To Think This is Too Low a Sentance - 12 year olds knife killing

[LuckysDadsHat]

https://news.sky.com/story/two-boys-believed-to-be-uks-youngest-knife-murderers-detained-for-minimum-of-eight-years-and-six-months-13221221

8.5 years minimum is nothing when these children are still only 13. They could be out at the same age of the man they killed. Why are sentences getting so lenient? I know some will say they are just children, but they are not so naive to not know what they were doing, and after the murder one of them was on social media saying "I don't really care" about the murder. It's just horrific and we need to have higher mandatory sentencing for all knife crimes including just carrying a knife.

@Thebaguette

They didn't get 8.5 years! Try READING before accusing people of having 'no sense of community'

You're talking to a wall, I'm afraid. I keep trying to point that out, but people prefer to froth than to read the facts

I am of the belief that for murder that it should be a minimum of 30 years in prison or a whole life tarrif for extreme cases.

I do believe that rehabilitation should be done (if possible) alongside punishment but I do not believe it should just be rehabilitation only. People need to be punished for their crimes and to take someone's life is the worst possible thing someone can do.

A minimum of 8.5 years is not a punishment in my opinion and I do not honestly think the damage that it has been said these murderers have had in their upbringing can be undone in such a short amount of time.

I feel for the teenagers parents and family so much in this, imagine it was one of your children and the murderers that did this got such a light sentence.

What do you class as an 'extreme' case though?

I do believe that rehabilitation should be done (if possible) alongside punishment

What punishment?

They did get 8.5 years if they behave in prison and do what they are told. Then they COULD be out in 8.5 years (or 7 years 4 months as it is now due to remand). Doesn't mean they are rehabilitated (Jon Venables), just means they said and did the right things.

Maybe they can be rehabilitated, maybe not, but surely that would be the best outcome. The fact that they are so young is shocking, but it clearly makes them less culpable overall than an adult offender. Any society that had a penal system so barbaric that it would imprison a 12 year old for a whole life term, as some on this thread would like to see, would be pretty fucked up in my opinion. Not to mention that the prison estate would be unbelievably overcrowded, violent and expensive, if life meant ‘whole life without parole’.

Minimum terms in general do appear to be getting longer. Someone can correct me if I’m wrong. A decade ago 30+ year terms were relatively rare.

I've read the facts ,thanks. The point being made is that very few killers (especially younger ones) actually serve much more than their minimum term.

You can bleat about a 'life term' all you like, it means very little in reality.

Lucy Letby, Peter Sutcliffe, Myra Hindley, Ian Brady, The West's etc............. they were very extreme cases and deserved the whole life tarrif attached to them.

And as for your comment about what punishment, I believe loss of liberty is the punishment and it should be longer than these 2 murderers got.

@HornyHornersPinkyWinky

I've read the facts ,thanks. The point being made is that very few killers (especially younger ones) actually serve much more than their minimum term.

So how do they get past a parole board?

Yes. If you are commenting without listening then you don’t know enough to comment. As for people salivating at the thought of hanging/electrocuting children…words fail me about your moral abyss. Repulsive.

Yeah, op, I do find the thought that these little shits could be out and about within a decade chilling, op.

Why?

I mean this very seriously: why do we need to punish these children (or any other convicted criminals)?

What greater good does punishment genuinely serve?

Is a desire for retribution sufficient in its own right?

This, despite the fact it may have absolutely zero positive consequences for anyone and in all likelihood many negative ones for many people?

Because they set up on this boy with no intention to kill anyone that night. With no provocation beyond being asked to move from a bench, they set up on him with the kind of violence that left no doubt that he would die and then just walked away, remembering to collect the weapon and to clean it with bleach.

They weren't in fear of their lives, they weren't intimidated, they didn't accidentally go too far. From zero to blood thirsty for no reason.

I have no faith that you can rehabilitate someone like that. And in ten years time they will be grown men at the peak of their physicality, and woe betide the poor fucker who crosses their path.

If 'punishment' being spoken about on this thread refers to being imprisoned then yes I agree.

But any other form of punishment being alluded to is ridiculous

As an aside, machetes and zombie knives are now illegal to own. As from a few days ago

So knife laws are slowly changing. Slowly

Just Google it, have you not used the Internet before??

What motive could they have possibly had?

@Bollihobs

Ooh now there's a thought! Google! Never thought of that 🤔

Op posted prematurely as most of the sentencing occurred after the post was made. Bet you thought you were clever posting that though, bit of a gotcha moment for you??

I am of the belief that for murder that it should be a minimum of 30 years in prison So a man who responds to his terminally ill wife's pleas to end her suffering should have a 30 year tariff?

@Daftasabroom. Of course it makes sense. What doesn't make sense to you about you take a life, you lose your liberty? Life should mean life. Are you telling me James Bulgers parents should be happy that the scum that killed their toddler are out living the life denied to him? If you had a relative of your own brutally and senselessly murdered would you just say, "Oh. please don't imprison them for too long". THAT makes no sense.

I don't care about what has gone on in their lives

Hence lies the problem. If no one wants to discuss these issues, we will never be able get better at supporting children like this to prevent this from happening.

The argument of 'they were kids' in this and other situations does not make sense to me.

Because 12 year olds are not at full maturity, same reason we don’t let them drink, concent to sex, vote and have jobs. You can’t judge who a child acts to that of a 30 year old (regardless of whether they are ND or not).

The age of criminal responsibility in England is currently 10 years old, so are you saying that because they can be held criminally responsible they should be allowed to sit on a jury at the same age?

Well, IN THEORY if you look at the purpose of a jury it has historically been so one can be judged by their fellow peers, so by that virtue yes a 10 year old should be aloud to sit on a jewelry, and it’s hypocritical to pretend otherwise.

In reality we know that’s would a ludicrous situation, and a 10 year old

Lucy Letby, Peter Sutcliffe, Myra Hindley, Ian Brady, The West's they were very extreme cases and deserved the whole life tarrif attached to them.

ALL OF WHICH WERE ADULTS!

Where are people salivating over hanging children? Point the posts out to me and I will report, I personally haven't seen any posts of the sort.

A lot of people have said the minimum sentence should have been longer, a lot of people have said its fair, but I haven't seen anyone "salivating over hanging children".

In that scenario a charge of murder would be unlikely, possible, but unlikely and sadly the laws in this country have not caught up with these nuances of the law. I believe we should have assisted suicide legalised but I know a lot of others will disagree.