this offender was released 10 years after sentence) and the highest tariff was 30 years (this offender was released 31 years after sentence).
It is possible that the Sentencing Advisory Panel got terribly confused and forgot that they were supposed to be dealing in facts.
SENTENCING ADVISORY PANEL
23 April 2002
The following extract explains, in simple terms, the number of offenders released from prison in 2000, the average tariff, the lowest and the highest tariff amongst various other explanations. Just to argue for the sake of arguing that is.
It is possible that the Sentencing Advisory Panel got terribly confused and forgot that they were supposed to be dealing in facts.
No, it's just that they wrote it in 2002 and it was made obsolete by the Criminal Justice Act 2003 when the minimum terms were set in law.
However having looked further and found the actual act not a press report I do see that it is possible for a judge to set a lesser term than the 15 years minimum if there were mitigating factors such as no intent to kill, an element of self defence or if it was a mercy killing so we both got it wrong.
Even so going on your link it says that from prisoners released in 2000 that the least term served was 10 years, the most 31 years and the average 12.6 years so it's still a far cry from a prisoner expecting to get 7 years even then. The case you mentioned in Spain which involved the murder of more than one person and kidnapping would have brought the higher minimum sentence of 30 years under the Criminal Justice Act so if they had committed the same murder here they could expect a minimum sentence of 30 years which is the maximum they could serve in Spain.
beetlecrusher
23-May-06, 11:05
Sorry if this offends but I believe that if someone removes another's human rights by killing them/raping them/child molestation or terrorism of any kind, then the perpetrator's human rights should also be removed - for a very, very long time. What would be the situation about service personnel though? Amnesty I guess.
No, it's just that they wrote it in 2002 and it was made obsolete by the Criminal Justice Act 2003 when the minimum terms were set in law.
However having looked further and found the actual act not a press report I do see that it is possible for a judge to set a lesser term than the 15 years minimum if there were mitigating factors such as no intent to kill, an element of self defence or if it was a mercy killing so we both got it wrong.
Even so going on your link it says that from prisoners released in 2000 that the least term served was 10 years, the most 31 years and the average 12.6 years so it's still a far cry from a prisoner expecting to get 7 years even then. The case you mentioned in Spain which involved the murder of more than one person and kidnapping would have brought the higher minimum sentence of 30 years under the Criminal Justice Act so if they had committed the same murder here they could expect a minimum sentence of 30 years which is the maximum they could serve in Spain.
Criminal Justice Act 2003. Determining the Minimum Term in Relation to Mandatory Life Sentence. Sect269(5) Paragraph 6.
"If the offender was aged 18 or over when he committed the offence and the case does not fall within paragraph 4(1) or 5(1), the appropriate starting point, in determining the minimum term, is 15 years."
The word used in the Act is "appropriate" and not "absolute minimum". Whilst I accept that Judges are unlikely to wish, under that wording, to set a tariff lower than 15 years the use of the word "appropriate" means that they could well do should they so wish.
That is the exact wording of the Act of Parliament and not a report.
My original comment related to the past 40 years or so, not just the last three years, so I stand by what I said, the problems started some forty years ago in the 1960s.
It would appear that at last that just three years ago the politicians finally woke up to the fact that there might just see a problem.
Or was it just that they decided that doing nothing might just cost votes because the general public (the electors) had decided enough was enough?
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.