Omg Stephen Lawrence scum sentence

[4ForksSake]

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.

Well, I sort of be concerned about what happens to them. I have little investment in their ability to change. But how they are treated in prison is a sort of indictment of how we as a society move forward. Beatings in a cell isn't the way to do do that.

I really hope that the others involved in the murder will now be brought to justice. The police said they have received new information, on BBC News tonight. I. also hope today's verdict will be of some comfort to Mr. and Mrs. Lawrence. It's taken 5 months longer than Stephen's whole life to achieve this conviction.

At least one of the convicted men doesnt appear to have repeat offended at any point in the almost two decades since the original murder. I am wondering what the point of locking him up might be? He doesn't appear to be a danger to society? Well apart from the drug dealing which he has done his time for.

entropy, are you for real?!!

I am wondering what the point of locking him up might be? He doesn't appear to be a danger to society?

beggars belief

Apart from the final justice, it's good to know that the others even if never convicted on evidence will be looking over their shoulder for the rest of their days.....

erm yes I am for real...so what is the point of locking up someone who isnt likely to re-offend? Cos if it is to persuade other people not to do it then I think the evidence of our heaving prisons indicates quite strongly that it doesnt work.

If it is about justice then I would ask where is the justice in the fact that somehow society failed this kid to the point that he didn't see what was wrong in what he was doing. Is it fair that he be punished for not possessing the native intelligence or empathy that makes such an act impossible for the vast majority of us?

If it is about vengeance then I all I can say is the sooner we collectively grow out of an eye for an eye the better.

Is it fair that he be punished for not possessing the native intelligence or empathy that makes such an act impossible for the vast majority of us?

Yes I think it's fair because they were 16 and 17 years old when they committed murder...not 6 and 7.

Lack of intelligence and empathy is no excuse for murder, no matter how society may have failed them. It's not as though they had some sort of severe SN that prevented them from knowing that stabbing someone is wrong.

Worra, also it was premeditated, wasn't it?

I'm not 100% sure LineRunner but I think it might have been?

Ahh no, I've just googled the Judge's summing up and he said it couldn't have been as it was a chance encounter but that basically they were looking to attack someone that night.

Poor Stephen Lawrence was in the wrong place at the wrong time it would seem

Worra, I'm thinking in the sense that at least one of the assailants was carrying a knife and they targeted and attacked Stephen Lawrence and Duwayne Brooks because they were black.

I thionk it used to be known as 'malice aforethought'.

Anyway, I think that prison should be about rehabilitation as much as punishment, and indeed is one of the stated aims of the British penal system, and I think that rehabilitation and education would go a very long way in this particular case.

I agree that education and rehabilitation are key. It would have been even better if the education had arrived for the convicted men before the incident....I find it hard to see that society isnt at fault more than they are, and that they are in fact being punished for societies mistakes.

Apparently the sentencing is really complicated and the judge is bound by all sorts of restrictions and laws that have been passed, can't pretend to understand it but heard a good analysis on Radio 4 about it. They said that these 2 would never have got 30 year sentences....

"erm yes I am for real...so what is the point of locking up someone who isnt likely to re-offend?"

Prison isn;t just about rehabilitation, it's about being punished for what you have done. He has taken a life, not walked out of Asda without paying for a pack of biscuits.

You're suggesting that because this person has managed to evade conviction for his involvement in a murder and because he's only been involved in petty crime since, that the slate should be wiped clean with regards to the murder. Does that go for every person who has killed and the crime has remained unsolved, if that person has managed to keep their nose relatively clean since?

Limitedperiod, while I agree that most people in prison are there for a reason and am not advocating mob violence, I think there's a huge moral difference between some of the offences that prisoners have committed. A person who is inside for benefit fraud has not done something that is even on the same planet as the Lawrence killers. And not everyone in prison is violent, either. I am not trying to excuse lesser and non-violent crimes, but not every prisoner has offended equally. I should imagine most of us would rather share a cell with a bigamist than a child molester, for example.

bup there is a much more detailed conversation about this going on here and it seems pointless to duplicate that on this thread.

The nub of the matter is that I dont see a role for punishment at all. I dont see that these men should be 'punished' because society has failed to educate them to understand that attacking a black teenager is wrong. I dont see that they should be 'punished' because they lack the genetic information that would prevent them from either experiencing violent hatred or acting on it. I feel that anyone who cannot prevent themselves from taking human life must by any reasonable definition be mentally ill and as such deserve treatment not 'punishment'.

That we have to lock up people who fit this description rather than being able to treat them and get them straight back into society is a real shame.

I wont post to this thread again but feel free to join the other discussion.....

flangelina I object to anyone who gets excited about someone getting theirs in prison.

It helps violent prisoners on the make. It doesn't help anyone else.

If I was in prison there would be many people I'd prefer not to bunk with. I wouldn't be entitled to choose, but I ought to be entitled not to be assaulted.

I'd guess that a benefit fraudster would keep his head down for what would be a short sentence. That's if he was imprisoned in the first place seeing as it's expensive.

Therefore most people looking to assault high-profile prisoners would be there for the long run and hoping to climb the ladder and get kudos.

I don't like Norris or Dobson but who do you think is nicer: them or someone who pours petrol on a security guard with a lovely wife and children and threatens to flick a lighter?

Or the 'Muslim Boys' mentioned gleefully by someone upthread? What do you think they might have done?

These people are in prison because we, or rather the State, says they should be because they've sinned against us.

I think they are entitled to food, warmth, shelter and education and comfort if they would like it and would benefit from it.

They are not entitled to choose where in the pecking order they come.

Oh and entropy, no normal person requires special training to know that you don't stab someone twice with a 10" knife because of their skin tone.

If you don't get that perhaps you need special training. Or maybe you ought to get your laughs somewhere else.

I understand your points, and I'm not advocating any violent reprisals. I won't pretend part of me won't be happy if it happens, but that's not the same thing.

Nonetheless, not everyone in prison has committed an equally appalling offence. That's why they're not all sent down for the same amount of time. The fact that it's difficult to choose which of two violent murderers is the worst absolutely doesn't alter the fact that they're both worse than someone who isn't in there for a non-violent offence. It's not a question of pecking order in the prison, which doesn't necessarily correspond to gravity of offence anyway.

If they had been caught, tried and sentenced at the ages of 16 and 17 they might have received the same length of sentence which, arguably, could have had more effect because of their youth. The reason they were not caught in 1993 was the extreme incompetence of the Met Police, who took the attitude that the murder of a black teenager simply wasn't worth investigating properly. The Met has so much to answer for.

But there is a pecking order in prison and non-violent offenders are at the back of it if not actively attacked. That's one argument for fewer custodial sentences for non-violent offenders.

I find it ugly and ignorant that so many people, I'm saying you btw, gleefully look forward to 'bad' offenders - in this case racists - being attacked by more powerful inmates without considering what those more powerful inmates might have done to get themselves in jail and how they want to position themselves once in there.

Ronnie Kray abused teenage boys in and out of prison, many whom were procured for him by criminal associates keen to suck up. I never heard of any attacks on him or anyone like him, though child molesters are generally first in the queue for a beating. There's still a sizeable fan club in and out of prison even after the psychopathic rapist's death. To me that's a strong clue to the hypocrisy of the righteous.

Like you I dislike these people and what they've done and would shrug if they were attacked. But that's not the same as praising and encouraging vigilante attacks, which I realise you weren't doing either.

"Ronnie Kray abused teenage boys in and out of prison, many whom were procured for him by criminal associates keen to suck up. I never heard of any attacks on him or anyone like him, though child molesters are generally first in the queue for a beating. There's still a sizeable fan club in and out of prison even after the psychopathic rapist's death. To me that's a strong clue to the hypocrisy of the righteous."

I do think that that is more to do with the myth surrounding the Krays: that they only "went after their own kind."

Limitedperiodonly, I know there's a pecking order that quite often rewards the more violent offenders. I said that myself. Although not violent offenders are rewarded in this way. Most child abusers do have a bad time of it, the odd exception like Ronnie Kray and Purple Aki notwithstanding. The pecking order in prison doesn't mean that some of the prisoners haven't been more immoral than others, for want of a better word. And the fact is that most people in prison are not there for murder, or anything of arguably equivalent seriousness such as rape or manslaughter. The Lawrence killers have committed a worse crime than most people who are in prison. I don't think this gives anyone the right to extra-judicially punish them, but it is still a fact.