what it has shown me is that if you are seen to have empathy and try to understand DF's motivations then it is presumed that you must also think that V&T weren't punished enough.
Absolute piffle in my case
It's a scale and everyone has an opinion on both things, however some are more capable than others of separating the two issues.
And on the other hand, people who think that T&V were punished and that rehabilitation at least given a go are lumped in as sympathisers.
Or people who think that DF is being badly advised with regard the media and her position as a go to rent-a-quote are marked as unsympathetic.
Like you say, though, the nuances seem to be overlooked in a case which is so polarising.
I can only use myself as a point of reference as I do know my true feelings and motivation.
If that makes sense?
I think there has been a lot of unnecessary 'labelling' of posters during this debate - possibly because it is so emotive and hackles rise without provocation because a little paranoia DOES set in - especially when the thread is fast moving and we lose track of who's responding to what.(which I why I usually - not always - try to quote the people to whom I am responding).
It's also the reason why it has occasionally taken a left turn into silly humour - to relieve us all from the battering.
It's much better when we can discuss rationally, but it is a polarising topic and it would behove people on both 'sides' (not that there should be 'sides') to keep things calm and try to remember that what may be written in a post may not come across as it was intended. It's difficult to judge when you're not face to face with someone.
I think it is relevant to discuss or at least touch on other cases and sentencing to gain a wider perspective of what happened to the two boys. It also makes for interesting reading, seeing the differences in the experiences, the outcome and the way the media handled each one.
Brutal killing of a two year old + alleged sexual assault of another child. He was 12 at the time
Sentenced as a juvenile for manslaughter. 7 years in a juvenile facility. No life sentence - no need for a 'life licence'. (On further investigation seems that when he is released after age 19, he will be subject to 8 years probation). No-one is claiming the sentence is too leniant.
Again I would reiterate. What happened to Venables and Thompson (full adult proceedings, conviction for murder and a life sentence at age 10) would never have happened in any other civilised country on earth. People always look to the US as some kind of indicator of harsher penalties but for juveniles usually the reverse is true.
The overwhelming public sentiment for this child is sympathy.
What is it about certain crimes that the trial has to be a f***ing circus? Maxine Carr, for example, should never have been tried alongside Ian Huntley as putting them on trial together gave the tabloids an excuse to label them "The new Moors Murderers". As a result, a woman who committed a non-violent crime has to spend the rest of her life in hiding.
Defendants usually have to be tried together in order not to prejudice each other's trial but that can be worked out by simple reporting restrictions.
You are right. Carr should never have been in the dock with Huntley - it was a disgrace. Thompson and Venables should never have found themselves in the dock of a crown court in full view of a panting press pack. It was also a disgrace.
What is it about certain crimes that the trial has to be a f***ing circus? Maxine Carr, for example, should never have been tried alongside Ian Huntley as putting them on trial together gave the tabloids an excuse to label them "The new Moors Murderers". As a result, a woman who committed a non-violent crime has to spend the rest of her life in hiding.
She lied because she believed him to be innocent. She loved him.
It's very easy for others to judge and especially after the fact. But how many of those who did so and still do so would not do the same for their own loved ones if that person vowed that they were innocent and it was a terrible mistake? Your first instinct is to believe that person.
Yes, she was wrong to lie to the police. Absolutely. She deserved to be sentenced for that. She didn't deserve to have her life ruined as a result. She didn't murder the girls. She had no part in it at all.
The tabloid media really do have a massive ego collectively. They believe they are judges, juries and executioners. It's sickening. Both in this case and in T&V's case (although of course, it was the judge in that trial who released the boys' names to them).
She deserved the sentence she got (21 months). No more, no less.
In your opinion of course
she deserved to be held accountable for her actions, I would tend to think 21 months a little harsh but if it is in line with other similar cases, then it's ok I guess.
she deserved to be held accountable for her actions, I would tend to think 21 months a little harsh but if it is in line with other similar cases, then it's ok I guess.
I remember watching the footage of Maxine Carr being told by the police that Huntley was guilty without a shadow of a doubt. Her reaction was real and visceral, it clearly came as a total and terrible shock to her.
It is in line. She pleaded guilty (as did Aitken and he got 18 months but did not obstruct a police investigation). Archer (perjury and perverting the course of justice) didn't plead guilty and got 4 years.
It is in line. She pleaded guilty (as did Aitken and he got 18 months but did not obstruct a police investigation). Archer (perjury and perverting the course of justice) didn't plead guilty and got 4 years.
Well Chris Huhne and his wife got 8 months (he pleaded guilty, she didn't).
Perverting the course of justice is generally treated pretty harshly. On further investigation - looks like 10 months is the average sentence so for a murder investigation where police were led up the wrong path, I'd say 21 months is about right.
There is presumably discretion between perverting the course of justice with respect to a speeding offence & PCOJ with respect to a double murder investigation.
Her offence took place at time the girls were not known to be dead. Thus hampering an investigation in those circumstances I think justifies a longer sentance on the scale.
She was, of course, acquitted of assisting an offender (which was the right outcome). Juries can be sensible (as the Casey Anthony trial clearly showed). Given she pleaded guilty to perverting the course of justice and was only on trial for the offence for which she was acquitted, one wonders if she should ever have faced trial at all.
She was, of course, acquitted of assisting an offender (which was the right outcome). Juries can be sensible (as the Casey Anthony trial clearly showed). Given she pleaded guilty to perverting the course of justice and was only on trial for the offence for which she was acquitted, one wonders if she should ever have faced trial at all.
Whaaaaaaaat????? (BIB) Well another day another thread I guess;)
I know this is irrelevant really but re Maxine Carr - I know a few of her school teachers - they were :eek:- at her involvement. I think it was pretty clear that she'd hooked up with the wrong guy and it all went so horribly wrong. There really was nothing to indicate that she was anything like the press made her out to be. They portrayed her as an evil witch/hard nosed character. Nothing could be further from the truth. She was/is a very gullible person I believe.
Blame stupid Florida prosecutors for charging her with a crime they were never going to be able to prove in the absence of any evidence.
The first day of that trial, they admitted they couldn't even tell the jury how the child died, yet persisted in proceeding with first degree murder charges.
The charge should have been negligent manslaughter.
Blame stupid Florida prosecutors for charging her with a crime they were never going to be able to prove in the absence of any evidence.
The first day of that trial, they admitted they couldn't even tell the jury how the child died, yet persisted in proceeding with first degree murder charges.
The charge should have been negligent manslaughter.
I think the jury were also given the option of manslaughter. The first degree murder charge was ridiculous though.
Yes, they were but the prosecution never bothered to properly argue the case or find necessary evidence. They were so convinced that the jury would simply be swayed by public outrage. They only prepared a case for capital murder (and even said they were going to seek the death penalty IIRC).
Yes, they were but the prosecution never bothered to properly argue the case or find necessary evidence. They were so convinced that the jury would simply be swayed by public outrage. They only prepared a case for capital murder (and even said they were going to seek the death penalty IIRC).
That's the danger of elected prosecutors. They can end up like Michael Howard, playing to the gallery.
The first day of that trial it was very obvious that jury was never going find that young woman guilty of murder. As time went on, the prosecution started to look like lambs to the slaughter. Badly prepared, no solid evidence, no motive, no cause of death, no case.
Comments
And on the other hand, people who think that T&V were punished and that rehabilitation at least given a go are lumped in as sympathisers.
Or people who think that DF is being badly advised with regard the media and her position as a go to rent-a-quote are marked as unsympathetic.
Like you say, though, the nuances seem to be overlooked in a case which is so polarising.
absolutely,
I can only use myself as a point of reference as I do know my true feelings and motivation.
If that makes sense?
I think there has been a lot of unnecessary 'labelling' of posters during this debate - possibly because it is so emotive and hackles rise without provocation because a little paranoia DOES set in - especially when the thread is fast moving and we lose track of who's responding to what.(which I why I usually - not always - try to quote the people to whom I am responding).
It's also the reason why it has occasionally taken a left turn into silly humour - to relieve us all from the battering.
It's much better when we can discuss rationally, but it is a polarising topic and it would behove people on both 'sides' (not that there should be 'sides') to keep things calm and try to remember that what may be written in a post may not come across as it was intended. It's difficult to judge when you're not face to face with someone.
I think it is relevant to discuss or at least touch on other cases and sentencing to gain a wider perspective of what happened to the two boys. It also makes for interesting reading, seeing the differences in the experiences, the outcome and the way the media handled each one.
http://americablog.com/2013/02/cristian-fernandez-plea-bargain-deal.html
Brutal killing of a two year old + alleged sexual assault of another child. He was 12 at the time
Sentenced as a juvenile for manslaughter. 7 years in a juvenile facility. No life sentence - no need for a 'life licence'. (On further investigation seems that when he is released after age 19, he will be subject to 8 years probation). No-one is claiming the sentence is too leniant.
Again I would reiterate. What happened to Venables and Thompson (full adult proceedings, conviction for murder and a life sentence at age 10) would never have happened in any other civilised country on earth. People always look to the US as some kind of indicator of harsher penalties but for juveniles usually the reverse is true.
The overwhelming public sentiment for this child is sympathy.
You are right. Carr should never have been in the dock with Huntley - it was a disgrace. Thompson and Venables should never have found themselves in the dock of a crown court in full view of a panting press pack. It was also a disgrace.
She lied because she believed him to be innocent. She loved him.
It's very easy for others to judge and especially after the fact. But how many of those who did so and still do so would not do the same for their own loved ones if that person vowed that they were innocent and it was a terrible mistake? Your first instinct is to believe that person.
Yes, she was wrong to lie to the police. Absolutely. She deserved to be sentenced for that. She didn't deserve to have her life ruined as a result. She didn't murder the girls. She had no part in it at all.
The tabloid media really do have a massive ego collectively. They believe they are judges, juries and executioners. It's sickening. Both in this case and in T&V's case (although of course, it was the judge in that trial who released the boys' names to them).
In your opinion of course
she deserved to be held accountable for her actions, I would tend to think 21 months a little harsh but if it is in line with other similar cases, then it's ok I guess.
I have to agree there.
none at the other end of the scale?
Perverting the course of justice is generally treated pretty harshly. On further investigation - looks like 10 months is the average sentence so for a murder investigation where police were led up the wrong path, I'd say 21 months is about right.
Her offence took place at time the girls were not known to be dead. Thus hampering an investigation in those circumstances I think justifies a longer sentance on the scale.
Whaaaaaaaat????? (BIB) Well another day another thread I guess;)
I know this is irrelevant really but re Maxine Carr - I know a few of her school teachers - they were :eek:- at her involvement. I think it was pretty clear that she'd hooked up with the wrong guy and it all went so horribly wrong. There really was nothing to indicate that she was anything like the press made her out to be. They portrayed her as an evil witch/hard nosed character. Nothing could be further from the truth. She was/is a very gullible person I believe.
The first day of that trial, they admitted they couldn't even tell the jury how the child died, yet persisted in proceeding with first degree murder charges.
The charge should have been negligent manslaughter.
I think the jury were also given the option of manslaughter. The first degree murder charge was ridiculous though.
That's the danger of elected prosecutors. They can end up like Michael Howard, playing to the gallery.
According to Wiki, her sentence was 42 months and she served half of it, so it is not really comparable to other sentences, and does seem very harsh.