The child who confessed should get a reduced sentence?

[ElatedShark]

Two young men were killed in Bristol in a case of mistaken identity. 5 killers caught, only one, the youngest child, confessed.

I think he should be given less time than the others due to this and age and the fact prison rarely works to rehabilitate young offenders. It must be terrifying for him.

My heart also goes out to the victims families.
Partner thinks I'm being unreasonable. That's it really.

Here is the story for those wanting more info:
www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5ym7g5dx50o

Age is a mitigating factor in sentencing so he wouldn't get the same sentence as the two adults anyway, and as a pp has said, an early guilty plea is also given great weight in mitigation.

That story is so utterly shocking and disgusting. those poor boys killed that way, for whatever reason, can't bear to think about it and then those monsters going to eat afterwards like nothing happened what is the mentality of people these days feel like nowhere Is safe, Government bought in ban of the sale of these awful weapons but still are being bought on line!!
Regarding the pleading guilty to get a lesser sentence I'd say majority of people who do this in relation to killing someone (or something equally as bad) don't care about what they did, or they wouldn't have done it! it's just to help themselves. I'm thinking this is the only reason Sara Sharifs father has pleaded guilty, he quite happily killed his daughter for no reason whatsoever, so now only thinking of himself IMO

YABU they won’t but they should all get a double life sentence to run one after the other. Although it would never bring those children back, the perpetrators are a danger to society.

In comparison to the others slightly yes in order to encourage other thugs to plead guilty in the future.... however I suspect I'd be harsher on them all eg at least 22 year minimum maybe 4 or 5 yrs less for the guilty plea.

The two things that's not mentioned when talking about prison
Deterrent & Public Safety
I'd put them above rehabilitation.

This disgusting sadist man will not get a shorter sentence. He changed his plea during the trial. No credit.

He is looking at a whole life tariff; for his sadistic cruelty.

I totally agree, and I wouldn't expect him to get a shorter sentence for a minute, minute, should be longer.
People like him, and those who killed those 2 lads, (for example ) are what hanging should be bought back for! Unfortunately even now, there are miscarriages of justice. but back in the day there was a sentence At Her/ His Majesty's pleasure, basically an indefinite sentence ( i think), this should be bought back at least

I didn't think he'd changed his plea? Last I heard, he was asked if he wanted to change his plea after the verbal diarrhoea on the stand and he declined to do so. His position was that yes, he beat her, but didn't mean to kill her, hence maintaining his plea of not guilty.

Has that changed since the other day? Can't see anything on the news.

Yes you are correct! What a fig leaf. But he will get no credit. It is the most depraved case.

No he shouldn't get a reduced sentence. He did wrong, admitted to it, which is the right thing to do. He shouldn't get praised for doing the right thing, he shouldn't have done it in the first place. The others should get a lengthier sentence for not admitting to it IMO.

No, he has not changed his plea. If he had he might get some credit for it. However, the sentence reduction for a guilty plea in a murder case is lower than for most other offences.

I think we need to look at the sort of age people reach when they finally 'grow up'. I have no stats but I understand it's around 45-50? When violent young men mature?
Maybe that should be a guide for sentencing.

Behave, engage with rehab, then maybe at 45-50 we'll consider allowing you back into society where people don't hack each other to death over vandalism.

I through work got to know an ex deputy prison governor (ret'd).

He was of the 'don't release them' belief. He said so many of the violent inmates in his prison were, to his mind, un-rehabilitable.

I mean, the fact something like 73% of those released early just recently have been recalled for breaching the terms of their release, or new crime.

73%.

Most violent crime is committed by young men under 24. We don’t sentence them correctly; they are actually more violent than older men. Youth justice has been preoccupied with human rights. It should also look again at risk to the public and sentence accordingly.

Just read a case in Scotland where a 15 year old boy was given just 4 years detention for killing a bus driver 😏

Yes that is absurd. The degree of violence combined with the impulsive nature of the killing should make everyone think differently about crimes like these. That would suggest more time in detention to protect the public.

Scottish law is different to English law. The 15-year-old was convicted of culpable homicide, which is not an offence in England. He was also helped by the Scottish sentencing guidelines which, due to pressure from the Scottish government, are significantly more lenient on young offenders than their equivalent south of the border. If he had committed the offence in England, he would definitely have been convicted of manslaughter and may have been convicted of murder. Either way, he would almost certainly have faced a longer sentence.

Yes Scottish law is worse! It currently suggest that until you are 25 you are not mature so leniency is applied via sentencing guidelines. No sufficient account is taken of who commits crime, who is violent and what age they are. All of which suggests if public protection matters Scotland needs a very different approach.

Drivers just got 38 years for taking them in his car to the attack. Good.
Wonder how they caught them?
Was it worth it?
38 years inside when he could have just called the police and let them investigate or just let it go, like other people have too when something of theirs is broken or stolen.

"I mean, the fact something like 73% of those released early just recently have been recalled for breaching the terms of their release, or new crime."

Really?

This report from the Daily Mail says that, of prisoners released at the normal half way point in Jan-March around 56% have since been recalled.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13986179/prisoners-released-jail-probation-chief-warns-overcrowding.html

The early release of prisoners at the 40% mark only began in September.

I would be interested to know where your figure of 73% comes from. Are you honestly claiming that of the 1,700 prisoners released early in September that 1,240 of them have been recalled to prison already?

April-June saw a big increase. That is where the 73% figure comes from. As you say, nothing to do with the early release programme. Most of the recalls have been for non-compliance rather than further offending.

The release system is such a mess. I wish they would really prioritize violent and sexual offenders for prison terms and long ones. Drug addicts if not violent should be dealt with separately outside of prison, same with thieves. England might sentence harshly in principle but the release provisions make it a joke.

What was the relationship.between the driver and the boys was he the father?
Why were their Windows bricked in the first place?

Drug addicts and shoplifters should still serve their time! Violence is very very often part of their sentence as well!

Did you not read what I said? If there is no violent offending to it then they should not be in prison. The case for public protection doesn’t exist. Life threatening, harm to the person, sex offending - that’s what prison is for, imo. Not junkies and thieves

Shoplifters. FGS. I would rather than sex offenders who view child abuse were locked away than some pathetic thief. Choices need to be made