Stephen Lawrence case
Comments
-
I get that, the issue isn't the life sentence, which they had to be given. Neither is it the undetermined potential maximum they could spend detained at Her Majesty's pleasure.spen666 wrote:
They have been sentenced to life (detention at Her Majesty's pleasure)
The issue at hand is the minimum they are going to spend detained at Her Majesty's pleasure. I do not believe 15 and 14 years respectively that the Judge decided is long enough. I believe that the minimum should have been 20 years or at the very least in the high teens.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
-
You still seem to be mistaking the tariff period for the time they will actually serveDonDaddyD wrote:
I get that, the issue isn't the life sentence, which they had to be given. Neither is it the undetermined potential maximum they could spend detained at Her Majesty's pleasure.spen666 wrote:
They have been sentenced to life (detention at Her Majesty's pleasure)
The issue at hand is the minimum they are going to spend detained at Her Majesty's pleasure. I do not believe 15 and 14 years respectively that the Judge decided is long enough. I believe that the minimum should have been 20 years or at the very least in the high teens.Want to know the Spen666 behind the posts?
Then read MY BLOG @ http://www.pebennett.com
Twittering @spen_6660 -
DonDaddyD wrote:
I get that, the issue isn't the life sentence, which they had to be given. Neither is it the undetermined potential maximum they could spend detained at Her Majesty's pleasure.spen666 wrote:
They have been sentenced to life (detention at Her Majesty's pleasure)
The issue at hand is the minimum they are going to spend detained at Her Majesty's pleasure. I do not believe 15 and 14 years respectively that the Judge decided is long enough. I believe that the minimum should have been 20 years or at the very least in the high teens.
Personally I think they should be locked up and have the key thrown away. Yes it isn't long enough. However the judge had his hands tied by using sentencing guidelines from pre 2003. He gave the maximum he could. Any more and they would have appealed and won easily, something which in my opinion is far worse.
I happen to think they will be refused parole when it comes to it because they have consistently denied involvement and thus far have refused to name those who they think may have been involved.
Never mind, lock them up in Brixton Prison for a few months on a regular wing and see what happens
Officers don't run, it's undignified and panics the men0 -
Want to know the Spen666 behind the posts?
Then read MY BLOG @ http://www.pebennett.com
Twittering @spen_6660 -
FCN 2-4.
"What happens when the hammer goes down, kids?"
"It stays down, Daddy."
"Exactly."0 -
Sewinman wrote:This opinion will no doubt prove controversial but I have to wonder whether these two got a fair trial. Seems to me that they were tried by media many many times over the years, and you would have to be from Mars to not be completely prejudiced against them as a juror. I am not sure the removal of double-jeopardy is a good thing either, it now allows the law to hound people ad infinitum. No bad thing in this case as it allowed a re-trial, but it has wider implications for society.
I think they are guilty, but I have been prejudiced by the media too. I would probably have refused to be a juror in this case.
I can't help, but feel that there is something a little off about this conviction that may well bubble up many years down the line. It just doesn't sit right that items like the racist surveillance video were so widely played and pushed out into the public mind, along with new forensic evidence that doesn't seem that new (e.g they used a microscope). Even my points above come from selected slices put out my a media that also seem to openly want this group sent down.
I suppose my worry now is that the authorities screwed up so royally years ago that I doubt their independence when it comes to the current process.
PS did any of the original police team ever get any penalties for their original actions or did that all get swept over when the Met accepted Macpherson?0 -
No idea on the latter.
Macpherson was pretty bearish on the changes in the Met since his report last night though, on Channel 4.
He gave a quote that if you're black you were 45 times more likely to get stopped and searched in the '90s, and now that's down to 10 times. He seemed to think is still existed, and in an old interview, he was saying when he did the report 'he could smell corruption' strongly, but, by the nature of corruption, couldn't get to the bottom of it.0 -
-
spen666 wrote:
You still seem to be mistaking the tariff period for the time they will actually serveDonDaddyD wrote:
I get that, the issue isn't the life sentence, which they had to be given. Neither is it the undetermined potential maximum they could spend detained at Her Majesty's pleasure.spen666 wrote:
They have been sentenced to life (detention at Her Majesty's pleasure)
The issue at hand is the minimum they are going to spend detained at Her Majesty's pleasure. I do not believe 15 and 14 years respectively that the Judge decided is long enough. I believe that the minimum should have been 20 years or at the very least in the high teens.
This is routinely a problem. People see that figure and think that is the sentence or the time likely to be served (not saying this is necessarily the case for DDD) rather than the absolute minimum. Even if they know this not to be the case they still see the tariff as indicative of the seriousness of the crime (which at some level it si, although it also reflects a range of other factors as NGale pointed out above).
My wife works with a lifer who is 10 years over tariff already and is unlikley to get out any time soon because of his attitute towards the crime, towards rehabilitative activity, education, etc0 -
Am I mistaken? Didn't you just explain that the tariff was the minimum they would serve? I can clearly see that DDD believes the tariff should have been higher, but can't see any reference to how long he expects them to serve. Did I miss something?spen666 wrote:
You still seem to be mistaking the tariff period for the time they will actually serveDonDaddyD wrote:
I get that, the issue isn't the life sentence, which they had to be given. Neither is it the undetermined potential maximum they could spend detained at Her Majesty's pleasure.spen666 wrote:
They have been sentenced to life (detention at Her Majesty's pleasure)
The issue at hand is the minimum they are going to spend detained at Her Majesty's pleasure. I do not believe 15 and 14 years respectively that the Judge decided is long enough. I believe that the minimum should have been 20 years or at the very least in the high teens.0 -
I think the point is that the tariff/minimum term could not be set at 20 years based on the 2003 sentencing guidelines without making the sentence vulnerable to being overturned on appeal.JoeNobody wrote:
Am I mistaken? Didn't you just explain that the tariff was the minimum they would serve? I can clearly see that DDD believes the tariff should have been higher, but can't see any reference to how long he expects them to serve. Did I miss something?spen666 wrote:
You still seem to be mistaking the tariff period for the time they will actually serveDonDaddyD wrote:
I get that, the issue isn't the life sentence, which they had to be given. Neither is it the undetermined potential maximum they could spend detained at Her Majesty's pleasure.spen666 wrote:
They have been sentenced to life (detention at Her Majesty's pleasure)
The issue at hand is the minimum they are going to spend detained at Her Majesty's pleasure. I do not believe 15 and 14 years respectively that the Judge decided is long enough. I believe that the minimum should have been 20 years or at the very least in the high teens.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Thank you. I gave up in the end.JoeNobody wrote:
Am I mistaken? Didn't you just explain that the tariff was the minimum they would serve? I can clearly see that DDD believes the tariff should have been higher, but can't see any reference to how long he expects them to serve. Did I miss something?spen666 wrote:
You still seem to be mistaking the tariff period for the time they will actually serveDonDaddyD wrote:
I get that, the issue isn't the life sentence, which they had to be given. Neither is it the undetermined potential maximum they could spend detained at Her Majesty's pleasure.spen666 wrote:
They have been sentenced to life (detention at Her Majesty's pleasure)
The issue at hand is the minimum they are going to spend detained at Her Majesty's pleasure. I do not believe 15 and 14 years respectively that the Judge decided is long enough. I believe that the minimum should have been 20 years or at the very least in the high teens.
But yes, the reason why I only referred to the minimum tariff is because that is the predetermined amount of time they must serve imprisoned. In truth no one knows how long they will actually serve beyond the minimum term. With that in mind I think the minimum should be 20yrs or at least within the high teens.
RJS I think the hudge should have challeneged the guidelines on the basis of where we (society - youths specifically) are now with knife. May not be legally correct but would have set an absolute precedent, perhaps.
On being a fair trial, is any high profile case ever truly unbiased when the media and press are reporting details while the investigation and trial is ongoing?Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
You can't have judges just throwing out the guidlines and ignoring previous sentences - that just makes the case ripe for appeal. You can't just say "it may not be legally correct" - but do it anyway!DonDaddyD wrote:
Thank you. I gave up in the end.JoeNobody wrote:
Am I mistaken? Didn't you just explain that the tariff was the minimum they would serve? I can clearly see that DDD believes the tariff should have been higher, but can't see any reference to how long he expects them to serve. Did I miss something?spen666 wrote:
You still seem to be mistaking the tariff period for the time they will actually serveDonDaddyD wrote:
I get that, the issue isn't the life sentence, which they had to be given. Neither is it the undetermined potential maximum they could spend detained at Her Majesty's pleasure.spen666 wrote:
They have been sentenced to life (detention at Her Majesty's pleasure)
The issue at hand is the minimum they are going to spend detained at Her Majesty's pleasure. I do not believe 15 and 14 years respectively that the Judge decided is long enough. I believe that the minimum should have been 20 years or at the very least in the high teens.
But yes, the reason why I only referred to the minimum tariff is because that is the predetermined amount of time they must serve imprisoned. In truth no one knows how long they will actually serve beyond the minimum term. With that in mind I think the minimum should be 20yrs or at least within the high teens.
RJS I think the hudge should have challeneged the guidelines on the basis of where we (society - youths specifically) are now with knife. May not be legally correct but would have set an absolute precedent, perhaps.
On being a fair trial, is any high profile case ever truly unbiased when the media and press are reporting details while the investigation and trial is ongoing?
Why do you think that this particular murder requires a higher tarriff - because of the race element, or it's notoriety?0 -
W1 wrote:
You can't have judges just throwing out the guidlines and ignoring previous sentences - that just makes the case ripe for appeal. You can't just say "it may not be legally correct" - but do it anyway!DonDaddyD wrote:
Thank you. I gave up in the end.JoeNobody wrote:
Am I mistaken? Didn't you just explain that the tariff was the minimum they would serve? I can clearly see that DDD believes the tariff should have been higher, but can't see any reference to how long he expects them to serve. Did I miss something?spen666 wrote:
You still seem to be mistaking the tariff period for the time they will actually serveDonDaddyD wrote:
I get that, the issue isn't the life sentence, which they had to be given. Neither is it the undetermined potential maximum they could spend detained at Her Majesty's pleasure.spen666 wrote:
They have been sentenced to life (detention at Her Majesty's pleasure)
The issue at hand is the minimum they are going to spend detained at Her Majesty's pleasure. I do not believe 15 and 14 years respectively that the Judge decided is long enough. I believe that the minimum should have been 20 years or at the very least in the high teens.
But yes, the reason why I only referred to the minimum tariff is because that is the predetermined amount of time they must serve imprisoned. In truth no one knows how long they will actually serve beyond the minimum term. With that in mind I think the minimum should be 20yrs or at least within the high teens.
RJS I think the hudge should have challeneged the guidelines on the basis of where we (society - youths specifically) are now with knife. May not be legally correct but would have set an absolute precedent, perhaps.
On being a fair trial, is any high profile case ever truly unbiased when the media and press are reporting details while the investigation and trial is ongoing?
Denning did. He rocked.
FCN 2-4.
"What happens when the hammer goes down, kids?"
"It stays down, Daddy."
"Exactly."0 -
cjcp wrote:W1 wrote:
You can't have judges just throwing out the guidlines and ignoring previous sentences - that just makes the case ripe for appeal. You can't just say "it may not be legally correct" - but do it anyway!DonDaddyD wrote:
Thank you. I gave up in the end.JoeNobody wrote:
Am I mistaken? Didn't you just explain that the tariff was the minimum they would serve? I can clearly see that DDD believes the tariff should have been higher, but can't see any reference to how long he expects them to serve. Did I miss something?spen666 wrote:
You still seem to be mistaking the tariff period for the time they will actually serveDonDaddyD wrote:
I get that, the issue isn't the life sentence, which they had to be given. Neither is it the undetermined potential maximum they could spend detained at Her Majesty's pleasure.spen666 wrote:
They have been sentenced to life (detention at Her Majesty's pleasure)
The issue at hand is the minimum they are going to spend detained at Her Majesty's pleasure. I do not believe 15 and 14 years respectively that the Judge decided is long enough. I believe that the minimum should have been 20 years or at the very least in the high teens.
But yes, the reason why I only referred to the minimum tariff is because that is the predetermined amount of time they must serve imprisoned. In truth no one knows how long they will actually serve beyond the minimum term. With that in mind I think the minimum should be 20yrs or at least within the high teens.
RJS I think the hudge should have challeneged the guidelines on the basis of where we (society - youths specifically) are now with knife. May not be legally correct but would have set an absolute precedent, perhaps.
On being a fair trial, is any high profile case ever truly unbiased when the media and press are reporting details while the investigation and trial is ongoing?
Denning did. He rocked.
Then you get the politicians briefing against 'unelected' judges.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
W1 wrote:You can't have judges just throwing out the guidlines and ignoring previous sentences - that just makes the case ripe for appeal. You can't just say "it may not be legally correct" - but do it anyway!
They are guidelines are they not? Not law. The fact of the matter is that it was within the Judges power, appeal or no, to give a sentence in excess of what the guidelines suggest.
IMO I think it would have been plausible to issue a tougher sentence because there were no mitigating factors and the fact that it would seem they continued to lie, showed no remorse and got to live 18years of their lives while their victim was robbed of his. I may be legally wrong, I can accept the legal standpoint and by extension the rationale behind the Judge's actual verdict. I still feel secure in seperately, but at the same time, holding my own personal view (they should have a minimum tarrif of 20years). I'm no lawyer, I can have both.
In other words I understand why they got the sentence they got and can accept that. Personally, I would have liked to see them get longer.
No not because of race or notoriety but because I think the guidelines (which are still a minimum of 12 years for under 18s) too lenient for murder (and knife crimes in general). A new precedent has to be set (a judges verdict may not be the platform to do so).Why do you think that this particular murder requires a higher tarriff - because of the race element, or it's notoriety?Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jan/04/met-police-warned-of-drinking-with-journalists?CMP=twt_gu
Met can't stay out of the papers...
The crime correspondent for The Times pointed out that the proposed rules would work against whistleblowers and possibly was more concerned with the Met controlling its image.
This might sound paranoid, except that the Met tried to use the Official Secrets act against the guardian for revealing that Milly Dowler's phone had been hacked:In an unprecedented legal attack on journalists' sources, Scotland Yard officers claim the act, which has special powers usually aimed at espionage, could have been breached in July when reporters Amelia Hill and Nick Davies revealed the hacking of Milly Dowler's phone. They are demanding source information be handed over.0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:W1 wrote:You can't have judges just throwing out the guidlines and ignoring previous sentences - that just makes the case ripe for appeal. You can't just say "it may not be legally correct" - but do it anyway!
They are guidelines are they not? Not law. The fact of the matter is that it was within the Judges power, appeal or no, to give a sentence in excess of what the guidelines suggest.
IMO I think it would have been plausible to issue a tougher sentence because there were no mitigating factors and the fact that it would seem they continued to lie, showed no remorse and got to live 18years of their lives while their victim was robbed of his. I may be legally wrong, I can accept the legal standpoint and by extension the rationale behind the Judge's actual verdict. I still feel secure in seperately, but at the same time, holding my own personal view (they should have a minimum tarrif of 20years). I'm no lawyer, I can have both.
In other words I understand why they got the sentence they got and can accept that. Personally, I would have liked to see them get longer.
No not because of race or notoriety but because I think the guidelines (which are still a minimum of 12 years for under 18s) too lenient for murder (and knife crimes in general). A new precedent has to be set (a judges verdict may not be the platform to do so).Why do you think that this particular murder requires a higher tarriff - because of the race element, or it's notoriety?
What is actually required is a fundamental reform of the law of murder, which continues to require a "mandatory life sentence" if the very broad brush offence of "murder" is committed, creating numerous legal absurdities.
I don't really see why this particular case should be the one to re-set the guideline tarriff - if anything, a less publically known case ought to be used, to avoid claims of press/public sentiment manipulation of the judiciary.
It is impossible to balance taking a life with a prison sentence - on that basis, why do you think a 12 year minimum tarriff is too low? What would you like it to be?0 -
What is actually required is a fundamental reform of the law of murder, which continues to require a "mandatory life sentence" if the very broad brush offence of "murder" is committed, creating numerous legal absurdities.
Could you give example of the very broad brush offence of "murder" and elaborate on those legal absurdities please?I don't really see why this particular case should be the one to re-set the guideline tarriff - if anything, a less publically known case ought to be used, to avoid claims of press/public sentiment manipulation of the judiciary.
Perhaps but by it's very nature we wouldn't know much, if any of a less publically known case and therefore wouldn't be having this conversation. A less publically known would less likely be a catalyst for reform/change. Laws often change to suit and meet the needs and requirements of maintaining society. As such said laws are often reveiwed and changed when there is a public outcry because the present ones no longer fit. The double jeapody laws for example were changed in part because of this case. Without there wouldn't have been the catalyst or motivationto reveiw and change them.
A prison sentence isn't, for me, a balancing act. It's not about rehabilitation. It's a punishment and a deterrent. On that basis 12 years in my opinion isn't enough. With an ageing population (i.e. people living longer) Dobson and Norris could be released in their 50s, they could still feasible have another 40 years of life to live as free men (the quality of which isn't a concern here).It is impossible to balance taking a life with a prison sentence - on that basis, why do you think a 12 year minimum tarriff is too low? What would you like it to be?
Motive aside if you are under 18 and ruthlessly murder someone (without any mitigating circumstances) you will have to serve a minimum of 12 years. Reads to me as though 'the price of life is worth at least 12 years of the criminal's life.
Seems that the price of life is being short changed here.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
Whilst in theory, Dobson and Norris could be released on license in their 50s, the chances of that are pretty remote. Their complete lack of contrition, cooperation with the investigation (including ongoing investigation to find the other perpetrators) and other criminal behaviour will make it the decision pretty easy for the parole board. Given their history, even if they did get released it would probably be a matter of days before they breached the terms of their license and were back inside.
In fact, I'd say that if one of them does get out of prison near their minimum tariff, it'll be because they have decided to reveal the names of the others involved. There's no sign of this being likely though.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Why?DonDaddyD wrote:....Thank you. I gave up in the end.
But yes, the reason why I only referred to the minimum tariff is because that is the predetermined amount of time they must serve imprisoned. In truth no one knows how long they will actually serve beyond the minimum term. With that in mind I think the minimum should be 20yrs or at least within the high teens.
~You cannot sentence somebody on a basis that did not exist as the time they committed the crime. That is not justice
RJS I think the hudge should have challeneged the guidelines on the basis of where we (society - youths specifically) are now with knife. May not be legally correct but would have set an absolute precedent, perhaps.
There are limits on what is reported that were grossly exceeded in this case. That is why you and others (me included) are debating this at length still so long after the offence
On being a fair trial, is any high profile case ever truly unbiased when the media and press are reporting details while the investigation and trial is ongoing?Want to know the Spen666 behind the posts?
Then read MY BLOG @ http://www.pebennett.com
Twittering @spen_6660 -
The minimum term for murder should calculated as the greater of 30 years or 70 - victims age.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0
-
I thought this would descend into stop & search chat and institutional racism (or not), not sentencing tarrifs!
Shows how (un)predictable forums can be sometimes...0 -
rjsterry wrote:Whilst in theory, Dobson and Norris could be released on license in their 50s, the chances of that are pretty remote. Their complete lack of contrition, cooperation with the investigation (including ongoing investigation to find the other perpetrators) and other criminal behaviour will make it the decision pretty easy for the parole board. Given their history, even if they did get released it would probably be a matter of days before they breached the terms of their license and were back inside.
In fact, I'd say that if one of them does get out of prison near their minimum tariff, it'll be because they have decided to reveal the names of the others involved. There's no sign of this being likely though.
I've deliberately avoided discussing the maximum they could spend imprisoned because the fact of the matter is no one knows. What we know is the minimum they will spend.
If we had to put a price on life - the currency being your own years alive - 12 years minimum (payment), which are the guidelines recommendation. Or 14 and 15 years respectively seem rather low when you consider Stephen Lawrence and his family have already lost 18 years of his and stand to lose a whole lot more.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
A crown court sentence cannot set a precedentDonDaddyD wrote:
None of this is a reason for increasing the sentence. You are sentenced for what you did, The setting of the tariff takes into account the obvious fact that someone died. That is never capable of being an aggravating feature in a murder or manslaughter case is it?W1 wrote:...IMO I think it would have been plausible to issue a tougher sentence because there were no mitigating factors and the fact that it would seem they continued to lie, showed no remorse and got to live 18years of their lives while their victim was robbed of his. I may be legally wrong, I can accept the legal standpoint and by extension the rationale behind the Judge's actual verdict. I still feel secure in seperately, but at the same time, holding my own personal view (they should have a minimum tarrif of 20years). I'm no lawyer, I can have both.
The fact they were not convicted for 18 years is irrelevant. By your logic on this point, if they were convicted of the murder 18 years ago it would be ok for them to get 12 years and be released six years ago at the ages of 29 and 28. [They have actually had this hanging over them for 18 years living a rather pathetic life and now have 14 and 15 years to serve. Dobson will be 51 when first eligible for release - rather more elderly than 29]
In other words I understand why they got the sentence they got and can accept that. Personally, I would have liked to see them get longer.
No not because of race or notoriety but because I think the guidelines (which are still a minimum of 12 years for under 18s) too lenient for murder (and knife crimes in general). A new precedent has to be set (a judges verdict may not be the platform to do so).Why do you think that this particular murder requires a higher tarriff - because of the race element, or it's notoriety?Want to know the Spen666 behind the posts?
Then read MY BLOG @ http://www.pebennett.com
Twittering @spen_6660 -
Why? This is about sentencing.Rick Chasey wrote:I thought this would descend into stop & search chat and institutional racism (or not), not sentencing tarrifs!
Shows how (un)predictable forums can be sometimes...Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
Note the contraction.spen666 wrote:
A crown court sentence cannot set a precedentDonDaddyD wrote:
None of this is a reason for increasing the sentence. You are sentenced for what you did, The setting of the tariff takes into account the obvious fact that someone died. That is never capable of being an aggravating feature in a murder or manslaughter case is it?W1 wrote:...IMO I think it would have been plausible to issue a tougher sentence because there were no mitigating factors and the fact that it would seem they continued to lie, showed no remorse and got to live 18years of their lives while their victim was robbed of his. I may be legally wrong, I can accept the legal standpoint and by extension the rationale behind the Judge's actual verdict. I still feel secure in seperately, but at the same time, holding my own personal view (they should have a minimum tarrif of 20years). I'm no lawyer, I can have both.
The fact they were not convicted for 18 years is irrelevant. By your logic on this point, if they were convicted of the murder 18 years ago it would be ok for them to get 12 years and be released six years ago at the ages of 29 and 28. [They have actually had this hanging over them for 18 years living a rather pathetic life and now have 14 and 15 years to serve. Dobson will be 51 when first eligible for release - rather more elderly than 29]
In other words I understand why they got the sentence they got and can accept that. Personally, I would have liked to see them get longer.
No not because of race or notoriety but because I think the guidelines (which are still a minimum of 12 years for under 18s) too lenient for murder (and knife crimes in general). A new precedent has to be set (a judges verdict may not be the platform to do so).Why do you think that this particular murder requires a higher tarriff - because of the race element, or it's notoriety?Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:
Why? This is about sentencing.Rick Chasey wrote:I thought this would descend into stop & search chat and institutional racism (or not), not sentencing tarrifs!
Shows how (un)predictable forums can be sometimes...
The Lawrence case is about so much more than the murder, rightly or wrongly.
For me anyway, it's about the police and discrimination.0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:rjsterry wrote:Whilst in theory, Dobson and Norris could be released on license in their 50s, the chances of that are pretty remote. Their complete lack of contrition, cooperation with the investigation (including ongoing investigation to find the other perpetrators) and other criminal behaviour will make it the decision pretty easy for the parole board. Given their history, even if they did get released it would probably be a matter of days before they breached the terms of their license and were back inside.
In fact, I'd say that if one of them does get out of prison near their minimum tariff, it'll be because they have decided to reveal the names of the others involved. There's no sign of this being likely though.
I've deliberately avoided discussing the maximum they could spend imprisoned because the fact of the matter is no one knows. What we know is the minimum they will spend.
If we had to put a price on life - the currency being your own years alive - 12 years minimum (payment), which are the guidelines recommendation. Or 14 and 15 years respectively seem rather low when you consider Stephen Lawrence and his family have already lost 18 years of his and stand to lose a whole lot more.
So you jail someone for killing an 18 year old for say 60 years as deceased could have expected to live for another 60 years?
so if you kill a 75 year old you get say 3 years and if you kill an 80 year old, you get a reward from the state instead of punishment as that person had exceeded their life expectancy?
BTW What do you see as the purpose of sending someone to prison?Want to know the Spen666 behind the posts?
Then read MY BLOG @ http://www.pebennett.com
Twittering @spen_6660
