Join Date: May 2008
Location: Richmond, Surrey.
No I do not call any talk of these killers "emotive drivel".
We are more civilised.
A massive generalisation.
Our sentencing is about right.
No, it's not. We generally punish crimes involving large amounts of money far more severely than those involving violence against the person. Particularly if it's money taken from "the state".
We value human life.
No, we value order above everything else. Threaten the state and you will be locked up without trial, they don't even have to bring charges. Now that is an issue worth a debate.
We are not lenient over here. Sure you can find sentences that are too light as I can find them that are too heavy, but on the whole we are about right.
I think we are lenient in respect to violent crime, rape, and other particularly vicious crimes. As I said before, we are heavy on anyone threatens the state, even peaceful protestors.
No one is saying criminals should not be punished.
I agree. I just read about a lot of vicious crimes where the punishment does not appear to equate with the pain and grief that has been caused. People always say..ah, but we don't know all the facts..frequently we do know them, and in the case of local crimes, we may even know the people involved.
170 years is ridiculous though.
Well yes, I don't know why they give out sentences that are so absurd. It's life without parole really..unless there are breakthroughs in medical science while they are inside.