Worboys

mamba80

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/cr ... 42081.html

he ll be released under extremely harsh conditions inc no contact with his victims and must tell the Police of his where-abouts... young women of London can jump in the back of a taxi with total confidence.

Its rather ironc that coopster accused me and my left wing ilk of being soft on crime and yet after 7 years of Tory rule, we ve got Parole boards under extreme pressure to release people like Worboys with indeterminate sentences.

i m not normally an advocate of the death penalty but there is no reason not to hang this guy.

ballysmate

I too would not be too concerned if this rapist came to a grisly end

Warboys was convicted and indeed only tried for some of his offences, the then DPP Kier Starmer could perhaps tell us why but I believe is staying silent.

The parole board in an independent body and I believe the Chairman has been summoned to explain to MPs the reasons for this decision to release Warboys.

veronese68

I think I heard they’ve done away with indeterminate sentences now. Stamer did say something but the news was in the background and I don’t know what was said.
One thing I don’t get is why were some victims informed about his imminent release, but it was decided not to tell others. On what grounds do you decide who to tell and who not to tell.
Maybe castration rather than the death penalty.

DeVlaeminck

Nasty piece of work 8-9 years seems very little, could not he be charged with further crimes now if the evidence exists. I can't believe he will ever be no risk to women, a bit like leicestershire murderer Colin Pitchfork who apparently is also being prepared for release. There are some complete scum in this world who whilst I'm against capital punishment I'd be glad to see dead.

rjsterry

There's talk of other victims initiating further cases and all power to them.

mamba80

Ballysmate wrote:

I too would not be too concerned if this rapist came to a grisly end

Warboys was convicted and indeed only tried for some of his offences, the then DPP Kier Starmer could perhaps tell us why but I believe is staying silent.

The parole board in an independent body and I believe the Chairman has been summoned to explain to MPs the reasons for this decision to release Warboys.

Rape is a terrible crime and Starmer needs to explain his part in this, the CPS has now said Starmar never had anything to do with the Worboys case, really? and why wasnt the sentence appealed?
perhaps the indeterminate sentence given lured everyone into thinking he d be behind bars for a very long time?

The current Gov can challenge this release decision but apparently hasnt indicated if this will happen.

Its going to very harrowing for the victims to pursue further charges plus any evidence and its upwards of 10 to 12 years ago.

The real problem here is prison over crowding and the decision to release approx 600 prisoners with this type of sentence, there are going to be more victims of totally preventable crimes.

Putting the 'Chair to explain the decision, given he legally cannot go into specifics or reverse it, is horse and stable door i m afraid.

ballysmate

mamba80 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

I too would not be too concerned if this rapist came to a grisly end

Warboys was convicted and indeed only tried for some of his offences, the then DPP Kier Starmer could perhaps tell us why but I believe is staying silent.

The parole board in an independent body and I believe the Chairman has been summoned to explain to MPs the reasons for this decision to release Warboys.

Rape is a terrible crime and Starmer needs to explain his part in this, the CPS has now said Starmar never had anything to do with the Worboys case, really? and why wasnt the sentence appealed?
perhaps the indeterminate sentence given lured everyone into thinking he d be behind bars for a very long time?

The current Gov can challenge this release decision but apparently hasnt indicated if this will happen.

Its going to very harrowing for the victims to pursue further charges plus any evidence and its upwards of 10 to 12 years ago.

The real problem here is prison over crowding and the decision to release approx 600 prisoners with this type of sentence, there are going to be more victims of totally preventable crimes.

Putting the 'Chair to explain the decision, given he legally cannot go into specifics or reverse it, is horse and stable door i m afraid.

I personally would build more prisons and the likes of Warboys would never see the light of day again but suspect I would be viewed by some on here as being a member of the 'Hang 'em and flog 'em' brigade.

Not only did Starmer fail to prosecute properly but once the sentence was handed down, Baroness Scotland as Attorney General didn't feel the need to appeal the sentence.

A catalogue of errors.

mamba80

Ballysmate wrote:

I personally would build more prisons and the likes of Warboys would never see the light of day again but suspect I would be viewed by some on here as being a member of the 'Hang 'em and flog 'em' brigade.

Not only did Starmer fail to prosecute properly but once the sentence was handed down, Baroness Scotland as Attorney General didn't feel the need to appeal the sentence.

A catalogue of errors.

Bally, i know you wish to blame Labour for all the worlds ills but Tories are now in power and its under their watch that he is being released and approx 600 others.... you need to apportion responsibility where it lays, because should Warboys or any of the other 600 released claim more victims it will be this Government to blame for changing the rules.

rjsterry

It seems that the main reason he is out after 8 years was that 8 years was the minimum tariff. There are serious questions about the Met's investigation and failings there could well explain the relatively small number of cases tried - two other recent rape cases illustrate how a fault in the investigation can completely undermine a case. I'd agree that the CPS need to explain why they didn't appeal the sentence when it was reported at the time that they thought the minimum tariff was too low. Whether a few extra prison places would have made much difference, I doubt as the minimum tariff was already set.

ballysmate

mamba80 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

I personally would build more prisons and the likes of Warboys would never see the light of day again but suspect I would be viewed by some on here as being a member of the 'Hang 'em and flog 'em' brigade.

Not only did Starmer fail to prosecute properly but once the sentence was handed down, Baroness Scotland as Attorney General didn't feel the need to appeal the sentence.

A catalogue of errors.

Bally, i know you wish to blame Labour for all the worlds ills but Tories are now in power and its under their watch that he is being released and approx 600 others.... you need to apportion responsibility where it lays, because should Warboys or any of the other 600 released claim more victims it will be this Government to blame for changing the rules.

You need to go back and read what you and I posted. Your first post blamed the Tories.
I pointed out that the DPP failed to ensure the case was properly prosecuted and the AG failed to appeal the sentence.
The independent parole board have yet to explain their rationale so we will have to wait for them to explain themselves. I suspect that will involve them saying that they can only act on the sentence that has been handed down and that the other offences that you, me and everyman's dog suspect he committed are irrelevant because he hasn't been convicted of them.

YOU are the one seeking to lay the blame at the feet of a political party. I have mentioned the failings of individuals who had dealings with the case at the time, never mentioned or blamed any party.

As I said, a catalogue of errors. perhaps present incumbents of judicial offices may come in for criticism. We shall have to wait for the parole board's explanations although you seem to have already determined it is the Tories' fault.

PS
Don't forget to check under your bed tonight.

voodooman

Had INSET today - on restorative justice (in a school context), but the leader was a Met officer of 25 yrs experience and as an aside was asked about this case.

His points were very interesting:
1 - Some criminals are never able to come to terms with their crime and will neither accept they have done it, or admit and wrongdoing. In this case he "must" have engaged fully with any therapeutic interventions to be able to be eligible for parole. As someone who has young offenders (some for various sex offences) in my school and over the years have completed the AIM2 stuff - it is hard hitting and not an easy process.
2 - His licence for release conditions would be very strict and the tariff for bringing back to custody would be very low.
3 - The officer was dead against the death penalty on principle, never mind the crime. The biggest issue (and i guess part of the reason he does this training) he felt was that the very nature of our judicial system takes the wrongdoer away from the victim, and that the state issues the consequence. He also mentioned about working on numerous rape / sexual assault crimes which had gone to a restorative justice meeting. In about half the cases the victim wanted to look the offender in the eyes and even though the offender was still in complete denial say "I was there, you were there; you know what happened and what you did - I just wanted to look you in the eyes and tell you that. I've got what I want and now I'm leaving". The process of setting up a meeting takes months as you might imagine.

Lookyhere

From what i have read and watched, the thinking at the time was that Warboys would never be released due to him having a indeterminate sentence, the judge at the time said as much.

I would imagine this is why the sentence was not appealed and/or why more cases not bought to court, with hindsight, 2 big mistakes.
However, as has been pointed out, its the current administration that have decided to release all these prisoners, the problem is the release and the removal of indeterminate sentences and that has been done by the Conservatives.

voodooman

Oh and another snippet from today.

Q - "how many prisoners are there in the UK?"..... "about 90,000".

Q - "how many will be released back into communities?" ..... "all of them bar about 50 or 60 (we didn't know the figure, but it's very small) on whole life tariffs".

Q - "what do you do as a society with large numbers of convicted criminals going back into the general population". Interesting discussion ensued as you might imagine! Also as you might imagine I'm kind of against criminalising young people for many crimes, as was the Met officer.

mamba80

voodooman wrote:

Had INSET today - on restorative justice (in a school context), but the leader was a Met officer of 25 yrs experience and as an aside was asked about this case.

His points were very interesting:
1 - Some criminals are never able to come to terms with their crime and will neither accept they have done it, or admit and wrongdoing. In this case he "must" have engaged fully with any therapeutic interventions to be able to be eligible for parole. As someone who has young offenders (some for various sex offences) in my school and over the years have completed the AIM2 stuff - it is hard hitting and not an easy process.
2 - His licence for release conditions would be very strict and the tariff for bringing back to custody would be very low.
3 - The officer was dead against the death penalty on principle, never mind the crime. The biggest issue (and i guess part of the reason he does this training) he felt was that the very nature of our judicial system takes the wrongdoer away from the victim, and that the state issues the consequence. He also mentioned about working on numerous rape / sexual assault crimes which had gone to a restorative justice meeting. In about half the cases the victim wanted to look the offender in the eyes and even though the offender was still in complete denial say "I was there, you were there; you know what happened and what you did - I just wanted to look you in the eyes and tell you that. I've got what I want and now I'm leaving". The process of setting up a meeting takes months as you might imagine.

Interesting post, esp as many experts are saying a prisoner who point blank refused any responsibility just a few years ago has suddenly transformed himself into a prisoner who no longer poses a threat to society, human nature can be very cunning, more than possible he has just conned em to thinking he is now safe.

i d imagine like Venables, he may well find himself back in jail, in worboys case after raping another woman.

yep i m not a fan of the death penalty, however some people just dont deserve to live anymore and its hard to justify their existance, for example Ian Huntley.

i understood that restorative justice was extremely rare in serious sexual assault/rape cases? and certainly not numerous.

ballysmate

Lookyhere wrote:

From what i have read and watched, the thinking at the time was that Warboys would never be released due to him having a indeterminate sentence, the judge at the time said as much.

I would imagine this is why the sentence was not appealed and/or why more cases not bought to court, with hindsight, 2 big mistakes.
However, as has been pointed out, its the current administration that have decided to release all these prisoners, the problem is the release and the removal of indeterminate sentences and that has been done by the Conservatives.

As posted earlier, the parole board is independent.


Up to 3 members of a panel will decide whether to release you based on a file of documents the prison puts together. This includes:

your behaviour in prison
what you plan to do once released
whether you’re likely to commit more crime or are a danger to the public
why you’re in prison
previous offences
what the judge said when you were sentenced
the victim statement - this may be read at the hearing
medical, psychiatric and psychological evidence

https://www.gov.uk/getting-parole/parole-board-hearing

mamba80

Ballysmate wrote:

Lookyhere wrote:

From what i have read and watched, the thinking at the time was that Warboys would never be released due to him having a indeterminate sentence, the judge at the time said as much.

I would imagine this is why the sentence was not appealed and/or why more cases not bought to court, with hindsight, 2 big mistakes.
However, as has been pointed out, its the current administration that have decided to release all these prisoners, the problem is the release and the removal of indeterminate sentences and that has been done by the Conservatives.

As posted earlier, the parole board is independent.


Up to 3 members of a panel will decide whether to release you based on a file of documents the prison puts together. This includes:

your behaviour in prison
what you plan to do once released
whether you’re likely to commit more crime or are a danger to the public
why you’re in prison
previous offences
what the judge said when you were sentenced
the victim statement - this may be read at the hearing
medical, psychiatric and psychological evidence

https://www.gov.uk/getting-parole/parole-board-hearing

a quick question, who appoints parole board members?

voodooman

@Mamba
Like you I think it is rare, but what the officer was getting across was often the victim didn't want to engage in restorative justice, but to make their point to the offender to be able to move on with their life.
Restorative justice sets up this sort of meeting, whether the offender wants to engage or not - the point being it is offered to the victim and it is their right, the right of the offender is secondary in such cases.

ballysmate

mamba80 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Lookyhere wrote:

From what i have read and watched, the thinking at the time was that Warboys would never be released due to him having a indeterminate sentence, the judge at the time said as much.

I would imagine this is why the sentence was not appealed and/or why more cases not bought to court, with hindsight, 2 big mistakes.
However, as has been pointed out, its the current administration that have decided to release all these prisoners, the problem is the release and the removal of indeterminate sentences and that has been done by the Conservatives.

As posted earlier, the parole board is independent.


Up to 3 members of a panel will decide whether to release you based on a file of documents the prison puts together. This includes:

your behaviour in prison
what you plan to do once released
whether you’re likely to commit more crime or are a danger to the public
why you’re in prison
previous offences
what the judge said when you were sentenced
the victim statement - this may be read at the hearing
medical, psychiatric and psychological evidence

https://www.gov.uk/getting-parole/parole-board-hearing

a quick question, who appoints parole board members?

Had to Google it as I suspect did you

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new- ... -appointed

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/appo ... rd-members

There are I think 5 members who declared a political interest.

slowmart

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-42540995

Three times killer, two separate convictions for manslaughter and then goes onto kill again despite stringent conditions which should have been applied during his liberty.

Judicial errors aren't coloured by politics, nor is the judiciary. It's called separation of powers.

I'm fortunate if i make an error it costs cash.

ballysmate

Slowmart wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-42540995

Three times killer, two separate convictions for manslaughter and then goes onto kill again despite stringent conditions which should have been applied during his liberty.

Judicial errors aren't coloured by politics, nor is the judiciary. It's called separation of powers.

I'm fortunate if i make an error it costs cash.

You're preaching to the choir here mate. Mamba and Looky may take some convincing though.

mamba80

Ballysmate wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-42540995

Three times killer, two separate convictions for manslaughter and then goes onto kill again despite stringent conditions which should have been applied during his liberty.

Judicial errors aren't coloured by politics, nor is the judiciary. It's called separation of powers.

I'm fortunate if i make an error it costs cash.

You're preaching to the choir here mate. Mamba and Looky may take some convincing though.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... k-hardwick

Parole board isnt the judiciary though is it? something you apparently cannot grasp.

ballysmate

mamba80 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-42540995

Three times killer, two separate convictions for manslaughter and then goes onto kill again despite stringent conditions which should have been applied during his liberty.

Judicial errors aren't coloured by politics, nor is the judiciary. It's called separation of powers.

I'm fortunate if i make an error it costs cash.

You're preaching to the choir here mate. Mamba and Looky may take some convincing though.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... k-hardwick

Parole board isnt the judiciary though is it? something you apparently cannot grasp.

Mamba, your first post was to blame the Tories. I replied that the PB is independent. You now link to a story where the chairman of said PB is shown to be er... independent and he states that a prisoner has to prove he is no danger.
The indeterminate prison sentences were scrapped by the coalition because they were deemed unlawful by ECHR.

slowmart

chip on shoulder?

The Ministry Of Justice fund the parole board but Parole Board is currently independent. Now we've agreed that aspect can you enlighten me how the Parole board decisions are shaped by political expediency?

Parliament makes the law
The Judiciary applies the law and has to follow strict sentencing guidelines.

Indeterminate sentences have been proved to be unlawful.

Can we agree on the above?


Within the context of applying the law to the prisoners who are currently serving an indeterminate sentence whilst balancing the rights of the prisoner, the guilty still has to prove they are now not a danger to the public. The Secretary of State has legislation in place to change the test the Parole Board applies in this situation.

Can we agree on that point as well?

Thats the legal test, the parole board applies that test. The last sentence in your linked article cuts the legs away from your argument that the while issue is politically driven.

Where is the political interference?

slowmart

Yep, the Guardians piece doesn't blame the Tories either

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... -in-crisis

slowmart

Evangelical Christians in some instances blame gays for natural disasters.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 33026.html

It seems a similar thought process exists with lefties on here with the Tories.

oh before anyone points out Worboys isn't a natural disaster just stretch that mind a bit to include man made monumental errors

Like i said before, I'm well blessed if I make an error.

rjsterry

Ballysmate wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

I personally would build more prisons and the likes of Warboys would never see the light of day again but suspect I would be viewed by some on here as being a member of the 'Hang 'em and flog 'em' brigade.

Not only did Starmer fail to prosecute properly but once the sentence was handed down, Baroness Scotland as Attorney General didn't feel the need to appeal the sentence.

A catalogue of errors.

Bally, i know you wish to blame Labour for all the worlds ills but Tories are now in power and its under their watch that he is being released and approx 600 others.... you need to apportion responsibility where it lays, because should Warboys or any of the other 600 released claim more victims it will be this Government to blame for changing the rules.

You need to go back and read what you and I posted. Your first post blamed the Tories.
I pointed out that the DPP failed to ensure the case was properly prosecuted and the AG failed to appeal the sentence.
The independent parole board have yet to explain their rationale so we will have to wait for them to explain themselves. I suspect that will involve them saying that they can only act on the sentence that has been handed down and that the other offences that you, me and everyman's dog suspect he committed are irrelevant because he hasn't been convicted of them.

YOU are the one seeking to lay the blame at the feet of a political party. I have mentioned the failings of individuals who had dealings with the case at the time, never mentioned or blamed any party.

As I said, a catalogue of errors. perhaps present incumbents of judicial offices may come in for criticism. We shall have to wait for the parole board's explanations although you seem to have already determined it is the Tories' fault.

PS
Don't forget to check under your bed tonight.

The Parole Board are legally prohibited from explaining their rationale, so that won't happen. However the Chairman of the PB has stated that he thinks the law should be changed to make the process more transparent, which seems difficult to disagree with.

ballysmate

rjsterry wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

I personally would build more prisons and the likes of Warboys would never see the light of day again but suspect I would be viewed by some on here as being a member of the 'Hang 'em and flog 'em' brigade.

Not only did Starmer fail to prosecute properly but once the sentence was handed down, Baroness Scotland as Attorney General didn't feel the need to appeal the sentence.

A catalogue of errors.

Bally, i know you wish to blame Labour for all the worlds ills but Tories are now in power and its under their watch that he is being released and approx 600 others.... you need to apportion responsibility where it lays, because should Warboys or any of the other 600 released claim more victims it will be this Government to blame for changing the rules.

You need to go back and read what you and I posted. Your first post blamed the Tories.
I pointed out that the DPP failed to ensure the case was properly prosecuted and the AG failed to appeal the sentence.
The independent parole board have yet to explain their rationale so we will have to wait for them to explain themselves. I suspect that will involve them saying that they can only act on the sentence that has been handed down and that the other offences that you, me and everyman's dog suspect he committed are irrelevant because he hasn't been convicted of them.

YOU are the one seeking to lay the blame at the feet of a political party. I have mentioned the failings of individuals who had dealings with the case at the time, never mentioned or blamed any party.

As I said, a catalogue of errors. perhaps present incumbents of judicial offices may come in for criticism. We shall have to wait for the parole board's explanations although you seem to have already determined it is the Tories' fault.

PS
Don't forget to check under your bed tonight.

The Parole Board are legally prohibited from explaining their rationale, so that won't happen. However the Chairman of the PB has stated that he thinks the law should be changed to make the process more transparent, which seems difficult to disagree with.

Works for me.

rjsterry

The other point made in the Newsnight report I watched was that - obviously when you think about it - the parole board can only consider the crimes with which the offender was convicted. In this case it was 1 rape, 5 sexual assaults, 1 attempted assault and 12 drugging charges. They cannot take into account the 2 drugging charges of which he was acquitted, any of the cases that didn't go to court or didn't get handed to the CPS.

In other words they've been handed something that was botched from the start. If this case results in the parole process being opened up then maybe that will be some good to come out of it all.

mamba80

Slowmart wrote:

Evangelical Christians in some instances blame gays for natural disasters.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 33026.html

It seems a similar thought process exists with lefties on here with the Tories.

oh before anyone points out Worboys isn't a natural disaster just stretch that mind a bit to include man made monumental errors

Like i said before, I'm well blessed if I make an error.

It was Bally who blamed Starmer for the low sentence and the (lack of) cases JW was prosecuted for under the then labour government... but thats ok because he is a labour MP, in a Labour Gov, even though the CPS has stated he had nothing to do with the worboys case.... if this is wrong then starmer is unfit to be anywhere near the shadow cabinet and should resign.

Indeterminate sentences were indeed deemed illegal by the ECHR however, they did not order the release of these people, the decision to allow their release has been made under a tory government but for some, like you and bally they are not to be held responsible for people like worboys going free.

you both say the parole board cannot be influenced by the government because they are independent, but their members are appointed by the Gov and Prof Hardwick calls for the Gov to get a grip and get on with dealing with the problem, he obv thinks the government has plenty of influence and power in this regard.....

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... ntence-ipp

My anger at worboys release isnt to have ago at the tories, but because i dont want another woman raped by this animal and whoever is in power should nt be allowing the release of serial rapists after 8 years.

Pross

Ballysmate wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-42540995

Three times killer, two separate convictions for manslaughter and then goes onto kill again despite stringent conditions which should have been applied during his liberty.

Judicial errors aren't coloured by politics, nor is the judiciary. It's called separation of powers.

I'm fortunate if i make an error it costs cash.

You're preaching to the choir here mate. Mamba and Looky may take some convincing though.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... k-hardwick

Parole board isnt the judiciary though is it? something you apparently cannot grasp.

Mamba, your first post was to blame the Tories. I replied that the PB is independent. You now link to a story where the chairman of said PB is shown to be er... independent and he states that a prisoner has to prove he is no danger.
The indeterminate prison sentences were scrapped by the coalition because they were deemed unlawful by ECHR.

As well as the ECHR ban that I believe was on the basis that a prisoner should know how long they will serve they were also considered by experts on all side to be a poor idea when introduced not least as they required an assessment of future risk that can exploited by a prisoner. I don't think there was a lot of criticism when they were abolished. The problem in this case isn't that they have been abolished but that the ban wasn't backdated and so Worboys was still under the old system which he may or may not have been if given a fixed term sentence.

Lots of people are also mentioning the other cases but as a QC said on TV this morning, at this stage those are just suspicions with no evidence which is why he wasn't tried for them. Hopefully, assuming they did occur, enough evidence will come forward that he can now be charged for them and subsequently convicted.

slowmart

mamba80 wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

Evangelical Christians in some instances blame gays for natural disasters.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 33026.html

It seems a similar thought process exists with lefties on here with the Tories.

oh before anyone points out Worboys isn't a natural disaster just stretch that mind a bit to include man made monumental errors

Like i said before, I'm well blessed if I make an error.

It was Bally who blamed Starmer for the low sentence and the (lack of) cases JW was prosecuted for under the then labour government... but thats ok because he is a labour MP, in a Labour Gov, even though the CPS has stated he had nothing to do with the worboys case.... if this is wrong then starmer is unfit to be anywhere near the shadow cabinet and should resign.

Indeterminate sentences were indeed deemed illegal by the ECHR however, they did not order the release of these people, the decision to allow their release has been made under a tory government but for some, like you and bally they are not to be held responsible for people like worboys going free.

At the point of judgement by the ECHR the UK was legally obliged to amend the UK law regarding indeterminate sentences and created the process and legal test to assess prisoners.

My anger at worboys release isnt to have ago at the tories, but because i dont want another woman raped by this animal and whoever is in power should nt be allowing the release of serial rapists after 8 years.

If you read the link in my previous post you will see that the Probation Service are the last part of the process. Did you read that the specialist officers trained in handling rape victims made fun and didn't believe the victims?

The CPS aren't covered in glory either.