Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

I want to scream - the sentences should have meant death

173 replies

UCM · 29/04/2006 21:37

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/berkshire/4953362.stm

I am speechless. Sorry but imagine your 16 year old daughter/neice/friend

Nah, they shoulda been exececuted.

OP posts:
spacedonkey · 29/04/2006 22:50

doesn't translate on here, esp after your dh's post which didn't sound in the least ironic!

Caligula · 29/04/2006 22:51

The major point in keeping these wretches alive imo, is that if we kill this lot, then we may kill other men (or women) who are innocent.

That for me, has always been the biggest practical reason to be against the death penalty. Everyone knows our prisons are full of innocent people. Sally Clarke and Donna Anderson would be dead now. Not to mention the Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four, etc. etc.

You can't have the death penalty for one bunch of scumbags and then not apply it in a miscarriage of justice. And for me, the risk of killing an innocent person outweighs the money it costs to keep vile people alive.

mumfor1standfinaltime · 29/04/2006 22:52

Spacedonkey, just seems weird that he can 'decide' whether to live or not. His victims had no choice.
Same goes for the death penalty.

Original poster
UCM · 29/04/2006 22:53

I agree. But it still doesn't make it right. I bet these scum get out in about 8 years.

OP posts:
mumfor1standfinaltime · 29/04/2006 22:55

UCM, unfortunately this is an 'argument' which will not and cant be resolved.

sobernow · 29/04/2006 22:56

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Caligula · 29/04/2006 22:57

Yes it was, SN, until David Blunkett became home secretary.

David Blunkett, mind you, not Michael Howard.

A Labour Home Secretary.

Angry
Original poster
UCM · 29/04/2006 22:59

So Greensleeves, what it the answer to 'Rabid' youths runing around unchecked and doing stuff like this.

Tell me please. I have been a victim of this recently.

OP posts:
Original poster
UCM · 29/04/2006 23:00

This should be under another thread really

OP posts:
Greensleeves · 29/04/2006 23:01

I've given my full response to that question in an earlier post UCM.

SaintGeorge · 29/04/2006 23:31

UCM - why do you think they will be out in 8 years?

Minimum sentence is what they will serve BEFORE consideration for parole.

Unless they appeal and have a successful outcome which is a highly unlikely situation, then they would have to climb over the wall to be out in 8 years.

Caligula · 29/04/2006 23:33

And 23 years isn't a guarantee that they'll get out then. It's the very earliest they could and they'll have to have an exemplary record plus show remorse (on paper) to do it.

This is where my problem is with the parole system. What is the legal definition of remorse? Anyone know? Cod?

mumball · 29/04/2006 23:39

I am sorry i think they should get the death penalty - 27 years isn't nearly long enough. Thomas is 20 in 27 year he will only be 47 three years older than me! If not the death penalty then life should really mean life, they should stay inside until they die!

mumball · 29/04/2006 23:43

I am also sorry I don't think that remorse is a justifiable reason to release anyone. Great they feel remorse, go and tell the victim they can get up now any carry on with their life. And if they truly felt any remorse they wouldn't want to leave prison as they would truly know what wrong they had done.

Original poster
UCM · 29/04/2006 23:44

I haven't been able to find what I wanted to find, but under a Section of the the European Law, thay can appeal, they will obviously, the chances are they will win, as their sentences are illegal under the the Human Rights Act. So 8 years is what it will be. And I bet their Qc's work under Cherie Blairs office.

OP posts:
Original poster
UCM · 29/04/2006 23:46

Well, that going to far saying that they work for Cherie, but I bet they use the most expensive lawyers.

OP posts:
Original poster
UCM · 29/04/2006 23:46

Watch this space

OP posts:
ScummyMummy · 29/04/2006 23:48

I doubt there is a legal definition of remorse, tbh Cal.

expatinscotland · 29/04/2006 23:48

'Mary Ann is free from her pain and suffering.

They have to think and live with what they have done locked in their little room. '

How lovely for them to do that for her.

These murderers have shown NO remorse! Do you honestly think they're going to spend their time in prison crying about what they did to that girl and her friend?

expatinscotland · 29/04/2006 23:50

As for giving them the hope of getting out so they won't make it hard on prison guards, BUILD A BETTER JAIL THEN. It can be done.

They're there b/c they cannot live in society - their actions have proven that - why make it easy on them or give them hope of getting out?

That just sends the message that no matter how horrible the crime, you'll be out w/enough time to have a family, grow old and retire on the goverment pound.

Original poster
UCM · 29/04/2006 23:52

Just re-read your thread GS, and am very interested by it.

What do YOU think is the answer?

I don't have one which is not reactionary!!!!

OP posts:
greensleeves · 29/04/2006 23:53

By Greensleeves on Saturday, 29 April, 2006 10:08:42 PM

agree with expat - throw away the key. I would also make them do productive, strenuous work while in prison. I would suggest some sort of voucher system whereby prisoners earned their food and privileges by working. No work - no eat. No telly. No playing table tennis. No smoking. And no parole for people like this.

But state-sanctioned execution is the most cold-blooded and unacceptable form of ritual killing IMO. I don't want to bring up my children in a society which condones judicial murder. And the justice system has yet to exist which can be trusted to get it right even 95% of the time.

expatinscotland · 29/04/2006 23:54

The idea that these murderers did this girl a favour by killing her - oh, how nice, now she's free from the pain and suffering of life and the crimes they committed against her - really blows my mind.

As a mother, I'm shocked that someone would perceive how these scum acted in such a way.

Original poster
UCM · 29/04/2006 23:57

I have heard of of people that would kill for 500.00.

That would be my solution for Mary Ann's killers in prison or not and my guess is that they would do it for free

OP posts:
Original poster
UCM · 30/04/2006 00:01

GS - they cannot get people to guard these people as it it is.

Prison guards get paid very little for what they do.
As far as they are concerned the people they are looking after are humans as well.

OP posts: