ChatterBank4 mins ago
'Goth' murderer's sentence reduced
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lancashire/ 7696709.stm
The original sentence should have been increased in my opinion.Feral scum like these lads should not be allowed to appeal the length of sentences.
The original sentence should have been increased in my opinion.Feral scum like these lads should not be allowed to appeal the length of sentences.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by daffy654. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
well i can only think this is some sort of blessing for Sophie's mum.
maybe now, she can grieve at peace instead of having those scum bleating about the unfairness of it all from prison.
i regularly see her (the mum- obviously) and she looks dreadful. mybe now she'll get some sort of closure on all this?
maybe now, she can grieve at peace instead of having those scum bleating about the unfairness of it all from prison.
i regularly see her (the mum- obviously) and she looks dreadful. mybe now she'll get some sort of closure on all this?
One of the principals that makes this country's law so admired around the world is that it is blind.
The penalty for a crime is not dependant on press coverage or the baying mob outside.
It is proportionate to other crimes and is not dependant on whether the judge is having a bad day or not.
That is why it is importantant that sentences can be appealed by those convicted and why it was also such a step forward to allow the prosecution to appeal them too.
As it happens this is only a very minor change and the appeal of one of them was dismissed outright.
You don't say what brings you to your opinion that they should not be allowed to appeal. So I assume it's your moral outrage.
That's a very bad basis to run a legal system on as it is arbitary.
Arbitary justice is a contradiction in terms.
The penalty for a crime is not dependant on press coverage or the baying mob outside.
It is proportionate to other crimes and is not dependant on whether the judge is having a bad day or not.
That is why it is importantant that sentences can be appealed by those convicted and why it was also such a step forward to allow the prosecution to appeal them too.
As it happens this is only a very minor change and the appeal of one of them was dismissed outright.
You don't say what brings you to your opinion that they should not be allowed to appeal. So I assume it's your moral outrage.
That's a very bad basis to run a legal system on as it is arbitary.
Arbitary justice is a contradiction in terms.
Because Judges make mistakes.
They have to pronounce sentences that are proportionate to other crimes and be within set guidelines.
Sometimes they get it wrong.
In this case a senior judge has decided that the first judge got it wrong by a very small amount in one case and not at all in the second.
I rather assume that if you were convicted of a travelling at 40 in a 30mph zone and sentenced to a 5 year ban you'd expect to be able to appeal.
They have to pronounce sentences that are proportionate to other crimes and be within set guidelines.
Sometimes they get it wrong.
In this case a senior judge has decided that the first judge got it wrong by a very small amount in one case and not at all in the second.
I rather assume that if you were convicted of a travelling at 40 in a 30mph zone and sentenced to a 5 year ban you'd expect to be able to appeal.
I have never learned to drive so that analogy won't work with me,sorry.
I just think that as usual the victims are the ones that have to suffer more as the case is again dragged through the courts and press.If we had far stricter sentencing guidelines there would be less need for convicted criminals to appeal.
I just think that as usual the victims are the ones that have to suffer more as the case is again dragged through the courts and press.If we had far stricter sentencing guidelines there would be less need for convicted criminals to appeal.
You're probably right jake, this is an emotive topic for me. Sophie's murder really knocked our little area for six and sickened the vast majority of the locals- so maybe i am biased here.
Somehow I can't equate wanting a driving sentance to the murder of a young woman by a pack of low lives, who have not shown the merest hint of remorse since they killed her. Indeed, as i've said, they and their families seemed to find the whole tragedy amusing.
And I do know what i'm talking about re their "humour", as my daughter was the one with Sophie's brother in a local chip shop when these relatives decided to take the pi$$ out of her murder.
Somehow I can't equate wanting a driving sentance to the murder of a young woman by a pack of low lives, who have not shown the merest hint of remorse since they killed her. Indeed, as i've said, they and their families seemed to find the whole tragedy amusing.
And I do know what i'm talking about re their "humour", as my daughter was the one with Sophie's brother in a local chip shop when these relatives decided to take the pi$$ out of her murder.
It is especially unfortunate when the outcome is a minimal adjustment or a rejection.
I don't know what the exact process is but I think there needs to be a review and it established that there are grounds for an appeal and that it's not simply a waste of time.
Unfortunately you don't tend to see that in the news reports.
I know that a driving offense is not equatable with a murder but the point is whatever the offense it must not depend on the personal whim of the Judge.
Otherwise the law might become a lottery and we'd be back in the seventeenth century with Judge Jeffries hanging people for stealing loaves of bread.
I don't know what the exact process is but I think there needs to be a review and it established that there are grounds for an appeal and that it's not simply a waste of time.
Unfortunately you don't tend to see that in the news reports.
I know that a driving offense is not equatable with a murder but the point is whatever the offense it must not depend on the personal whim of the Judge.
Otherwise the law might become a lottery and we'd be back in the seventeenth century with Judge Jeffries hanging people for stealing loaves of bread.
Personally I don't think showing justice to be fair and correct and confirming one sentence and (mostly) the second is a waste of money.
I doubt it took more than a day and wouldn't have involved witnesses.
Note that the story is trying to manipulate you though.
Headline "Sentence reduced"
Body of story however doesn't really justify that though does it?
Don't know if you read the whole thing but many will not - rather cynical "cornflake spitter" I feel - Would have liked to think the BBC was a bit better than that - but alas no
I doubt it took more than a day and wouldn't have involved witnesses.
Note that the story is trying to manipulate you though.
Headline "Sentence reduced"
Body of story however doesn't really justify that though does it?
Don't know if you read the whole thing but many will not - rather cynical "cornflake spitter" I feel - Would have liked to think the BBC was a bit better than that - but alas no
Latest Posts
ChatterBank4 mins ago
ChatterBank4 mins ago
ChatterBank7 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles9 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.