Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Omg Stephen Lawrence scum sentence

98 replies

4ForksSake · 04/01/2012 08:41

Just heard that the scumbags that have been convicted will be sentenced as juveniles as they were 16 & 17 when they killed Stephen (regardless of their age now) & the sentences will start at 12 years, although the judge can add to that due to the nature of the crime. Now I'm clearly not knowledgable of the judicial system but this seems unbelievable. Especially as they'll probably only serve half a sentence. Makes your blood boil.

OP posts:
TandB · 04/01/2012 08:45

Do your research on the sentencing process rather than just listening to the frothing of the media and your blood might boil a little less.

Sentencing adults for juvenile offending is a massively complicated process and I genuinely haven't got the energy to type a long explanation, but this isn't a situation where they are going to be strolling out of prison in about 3 days time.

Birdsgottafly · 04/01/2012 08:46

Actually 12 years is a reasonable amount for their crimes, the way sentencing is. Tbh if they had been sentenced first time round they probably would have gotten less and had all the benefits of a after care package being put together, with new identities.

The will have to be careful of what he adds, otherwise they might end up with a lot less on appeal.

Birdsgottafly · 04/01/2012 08:47

'The judge'.

Original poster
4ForksSake · 04/01/2012 08:52

Like I said I wasn't aware of the system & didn't realise them being under age at the time of the crime would be taken into account (not something I need to be aware of in my day to day life!) but no I don't imagine they will be strolling out in 3 days either.

OP posts:
annalovesmrbates · 04/01/2012 09:06

They have been convicted of murder and will get life. The judge will decide on the minimum term that they must serve before they can be considered for parole. The starting point for that term seems to be 12 years, it may be increased. Please take time to get a grip of the facts before you start frothing away like the Daily Mail.

annalovesmrbates · 04/01/2012 09:06

They have been convicted of murder and will get life. The judge will decide on the minimum term that they must serve before they can be considered for parole. The starting point for that term seems to be 12 years, it may be increased. Please take time to get a grip of the facts before you start frothing away like the Daily Mail.

Growlithe · 04/01/2012 09:20

It seems that the judge cannot take into account in his sentencing that fact that it was a race hate crime, which will surely go down as one of the biggest ironies in the history of the British Justice system. We owe the Lawrence family a huge debt of thanks for changing not just the policies and procedures of the Police, but also the attitude of British society as a whole. They have done their son proud.

Growlithe · 04/01/2012 09:21

I should say the reason why the judge can't take the fact that this is a race hate crime into account, is that there was no race hate offence at the time of the murder.

thepeoplesprincess · 04/01/2012 09:25

I'm not even sure that the actual sentence matters that much tbh. I think the conviction itself after all this time is justice served pretty well enough.

BlackSwan · 04/01/2012 09:31

Are you kidding princess? Imagine if you were the victim's family - after waiting 18 years for a conviction, I would hope they spent the rest of their natural lives in jail. Of course that will never happen.

bejeezus · 04/01/2012 09:34

I agree with Growlithe whole heartedly, what an amazingly dignified and courageous family they are

Cant even start to think about Dobson & Norris

catsareevil · 04/01/2012 09:46

It will be an inderterminate sentence, so they will need to convince a parole board before they are released. The tariff set is a minimum, not a maximum.

sausagesandmarmelade · 04/01/2012 10:09

tbh I'm not sure why the OP started this thread.

There was another related thread on the same page....and this sort of takes away from that one.

In fact I'd even mentioned sentencing on it....so why the rant in this new thread op? Didn't you bother to look before you posted?

kelly2000 · 04/01/2012 10:13

Sadly, very few people convicted of murder serve more than twelve years even if they are sentanced for twenty plus years. I do not agree with the death penalty, but life should mean life. If you willingly take someone elses life for your own reasons (and lets face it the biggest reason for murder seems to be pleasure), then why should you not spend the rest of your life in prison.

PansPeople · 04/01/2012 10:20

cats - but they have been convicted of common law murder, so by law it must be a life sentence, not an IPP.

PansPeople · 04/01/2012 10:21

kelly - so people kill each other for the pleasure principle?

How on the sweetest dream did you arrive at that conclusion??

Original poster
4ForksSake · 04/01/2012 10:23

Kelly. Couldn't agree more about life meaning life but guess that's another debate. All just seems a bit unjust but at least they've been convicted.

Sausage - wasn't aware of your original post as I'm on phone & your post isn't on my 1st page so that's why I posted.

OP posts:
sausagesandmarmelade · 04/01/2012 10:25

I didn't post the other thread....and it was posted hours ago. How long have you been on the phone?

Feel sorry for the poster of the other thread as you've effectively killed it!

PansPeople · 04/01/2012 10:25

Kelly - your post makes no sense whatsoever re sentencing. For murder there is a minimum tarrif, which must be served in custody.

kelly2000 · 04/01/2012 10:37

I said murder not kill. Killing someone can result in a manslaughter charge, or no charge at all. But a huge amount of murder convictions are the results of killings that were done for fun or pleasure. A rapist kills his victim because he enjoys it etc. Even when people kill for money, they ulitmate aim is to have a better lifestyle, there is nothing honourable about the motives for murder.

Panspeople,
I know there is a minimum sentance, but in reality a huge percentage of people still get out after twelve years as things like time off for good behaviour gets taken into account etc. Its rather a slap in the face.

Original poster
4ForksSake · 04/01/2012 10:38

Ok sausage. Wasn't aware you weren't allowed to post if there's already a subject open

OP posts:
PansPeople · 04/01/2012 10:43

kelly - really? people murder for fun?? Okaaay....
- minimum sentence - you're still not making any sense - 'good behaviour' has nothing to do with a tariff, or anything else for that matter- release decisions are made on risk, not if they have 'been good' in custody.

BupcakesandCunting · 04/01/2012 10:53

The way is see it is this (bear in mind that usually I am level-headed about the justice system but I do think that this gang take repulsive to a new low...)

They were questioned and interrogated as juveniles. They lied. They have now been tried as adults and it has come about that they were lying when they were initially arrested. They should now be sentenced as adults. They had their chance to be tried as juveniles and they lost that chance when they lied about their involvement. They should now be sentenced as adults.

bejeezus · 04/01/2012 11:09

They were questioned and interrogated as juveniles. They lied. They have now been tried as adults and it has come about that they were lying when they were initially arrested. They should now be sentenced as adults. They had their chance to be tried as juveniles and they lost that chance when they lied about their involvement. They should now be sentenced as adults

this is a good point

PansPeople · 04/01/2012 11:09

Bups - agree with the repulsiveness etc BUT - people get sentenced on their crimes, NOT on how well they responded to questions, esp. under legal advice. When they killed they were juvies, it seems, with all of the factors to be taken into consideration.

but yes, I wish we could make an exception in this case.