Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 3 4

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:

Original poster

4ForksSake · 04/01/2012 11:11

Bupcakes you put it better than I did but absolutely agree

OP posts:

BupcakesandCunting · 04/01/2012 11:20

"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."

Well yes, but I am not saying that they should be sentenced on how well they performed at THIS trial but rather (now knowing that they lied repeatedly in the first trial) they should have the first trial dismissed in terms of age at time of offence and be tried now at age at time of second trial because tehy lied repeatedly, had family members bribe and threaten witnesses and The Met' etc.

Basically, I don't think that these scrotes should be seeing a softer/shorter sentence because they evaded a guilty verdict first time around. That is the fault of the police system. They owe it to Stephen's family now to right all of the fuck-ups of the last 19 years by sentencing them as adults.

Obviously, that is just my opinion and one made in anger. I don't expect anyone to agree!

Grandhighpoohba · 04/01/2012 11:44

They are not evading a harsher sentence because they evaded a guilty verdict first time round. Had they been found guilty the first time, they would have been sentenced as juveniles. Because they are being sentenced for the crime, the punishment is based on their age at the time of a crime.

Put it this way, if someone aged 10 committed an offence, and then the crime was not solved for 20 years, should they be sentenced as adults, or should the law take their age at the time of committing the offence into account?

If you want to sentence them for the lying, then they need to prosecuted for perjury as well. Fair enough. But you cannot add sentences for things that they have not been found guilty of, or given a fair opportunity to defend themselves against.

bejeezus · 04/01/2012 11:51

But you cannot add sentences for things that they have not been found guilty of, or given a fair opportunity to defend themselves against

fair point - but they have been found guilty of lying/ perjury and have had the opportunity to dfend themselves. repeatedly.

bejeezus · 04/01/2012 11:51

inadvertantly

NoOnesGoingToEatYourEyes · 04/01/2012 11:53

I agree with Bupcakes, she has summed up my feelings on this very well.

BupcakesandCunting · 04/01/2012 12:02

Oh I don't know. I just know that I am sad and frustrated for Stephen's family and at the unfairness of it. For them, I think that many of us want to see them locked up for a minimum of 25 years. It just seems an insult that 19 years of slog and tears might get them a sentence of 12 years. Less time than it took to bring them to justice.

It's all speculation, though and like someone else has said, the term in a minimum sentence and they will have to be reviewed by a parole board before they are considere for release. They could well end up serving a long term.

PansPeople · 04/01/2012 12:02

I agree with Bupcakes sentiments, but the 'legal logic' is just flawed - if we allowed that, we would have to re-write practise and ignore case precedence. Grandhigh is correct imo, and that of every legal practitioner I have discussed it with so far this morning. ( by that I mean dd, who knows what's fair and what isn't.

Grandhighpoohba · 04/01/2012 12:03

Were they charged specifically with perjury? If not then they have not been found guilty of it. If the proof that they perjured themselves is that they have been found guilt of Murder, then the Crown needs to bring fresh charges of perjury against them. Which they probably won't do, because it is expensive, and not in the public interest to spend public money adding lesser charges to people who are going to be in jail anyway.

These men are disgusting, what they did was horrific, but justice does not allow for special, more harsh punishment because the public, or the media, demands it. Justice has to be even handed, or it loses the moral authority to punish. People are murdered or murder often, why is this one more punishable, because we are more aware of it? Because it is high profile? Not fair, particularly to the families of other victims.

limitedperiodonly · 04/01/2012 12:03

They haven't been found guilty of perjury.

They might be charged with it but I doubt it because then to be fair we'd have to charge every convicted person who pleaded not guilty at trial with it and spend time and money on a whole new trial.

We already have a sentence discount for pleading guilty which I suppose in murder convictions would be knocked off your tariff.

If you don't plead guilty and are subsequently convicted you don't qualify.

That covers it, doesn't it?

limitedperiodonly · 04/01/2012 12:04

x-post grand I'm a slow typist

PansPeople · 04/01/2012 12:04

They can only get a life sentence, with a tariff - their actual release will depend on a whole host of things in years to come. A continual denial of guilt will go againstthem certainly.

BupcakesandCunting · 04/01/2012 12:07

I admit that I am a legal dunderhead...

But, why would they need to be tried for perjury? Doesn't the fact that they have been found guilty automatically render everything they put forward as their defence as a big pile of bullshit?

Like I said, legal dunderhead.

I know I sound like I am bordering on Daily Mail foam-mouth territory and I probably am. :( It's just that murdering racists do tend to make the old bile duct twitch.

limitedperiodonly · 04/01/2012 12:10

People are murdered or murder often, why is this one more punishable, because we are more aware of it? Because it is high profile? Not fair, particularly to the families of other victims.

Agree. Wasn't that why the Home Secretary's power to set tariffs was taken away? It's too tempting to respond to a case that gathers public sympathy.

I hate impact statements too. Does a victim with no friends to write eloquently about them matter less than someone who has loads?

I think judges politely ignore impact statements TBH.

Haziedoll · 04/01/2012 12:11

These two men are deeply unpleasant men and deserve to go to prison for a long time. However as they were juveniles at the time of the murder that fact must be taken into account when determining the sentence.

PansPeople · 04/01/2012 12:11

no - you can be found guilty though some of what you offer may be true. The threshold is 'beyond reasonable doubt', not 'only if everything the lying bastrd says can be proven to be a lie'. That would be a very high threshold.

wannaBe · 04/01/2012 12:13

the problem with changing the rules for the these particular individuals though is that by doing so you run the risk of turning them into martyrs.

They must be sentenced in accordance with the law as it currently stands. Anything else and it becomes political, and the motivation is wrong, how ever well-intentioned.

And wtf is all this frothing about there having already been another thread - this is a public forum, people can start threads where and how and on what subject they like. get a grip.

BupcakesandCunting · 04/01/2012 12:14

I thought the the point of more lenient sentencing for juveniles was that juveniles can't handle prison in the same way that an adult can? And so that there was more chance of them adjusting back into normal life after their sentence had been served? Seems like a redundant point now.

PansPeople · 04/01/2012 12:18

no it's about lots of things other than prison - just being young and daft, having fewer responsibilities to 'ground' you, being more immature, not have a grasp of effects of actions on others, not wishing to 'blight' a young life with a severe treatment - these may not be relevant to these two but these are some of the reasons why weare more lenient with juvies.

wannaBe · 04/01/2012 12:18

life with a minimum of fifteen years and two months for Dobson and fourteen years and three months for Norris.

Bearing in mind this is a minimum.

Grandhighpoohba · 04/01/2012 12:21

You would need a trial in which you went through everything they said to check whether that bit was a lie, and did they know it was a lie? It would probably be very, very easy to prove that they committed perjury, but you have to have the trial, or have them plead guilty to the charges, otherwise you are setting an extremely dangerous precedence where those in power can jail people for things which they have not been charged with, with no opportunity of defence.

BupcakesandCunting · 04/01/2012 12:22

Even in that case, Pan... They have been adults for some time now. Grown up enough to realise the impact of what they did. Plenty of time to confess. I realise I'm clutching at straws but it does smack of unfairness that they get sentenced like they were daft little kids, not realising the gravity of what they have done.

I remember watching the news when they were all leaving that enquiry and seeing them spitting and swaggering and it really made me sad and honestly it was the first time I understood what people mean when they say that there are certain people who are just bad.

IndieSkies · 04/01/2012 12:22

The principle of sentencing is worthy of a thread of it's own so I don't see why the OP should be sneered at!

In theory, what is the thinking behind juveniles getting more lenient sentences than adults? And are these factors still relevant now that the accused are no longer juveniles?

If (for example) it is thought they committed the crime because they were too young to understand what they were doing then that wouldn't have changed. If they were thought too young to go to an adult prison and withstand years behind bars, then that has changed.

They will have to be charged within the law as it stands, but why is the law as it is, in this respect? Could KungFuPanda and AnnaLoves explain and discuss rather than telling people off?

susiedaisy · 04/01/2012 12:22

bupcakes good point about prison terms

Haziedoll · 04/01/2012 12:24

Possibly Bunting. They must also have to take into account ones maturity at the time of offence also. These men were 16/17, young adults although not in the legal sense. If they had committed the offence at the age of say 11 or 12 for example more people would understand the reasoning behind sentencing them as juveniles. However the law is the law they were juveniles and must be sentenced as such. These men have not become reformed characters and have continued to lie about their involvement in the murder I'm sure that will be reflected in the sentencing too.

Flip

1 2 3 4