In the case of the man, anything less than the rest of his life inside is a disgrace. Involved in the killing of a baby, and raping a two year old!!!
Why would anyone ever think he should be given another chance at freedom?
For me, if, for example, he serves 15 years and is rehabilitated...y'know is no longer a threat to society, then releasing him early seems plausible so long as the life licence restricts what he can and can't do for the rest of his life.
However, how plausible is it for someone who has committed such horrific acts to be successfully rehabilitated? I have my doubts.
I imagine pretty much everyone would have been happier with a minimum tariff of say 25 years. But Isuspect the guidelines for the actual offence he was charged with [not murder or manslaughter] make this difficult.
I imagine pretty much everyone would have been happier with a minimum tariff of say 25 years. But Isuspect the guidelines for the actual offence he was charged with [not murder or manslaughter] make this difficult.
I think the maximum is 14 years, so that is a major restriction.
For the man, he has Life for Rape though, although we all know he wont serve that long inside.
thats what i dont understand...the reason why they run together? whats the point of giving a 10 and 12 year sentance but then joining them together? its like one of the victims doesnt matter!
For me, if, for example, he serves 15 years and is rehabilitated...y'know is no longer a threat to society, then releasing him early seems plausible so long as the life licence restricts what he can and can't do for the rest of his life.
However, how plausible is it for someone who has committed such horrific acts to be successfully rehabilitated? I have my doubts.
People capable of doing what those two did are a perpetual danger to society in that any child either of them might produce could suffer like Peter and his sister.
They should only be released if they agree to be castrated/sterilised.
I do think the Law needs to be amended in cases where people obviously try to evade a sentence for a serious crime by refusing to admit who actually did it.
I’d think in cases like this it’d be a pretty safe bet that someone would turn ‘grass’ if all of them had been charged with murder, rather than having to rely on a lesser charge with a lesser sentence.
Frankly if you are willing to face a murder charge rather than give evidence against someone who you know is a murderer you deserve to go down for it too – though I doubt that would happen very often.
I hope they all never see freedom again - the only way I hope they come out of prison is in a body bag. I don't care about their human rights - scum. May it be painful.
People capable of doing what those two did are a perpetual danger to society in that any child either of them might produce could suffer like Peter and his sister.
They should only be released if they agree to be castrated/sterilised.
In the case of the man, it wasn't his child. It's also worth noting that castration wouldn't really prevent him from repeating the same crimes again. If he is able to rehabilitate himself, that would be great but I very much doubt he'll be able to.
I have never understood the idea of concurrent sentences.
I mean why sentence an armed robber for x amount of years for the robbery and then a concurrent sentence for possession of firearms?? Just give them a bloody bigger overall sentence.....
When the criems are not at all related I cannot see any logic or point of concurrent sentences.......... Please could someone explain - I would love to know!!
I wonder aloud actually if the trial had collapsed due to the internet campaign would people actually accept responsibility for causing it ?
Will those same people accept that their never ending desire to see the 3 individuals publicly named, and therefore attacked, will probably result in thousands of pounds of taxpayers money being spent giving them new identities when - and if - they are ever released ?
I do think the Law needs to be amended in cases where people obviously try to evade a sentence for a serious crime by refusing to admit who actually did it.
I’d think in cases like this it’d be a pretty safe bet that someone would turn ‘grass’ if all of them had been charged with murder, rather than having to rely on a lesser charge with a lesser sentence.
Frankly if you are willing to face a murder charge rather than give evidence against someone who you know is a murderer you deserve to go down for it too – though I doubt that would happen very often.
Unfortunately these things are often processes rather than single actions. If a child gets hit say 100 times over a 6 month period by 4 different people, how do you prove which single blow was "the killer"? Quite possibly none of them were, any more than say depriving s/o of 50 meals means that any one event in itself actually led to their death from starvation.
Yet again confirms that the British 'justice' system favours the criminal over the victim.
Is that really all that poor, defenceless little boy's life was worth? Do those sentences come anywhere near being an appropriate punishment for the pain, misery and fear these people inflicted on a 17 month old baby?
As a society, collectively, we are responsible for these unduly lenient sentences and we should all be ashamed.
Just 10 years for causing the death of a baby and raping a 2 year old? And we dare to call ourselves civilised? I think not.
Although I think they should have longer sentences these are actually minimum terms. They may spend a lot longer in prison but who knows.
We are civilised. It just so happens that some, like these sick bas*ards, aren't.
Remember as well, on release, they will need protection and name changes. Supported by the state as well.
As a society we are not responsible for lenient sentences, the government and judiciary are.
I do think the Law needs to be amended in cases where people obviously try to evade a sentence for a serious crime by refusing to admit who actually did it.
I’d think in cases like this it’d be a pretty safe bet that someone would turn ‘grass’ if all of them had been charged with murder, rather than having to rely on a lesser charge with a lesser sentence.
Frankly if you are willing to face a murder charge rather than give evidence against someone who you know is a murderer you deserve to go down for it too – though I doubt that would happen very often.
All defendents are innocent until proven guilty and have the right to silence.
The police have to prove that Baby Peter was murdered and they couldn't
Although i'm saddened by the lower charges brought and the sentences given the police/forensics/CPS did the best they could with the evidence they gathered.
I wonder aloud actually if the trial had collapsed due to the internet campaign would people actually accept responsibility for causing it ?
Will those same people accept that their never ending desire to see the 3 individuals publicly named, and therefore attacked, will probably result in thousands of pounds of taxpayers money being spent giving them new identities when - and if - they are ever released ?
I seriously doubt it. I think the typr of people who would get involved in such a campaign in the first place have no real interest in ‘justice’. They are generally just using someone elses misery to make themselves feel powerful in the guise of moral outrage.
In my opinion those people didn’t care about Peter or any of the other children involved in this case they just cared about the attention they got by releasing information they had no business releasing.
Comments
Why would anyone ever think he should be given another chance at freedom?
Indeed - I think it should be required reading for a lot of people actually.
They think they're "fighting for justice" when in reality, they are jeopardising the chances of the perpetrators actually receiving any.
If the trial had collapsed due to various blogs/forums trying to "out" the 3 individuals, would people have accepted responsibility ?
Doubtful
Well said. IMHO It is already outrageous that the taxpayer has to foot the bill for his upkeep and will eat better than a lot of people.
For me, if, for example, he serves 15 years and is rehabilitated...y'know is no longer a threat to society, then releasing him early seems plausible so long as the life licence restricts what he can and can't do for the rest of his life.
However, how plausible is it for someone who has committed such horrific acts to be successfully rehabilitated? I have my doubts.
So, 12 plus 10 is 22. Right?
Wrong. In our insane law, 12 plus 10 adds up to 12. Two sentences that run currently, ie toegther.
So when you think about it, if this bloke had not have had any part in the rape, he'd still get 12 years.
So he isn't getting jailed AT ALL for the rape of the 2-year-old.
Pathetic. :mad:
I think the maximum is 14 years, so that is a major restriction.
For the man, he has Life for Rape though, although we all know he wont serve that long inside.
I would consider the rape of a 2yr old and death of a 17month old exceptional!!!
I find the sentences unbelieveable!!!!!!:mad:
can anyone explain why please?
You mean concurrently, right?
People capable of doing what those two did are a perpetual danger to society in that any child either of them might produce could suffer like Peter and his sister.
They should only be released if they agree to be castrated/sterilised.
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=1014252
I’d think in cases like this it’d be a pretty safe bet that someone would turn ‘grass’ if all of them had been charged with murder, rather than having to rely on a lesser charge with a lesser sentence.
Frankly if you are willing to face a murder charge rather than give evidence against someone who you know is a murderer you deserve to go down for it too – though I doubt that would happen very often.
No but I bet if he knicked millions from a bank. He would get LIFE and would serve LIFE.
In the case of the man, it wasn't his child. It's also worth noting that castration wouldn't really prevent him from repeating the same crimes again. If he is able to rehabilitate himself, that would be great but I very much doubt he'll be able to.
Some people are just born bad.
I mean why sentence an armed robber for x amount of years for the robbery and then a concurrent sentence for possession of firearms?? Just give them a bloody bigger overall sentence.....
When the criems are not at all related I cannot see any logic or point of concurrent sentences.......... Please could someone explain - I would love to know!!
Will those same people accept that their never ending desire to see the 3 individuals publicly named, and therefore attacked, will probably result in thousands of pounds of taxpayers money being spent giving them new identities when - and if - they are ever released ?
Unfortunately these things are often processes rather than single actions. If a child gets hit say 100 times over a 6 month period by 4 different people, how do you prove which single blow was "the killer"? Quite possibly none of them were, any more than say depriving s/o of 50 meals means that any one event in itself actually led to their death from starvation.
Although I think they should have longer sentences these are actually minimum terms. They may spend a lot longer in prison but who knows.
We are civilised. It just so happens that some, like these sick bas*ards, aren't.
Remember as well, on release, they will need protection and name changes. Supported by the state as well.
As a society we are not responsible for lenient sentences, the government and judiciary are.
I don't really know enough about the system to criticise tbh.
They were unrelated crimes........ Where is the logic?? It's disgusting!! 12 years for Baby P and raping a 2 year old WTF!!
All defendents are innocent until proven guilty and have the right to silence.
The police have to prove that Baby Peter was murdered and they couldn't
Although i'm saddened by the lower charges brought and the sentences given the police/forensics/CPS did the best they could with the evidence they gathered.
I seriously doubt it. I think the typr of people who would get involved in such a campaign in the first place have no real interest in ‘justice’. They are generally just using someone elses misery to make themselves feel powerful in the guise of moral outrage.
In my opinion those people didn’t care about Peter or any of the other children involved in this case they just cared about the attention they got by releasing information they had no business releasing.