‘At least 24 years’ isn’t enough

[ArcaneWireless]

If he gets out after 24 years he will around the same age she was. It doesn’t feel like justice.

RIP quine.

Jill Barclay

Sickening. Terrifying.

And he will have many more years in which to hurt more women. No thank you.

24 years?? How is burning somebody alive not worthy of a whole life term?

Oh my god this is horrific.

I don’t understand our justice system.

If wicked, medieval and barbaric isn’t enough for a whole life sentence, then I don’t know what is.

As for extreme, sustained and frankly feral violence?

He also had time to think before he killed her. He had to go away and come back.

And still he did what he did. Like the first two were not bad enough.

Not in a moment of anger.

He thought about it.

It is sickening.

Sorry - first two acts of violence were not enough.

That is one of the worst things I've ever had to read about. Such horrific violence towards a woman going about her normal life doing nothing wrong to anyone. Why and how do men get this violent and so lacking in empathy towards women??? (A partly rhetorical question really).

I hope that he won't be granted parole when his turn comes to apply for it after those 24 years.

You're right, nowhere near enough time.

What also struck me is the witness dog walker and residents who heard screams but no one called police or investigated further. Poor woman

I noticed that too when reading the horrific story. He could be free from the age of 47 and live on but poor Jill’s life ended then. It’s such a horrific attack. Not only did he leave her with horrific injuries but then returned to kill her in such a cruel way. I don’t want to think what she went through. That man is a monster who should never be released.

I can’t imagine what her children, partner and family are going through.

Horrendous. The sentence must be compounding the trauma for her family. Absolutely shocking.

OK I'm going to be that person. There are very good reasons whole life terms are a bad idea. Not least of which is that prisons become massively more dangerous if offenders (violent ones) have nothing to lose.

Although there is no sentence bad enough to make up for what he did, I don't support whole life terms in almost any cases.

Disgusting crime. I don't think any society needs to see this man free again in his lifetime.
I can't imagine he will ever rehabilitate.
Who would want him living anywhere near them?

I don't support whole life terms in almost any cases.

Why not?

There are plenty of pieces of shit who are repeat offenders, who will never change and who will always remain a danger to the public especially women and why the fuck should they be allowed to walk amongst us?

I'd like to see far more of them personally. I'm so fucking tired of reading about repeat offenders and the courts just give them a slap on the wrist every time. There seems to be no penalty or consequences for being a repeat offender.

I agree with @MrsTerryPratchett - this is a complex subject, but from a psychological point of view giving incredibly violent, dangerous individuals nothing left is not a good idea.

I'm grateful every day that my friend's killer(Her ex) hanged himself in prison. Because he didn't deserve to spend one minute out there among the public. He didn't deserve to enjoy anything ever again let alone relative freedom and neither does this piece of shit. What he put that poor woman through is unimaginable and he deserves only a life of utter misery.

I agree with @MrsTerryPratchett - this is a complex subject, but from a psychological point of view giving incredibly violent, dangerous individuals nothing left is not a good idea.

Because they're already such model citizens.

Riiiiight. You are saying that in order to protect other inmates he should serve his sentence and then be released; where he will have the freedom to rape and murder innocent women and children instead?

First can I ask that we assume everyone is concerned with the same things? Safety, human rights, prevention of crime, minimising reoffending, reducing first offending and so on? Because these conversations become emotive and offensive quickly and we need to have adult and calm conversations to achieve the best outcomes.

TIA.

Whole life terms should IMO be used only when there is a clear and present danger to the public and the only way to ensure public safety is to keep them safely inside. Dangerous serial recidivists like Worboys for example you could argue will likely never be safe.

You have to decide if we prioritise safety, punishment or rehabilitation. You can't prioritise all of them equally. Of course we viscerally feel that he deserves to be punished as severely as possible. But that doesn't serve the best outcomes for safety.

Riiiiight. You are saying that in order to protect other inmates he should serve his sentence and then be released; where he will have the freedom to rape and murder innocent women and children instead?

Prisons have religious staff, education staff, guards, volunteers, other vulnerable prisoners, legal visitors and others. I have been in many prisons many times and never been convicted of a crime.

I'm saying that with decades inside and a life licence he will be supervised and able to be recalled at any point. He will have to abide by strict conditions and if the system does its job, won't offend again.

Now the system doesn't always do its job. So proper supervision, well-funded services and supervision and other things need to be in place. THAT'S where I'd put my energy into ensuring.

If you can't stop this person from being a danger to inmates and prison staff whilst he is incarcerated and supervised 24/7 then what chance does an innocent woman or child or man have going about their daily business blissfully unaware whilst this murderer is free albeit under a life license/strict conditions?!

He will have to abide by strict conditions

Guessing a man who is capable of raping a woman and then setting her on fire to burn to death would not hesitate to break the 'strict conditions' he was set upon his release. I mean really, do you understand how this sounds?!

A person is either a danger to others or he isn’t. I don’t understand how someone is going to be a threat to others inside prison but the fine outside. If anything he’s more contained and watched in prison. Also if he’s only behaving in order to get a chance at being out prison and not because he’s fundamentally changed as a person, what does that say about him and his future prospects outside?

If people in prison are in danger of a prisoner then that threat should be treated seriously and we shouldn’t soften our approach to appease them.

I think a 58 yo man on life license having spent 24 years in prison will be easier to manage than a 24 yo on a whole life term inside. Yes.

I've worked in both prisons and in shelters for men leaving prison.

That’s awful. I wish we could send people like him to a labour camp in North Korea.