I’d want to do the same - mother kills children’s abuser

[HermioneKipper]

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/sarah-sands-kill-sex-abuse-paedophile-b2231508.html

i think any parent would do the same if given the chance

How many fanatics who kill people do we give medals to?

What are you going to do about the inevitable wrongful convictions that would happen? You can't unkill someone.

It failed in this instance. That doesn't for one second justify abandoning the system and allowing state-sanctioned killing, especially given that that would inevitably lead to innocent people being cold-bloodedly killed in our name.

You cannot have a civilised society when people take justice into their own hands.

Apart from that, I have no particular sympathy for him, but she deprived her children of a mother for 4 years, which is not on.

It’s a terrible thing to suffer as a parent, but what she did was selfish, giving her to her (totally understandable) desire for vengeance, rather than putting her children’s welfare first - especially awful given the trauma they’d experienced.

I am sure her kids love her, hence the expressions of support, but they will have been damaged by her as well as him, and when they are older they will realise that.

People already do take justice into their own hands.

I'd probably just say it was illegal to do so but only give the killer a slap on the wrist, suspended sentence.

I'd probably just say it was illegal to do so but only give the killer a slap on the wrist, suspended sentence.

But that's not enough to deter other people from doing it. If people think killing someone in the name of vengeance will only get them a suspended sentence, then more people will go around killing people they think need to be punished. Can't you see the chaos that would create? The law is not there just to punish. It's there to deter.

@Suffrajitsu The irony! There already are state condoned killings and innocent people get killed in our name too. How many fanatics get the medals? I don't know how many, I haven't analysed their profiles. But it is naive to think there aren't fanatics among those performing state condoned killings.
That's the thing about fanatics - they'll kill regardless of the sanction which is hardly a deterrent at all. But the criminal justice system should serve to keep such people away from the public and make the world safer. What Sarah did made the world safer and I doubt anyone else is in danger from her. She was clearly not a fanatic with an agenda but a desperate cornered mother trying to protect her children from further harm by a prolific paedophile, after the state had the chance to do so and failed, putting them and others at risk again.

I'm saying this particular woman should've been let go for self defence or a similar argument. Im not arguing that from a legal standpoint but a moral one. The fact that this individual case should've been judged differently doesn't mean we're giving carte blanche for people to kill each other. It's already in the law anyway that not every taking of life carries a prison sentence or even a guilty verdict.

I was responding to a poster sarcastically saying ‘oh so if your child says their teacher abused them you run down to school with a knife?’ I was just saying there’s a difference between a child saying a random personally abused them and saying a known sex abuser abused them. One you’d be more careful, supporting and believing while investigating took place, the other you’d immediately believe whole heartedly.

But that poster was just trying to case doubt on these children and make them out as liars.

She didn't act in self-defence. She wasn't trying to protect her boys. She wasn't trying to protect anyone else's children. This wasn't an act of community service. She acted in anger. In vengeance. She wanted to hurt the person who hurt her children. That action hurt her sons. She knows this. That's why she says she regrets it.

15 years? You're having a laugh. 14 years is the maximum sentence for this type of offence and the majority of offenders aren't sentenced to anything like that. Prisoners have to behave pretty badly to serve their full sentence, most will serve half at best.

Here's the sentencing guidelines:

www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/magistrates-court/item/sexual-assault-of-a-child-under-13/

With the limited information we have about the details of the offences I would estimate that he commited category 2 offences with starting point A for culpability which means a sentence of 4 years with a range of 3 - 7 years. Even if we assume that the judge considers the prior offences to be a significant aggravating factor warranting the maximum sentence then he would only have got 7 years, out in three and a half or less. Even if he was convicted separately for all three boys the courts seem to have a habit of stipulating sentences run concurrently rather than consecutively which means his sentence wouldn't be any longer.

I agree she didn't act in self defence but I don't think it was vengeance either. She went armed to protect herself whilst she asked him to plead guilty to spare her son's the trauma of having to testify at trial. He told her her son's were lying but she'd already been dealing with her children having nightmares because of the abuse. I suspect at that point she saw red and stabbed him.

Justice is bullshit. It is a lie told to keep people quiet and in line.

We have legal systems, not justice systems. Legal systems created by powerful men, for men.

There is no justice.

Yeah 24 convictions is a lot. I don't agree with America's three strikes usually but in these cases where the harm is so huge, three strikes would have been more than enough to see where the man was heading.

lagioconda I’m not sure if we’ve had crossed wires on the prison/microchip point, but I’m advocating for sex offenders to be locked up for life so there would be no parole, probation etc. Those costs wouldn’t come into it. Of course we have an appeals process but I suppose that would need to be reviewed too (I am not advocating for the removal of appeals to be clear). Essentially I would support whole of life tariffs for paedophiles. There is absolutely no way when factoring in every last detail of the ‘microchip’ idea, that prison would be more expensive.

FOJN Thank you for providing that info regarding sentencing. Hopefully that will make very interesting reading to some x

There were enough trials for 24 prior convictions. Any one of those trials could have protected these 3 boys and their mother from this absolute monster. They chose not to.

And how much ’justice’ do you think the victims would have got. Do you honestly believe that this man would have received a good enough sentence (if any at all?). All you need to do is have a look at abusers crimes vs the conviction they receive. Society protects abusers more than they do victims and that’s a fact. I can almost guarantee that this man would have received less than 7 years in prison despite the fact that he ruined these kids (and many more) lives. You speak about the ‘alleged perpetrator’ never facing justice in the court of law as if that holds ant sort of weight. Pathetic really

1000%

Are you referring to people in the forces? If so it is hardly a comparable situation, nor is it relevant to this discussion.

As you say, we only have limited information. People on this thread are saying the offences committed were rapes, which carry a maximum life sentence.

None of that justifies murder.

The one who abused me is still working with children. Apparently historic abuse is hard to prove and so it was my word against his. Never even saw the inside of the courtroom. Insufficient evidence.

Sometimes I'm tempted to just follow him home from work and kill him. Not judging this woman at all.

I think one of the things that makes this crime so compelling for the offender is its so easy to get away with😟

I agree. Children are unreliable witnesses, easy to groom.

The power imbalance between child and abuser is so huge that the punishment for those who are caught ought to reflect that.

If the punishment was actual life inside, it would be interesting to see if that affected offending. (I don't agree with incarceration for non-violent crimes, and I think drugs should be legalised and regulated because current laws do not work for anyone except top level criminals and corrupt police) . But, unlike drug addicts, paedophiles have the option of not committing a crime. They can shut their eyes, use their imagination, and wank. The alternative needs to seen as not worth the risk. Unfortunately as a society we appear to be heading in the other direction.

The maximum sentence for rape is 19 years. Even if a rapist was given the maximum sentence they would probably only serve 10 years.

There is a difference between a life sentence and a whole life tariff. A prisoner could technically be detained for life if given a life sentence but typically they can apply for parole after about 15 years and in some cases even less. Someone can apply for parole if they are given a life sentence but not if they are given a whole life tariff.