Perhaps Sentencing Needs Reviewing....

[Ric.ror]

I refer you to the bottom of the page where this gentleman's 'previous' is discussed

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-24608144

[sir.prize]

He is due to be sentenced later.

Why? Why not instantly? The beast is guilty - so what's the delay?

But more importantly - why was he let out on day release? That happens so often.

The law is an ass.

[jno]

I'm not normally in favour of locking people up for ever; but for second offenders, yes. Goodness knows why he was set free to do it a third time.

[bazwillrun]

"But more importantly - why was he let out on day release?"

as disscussed on here before, youve got the do-gooders and parole boards etc that very easy to fool, to thank for that

never let him out, hes obviously a danger (except to the parole imbeciles)
to anybody walking the streets.

[ludwig]

I wonder if he'll he be allowed out to kill anyone else in the future. You'd like to think not, but it wouldn't be surprising.

The people who authorised his release must be kicking themselves. 'Doh! We let a murdering psychopath out and he murdered someone! What are we like?'

[ludwig]

'..how were we to know? He said he was sorry for the previous two murders and everything.'

[FredPuli43]

Whatever did the authorities think was beneficial in allowing him out for a day? What, a day out will get him integrated it society (or whatever the correct phrase is) ? So he can visit the graves of his victims ?

Sounds a proper candidate for a full life term (but not, of course, now to be without hope of release, following a European ruling)

[bazwillrun]

@ludwig

dont be so cynical, of course they didnt just take his word for it, they examined him and gave him some tests first....and then he said he wouldnt do it again...so they ok'd him

[joeluke]

The only sentence for murder should be hanging

Problem of re-offending instantly solved

[jake-the-peg]

Why? Why not instantly? The beast is guilty - so what's the delay?

The delay is for proper consideration of the sentence

Well not the sentence that will be life but for what the tarrif will be

Multiple murders attract a full life tarrif

If judges just sentenced people without proper consideration there would be a lot more scope for expensive unnecessary appeals

[Just-Jude]

He will have to serve a minimum of 5 years before he's considered for parole.

[FredPuli43]

Agree with that Joeluke, they should all be hanged and there should be no Queen's mercy and leniency allowed. Miscarriages of justice in murders is , thankfully, rare. When it happens the deceased's estate, their family, should sue and be compensated for the death, as happens in other cases where someone has been killed because of the negligence of another.

That's fine but it never has happened. One hundred per cent of convicted murderers were not hanged. They escaped by the Queen (the Home Secretary on her behalf) granting leniency or, later, because the murder was not one which attracted the death penalty. Back in the 1930s I believe, no more than two thirds were hanged but, looking back, some of those hanged deserved leniency.

But I am not sure that the death penalty would reduce the number of murderers; that's because murderers don't contemplate the consequences.

[FredPuli43]

^ reduce the number of murders^

[sir.prize]

This guy has taken three lives. He does not deserve to live.

[sir.prize]

They will probably release him and give him a new identity.

Ahhhhhh diddums.

[sandyRoe]

'Murder, being once done...' I think the trade-off for the abolishment of the death sentence should have made clear to everybody. A conviction for murder from then on should have carried a minimum sentence of about 50 years.

[Zeuhl]

/The only sentence for murder should be hanging

Problem of re-offending instantly solved/

and why not for sheep rustling or shop lifting?

your same justification applies surely

[sir.prize]

UPDATE: Sentencing McLoughlin at the Old Bailey, Mr Justice Sweeney said he must serve a minimum of 40 years.

[ummmm]

Murder someone for murdering someone....that makes sense.

[FredPuli43]

Let's hope he is not let out on day release when he still able to attack someone. He'll be 95 in 40 years, so should be safe then.

[FredPuli43]

Murder someone for murdering someone ? Well, that is what battles are about. You wouldn't stop a soldier killing an enemy soldier on sight would you? So why then would you not kill a murderer who actually has killed someone ?