[M@nterik]

Originally Posted by TrebleKing

At least he's grown older unlike his victims. He's paying for his crime, and at least it looks like he acknowledges that.

Without wishing to be pedantic his victims were old ladies

I really do not understand this mentality when it comes to crime and punishment.

This was a 13 year old child whose mind was still developing.

Clearly he has had to pay for his crimes. No one is denying that. It is the sentence that is harsh.

The attitude of some people, when it comes to law and order, disgusts me.

This is not about excusing criminality it is about making the sentence proportional.

[M@nterik]

Originally Posted by ganderpoke66

God almighty, how does that possibly excuse his crimes or demand a lower sentence than an adult ?

Even a thick 13 year old knows it's wrong to kill people.

A childs mind and a childs concept of right and wrong are still developing.

No one is seeking to "excuse" what they have done. It is about a relevant and proportionate sentence taking into consideration these were children when they committed the offence they were convicted for.

http://www.aclu.org/human-rights_rac...without-parole

http://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-la...ced-die-prison

The supreme court agrees LWOP is wrong.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...what-it-means/

[eveningstar]

Originally Posted by Shappy

Does anyone have anymore info on the circumstances of Sanford's murders of the two women? A life sentence at 15 knowing you'll spend the rest of your life in jail. It's almost not worth living.

It's interesting how difficult it is to find anything on this case. All I could find was one article online, it needs enlarging to be able to read it, but it does tell a little more about the crime. According to the boy who was with him, it was Sanford who stabbed both the old ladies to death.
I also wonder why he was living in the segregation block, where the most dangerous prisoners were keept, does that mean he's not quite the man he portrayed in the programme?.

http://indiamond6.ulib.iupui.edu/cdm...id/61732/rec/4

[M@nterik]

Originally Posted by eveningstar

It's interesting how difficult it is to find anything on this case. All I could find was one article online, it needs enlarging to be able to read it, but it does tell a little more about the crime. According to the boy who was with him, it was Sanford who stabbed both the old ladies to death.
I also wonder why he was living in the segregation block, where the most dangerous prisoners were keept, does that mean he's not quite the man he portrayed in the programme?.

http://indiamond6.ulib.iupui.edu/cdm...id/61732/rec/4

Segregation can also be for the most vulnerable.

[Genesys]

I'd welcome this kind of system in the UK.

Life should mean whole of life and any one given that sentence should be offered a lethal injection instead of serving a whole of life sentence.

Sorted

[Dan-Bevis]

Originally Posted by ganderpoke66

God almighty, how does that possibly excuse his crimes or demand a lower sentence than an adult?

Even a thick 13 year old knows it's wrong to kill people.

Exactly, by around 10, that person is aware of themselves and basic rights and wrongs, imho.

... And I mention the number 10 specifically because, in comparison, the James Bolger duo got off far more lightly than Sanford [cushy new lives] for a far more premeditated and heinous crime!

[Sentenza]

Originally Posted by M@nterik

Without wishing to be pedantic his victims were old ladies

I really do not understand this mentality when it comes to crime and punishment.

This was a 13 year old child whose mind was still developing.

Clearly he has had to pay for his crimes. No one is denying that. It is the sentence that is harsh.

The attitude of some people, when it comes to law and order, disgusts me.

This is not about excusing criminality it is about making the sentence proportional.

I wonder if someone had murdered your Mother and say a favourite family female member you'd be so "Right on"

[M@nterik]

Originally Posted by Sentenza

I wonder if someone had murdered your Mother and say a favourite family female member you'd be so "Right on"

Usual tired argument. It really is pathetic.

Your emotive drivel does not invalidate the points I am making. What do you think the age of criminal responsibility should be ? 13 years old. That is just a child.

Get this through your head.

No one is saying he should not be punished, clearly he should.

It is jailing a child for life that is the issue.

It is wrong and even the American Supreme Court thinks so

[RichmondBlue]

Originally Posted by M@nterik

Without wishing to be pedantic his victims were old ladies

I really do not understand this mentality when it comes to crime and punishment.

This was a 13 year old child whose mind was still developing.

Clearly he has had to pay for his crimes. No one is denying that. It is the sentence that is harsh.

The attitude of some people, when it comes to law and order, disgusts me.

This is not about excusing criminality it is about making the sentence proportional.

Really ? Your use of a grinning face disgusts me. The next thing you'll be saying is that they were "only old ladies so didn't have long to live anyway ".
The "proportionate" punishment for taking a life is surely the loss of your own life. This young killer has been allowed to live. It may not be much of a life, but it's an existence, and he probably still enjoys a few moments of happiness every now and then. His victims have ceased to exist because of his actions, any sort of life he now enjoys is a privilege he denied those victims.

[M@nterik]

Originally Posted by RichmondBlue

Really ? Your use of a grinning face disgusts me. The next thing you'll be saying is that they were "only old ladies so didn't have long to live anyway ".
The "proportionate" punishment for taking a life is surely the loss of your own life. This young killer has been allowed to live. It may not be much of a life, but it's an existence, and he probably still enjoys a few moments of happiness every now and then. His victims have ceased to exist because of his actions, any sort of life he now enjoys is a privilege he denied those victims.

What is it people like you do not get about "no one is saying he does not deserve to be punished".

It is his sentence that is the issue.

Thank God we are more civilised over here.

[GeorgeS]

Originally Posted by M@nterik

Thank God we are more civilised over here.

Tell that to people affected by reoffenders who have been released and killed again

[M@nterik]

Originally Posted by GeorgeS

Tell that to people affected by reoffenders who have been released and killed again

I think you are looking for the Daily Mail.

[RichmondBlue]

Originally Posted by M@nterik

What is it people like you do not get about "no one is saying he does not deserve to be punished".

It is his sentence that is the issue.

Thank God we are more civilised over here.

People like you call any talk about the victims of these killers "emotive drivel" (above)...it's not difficult to see where your sympathies lie.
We are more "civilised" are we ? I'm talking about what is "just" and "appropriate" punishment for a crime. I don't believe our lenient treatment of young offenders makes us any more civilised, our sentences are generally disproportionate in the other direction that's all.
You could argue that by putting a greater value on human life, and severely punishing offenders who commit the ultimate crime by taking a life, is more civilised ?

[M@nterik]

Originally Posted by RichmondBlue

People like you call any talk about the victims of these killers "emotive drivel" (above)...it's not difficult to see where your sympathies lie.
We are more "civilised" are we ? I'm talking about what is "just" and "appropriate" punishment for a crime. I don't believe our lenient treatment of young offenders makes us any more civilised, our sentences are generally disproportionate in the other direction that's all.
You could argue that by putting a greater value on human life, and severely punishing offenders who commit the ultimate crime by taking a life, is more civilised ?

No I do not call any talk of these killers "emotive drivel".

We are more civilised.

Our sentencing is about right.

We value human life.

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.

No one is saying criminals should not be punished.

170 years is ridiculous though.

[RichmondBlue]

Originally Posted by M@nterik

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.

[Jocolah]

Originally Posted by M@nterik

No I do not call any talk of these killers "emotive drivel".

We are more civilised.

Our sentencing is about right.

We value human life.

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.

No one is saying criminals should not be punished.

170 years is ridiculous though.

I think the parts highlighted are moot points, but of course, they are your opinions which you are entitled to.

[IzzyS]

Anyone else think James Harrison looked a bit like Santa Claus? :-/

Some of the longer sentences seem a bit daft, in as much as why can't they have maximum sentences of something such as 90 or 100 years at the most because surely they don't think people especially those who actually live in prison, will live past the age of 90 or so?. Giving someone a sentence such as 150 years seems unnecessarily showy somehow, its symbolic but obviously not realistic.

I saw a similar documentary by Louis Theroux recently where he visited a pre-trial detention centre - I found that quite depressing in a sense, there being people who hadn't been to trial and thus were supposedly innocent as they hadn't been proven guilty by judge and jury yet and even so, they lived basically in a prison, some of them having been there for many years. I can only presume that such people may be able to leave if they can afford bail, so money can get you out of there, at least until trial but if your poor and unable to afford it then your basically confined to a cell most of the day for days, months and possibly years at a time? that seemed very unfair to me. I don't know how it works in the UK legal/justice system but I did feel that seemed a bit wrong perhaps.

Personally im against the death sentence, in terms of the moral side of it, I simply don't agree in the concept of a life for a life. If killing someone is wrong then why is it right for the government to kill someone because they did the same thing? if killing is so wrong (which obviously it is) then that should apply across the board - thats not to mention the whole issue of innocent people potentially being framed and given such sentences. The only good thing about it is that people tend to stay on death row for some time, allowing time for appeals to take place to hopefully check the conviction is solid(?).

Plus if your really after revenge, which would you rather - have the criminal wait a while then get a clinical, relatively quick death or make them live with what they've done for the rest of their lives and suffer not having the ability to be free again? I can understand why some people might be pro-death sentence when you talk about especially violent and emotive crimes such as child murder or rape and I certainly wouldn't like to think people who commit such crimes would be easily allowed back into the public but the idea of killing people off at the end of the day just doesn't sit right with me. There should be more emphasis on finding out why people do what they do and preventing it from happening in the first place but yes, maybe im way too naive, who knows...

[TrebleKing]

Originally Posted by M@nterik

Without wishing to be pedantic his victims were old ladies

I really do not understand this mentality when it comes to crime and punishment.

This was a 13 year old child whose mind was still developing.

Clearly he has had to pay for his crimes. No one is denying that. It is the sentence that is harsh.

The attitude of some people, when it comes to law and order, disgusts me.

This is not about excusing criminality it is about making the sentence proportional.

Originally Posted by M@nterik

A childs mind and a childs concept of right and wrong are still developing.

No one is seeking to "excuse" what they have done. It is about a relevant and proportionate sentence taking into consideration these were children when they committed the offence they were convicted for.

http://www.aclu.org/human-rights_rac...without-parole

http://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-la...ced-die-prison

The supreme court agrees LWOP is wrong.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...what-it-means/

It's funny how people are so liberal and forgiving when it's other people's families that are horribly murdered, and can even throw in a smiley face and have a titter about it. A teenager knows right from wrong, and knows it should be wrong to murder two innocent old ladies. I want a creature like that off the street forever.

[Jenkins123]

Killing for personal gain or satisfaction (murder) is wrong, but killing as a form of punishment for the murderer, is in my view, justified.

[Shappy]

Watching the repeat of this on ITV now to see the bits I missed when it was initially broadcast.

Very well made documentary, I must say. Shows the human side of people who have committed serious crimes.

[cooler]

Originally Posted by M@nterik

No I do not call any talk of these killers "emotive drivel".

We are more civilised.

Our sentencing is about right.

We value human life.

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.

No one is saying criminals should not be punished.

170 years is ridiculous though.

The killer of 68 yr Richard Mannington Bowes in the London riots in 2011 got an 8 yr sentence for manslaugher yet the arsonists who burnt down a furniture store got 11 years. So much for this country valuing human life.

[Shappy]

I was surprised to hear that one of the guys on death row saw someone get stabbed 42 times right in front of him. How does that happen when everyone on death row is locked up for most of the day or only let out while cuffed? Who supplies them with a knife given they don't come into contact with anyone else?

I can understand how that kind of thing can happen in the lower security areas where there was a dorm like situation with prisoners walking around freely, but not on death row.

The dorm-like area was actually scary. I remember watching another documentary where some young lad got put in jail for a few weeks and he was terrified that someone would knife him in the night as the dorm was split into rival, dangerous gangs. Maybe it's safer to be alone in a cell!

And that guy Sanford has really learnt the art of looking at the bright side of life!

I liked Trevor's interviewing style - not dramatic or trying to be funny or provocative.

[spaniel-lover]

Trevor McDonald stated that 52 years in prison was infinitely better than being executed; well I couldn't disagree more, I'd choose death by lethal injection over a life-time in prison, absolutely would.

[spaniel-lover]

I know these guys are scum, but I think even scum should be able to go to the toilet in private....

[spaniel-lover]

Originally Posted by cooler

The killer of 68 yr Richard Mannington Bowes in the London riots in 2011 got an 8 yr sentence for manslaugher yet the arsonists who burnt down a furniture store got 11 years. So much for this country valuing human life.

I think that was because the former was a juvenile where as the latter was an adult, plus there could well have been people in the store, or indeed in any place that an arsonist sets fire to; both sentences were too lenient IMO.