Two brothers who tortured boys in South Yorkshire granted indefinite anonymity

5 of 5

anais32

11-12-2016

They spent five years locked up for an horrific assault - which could have killed.

This former policeman spent that long for stabbing his wife to death (96 times he stabbed her).

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...IVE-YEARS.html

This racist former soldier only got 5 years for purposefully running down five Asians. (That's 5 years in total so 2.5 years in custody, 2.5 years on licence).

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...soldier-528298

Neither of those two will be on a life licence like these kids.

Any longer and the children would have been moved to harsher penal environments which would have undone any good that had been achieved and made their chances of reoffending greater.

seacam

11-12-2016

Originally Posted by anais32:
“They spent five years locked up for an horrific assault - which could have killed.

This former policeman spent that long for stabbing his wife to death (96 times he stabbed her).

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...IVE-YEARS.html

This racist former soldier only got 5 years for purposefully running down five Asians. (That's 5 years in total so 2.5 years in custody, 2.5 years on licence).

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...soldier-528298

Neither of those two will be on a life licence like these kids.

Any longer and the children would have been moved to harsher penal environments which would have undone any good that had been achieved and made their chances of reoffending greater.”

Yes, it's a no win situation.

WinterLily

11-12-2016

Originally Posted by Cornish_Piskie:
“If the public could be trusted not to take the law into their own hands and inflict violent retribution on offenders who, no matter what their crimes, have been caught, tried and punished according to law, then there would be no need to grant anonymity.

I do not condone, in any way whatsoever, the suffering they inflicted on their victims. Their crimes were heinous and deserving of punitive sentences. But now they are at liberty they themselves are vulnerable to attack, and regardless of the usual inflammatory rhetoric of "scumbags", etc, etc, two wrongs don't make a right and there is no room for vigilante "justice" in our society.

The fact that changes to the identity of former criminals is necessary at all says much about our society. It says that we....the ones who like to call ourselves 'decent, law-abiding citizens'..... might take brutal retribution, itself a violent criminal act. Those who do so are no better than the criminals they purport to despise.

Decent, Law Abiding Citizens let the law take its course.

If anybody feels the law doesn't punish individuals enough, then they can pursue their argument through the democratic and legal system. That's something else that real Decent, Law Abiding Citizens do.

Until that happens, then anonymity for former criminals will be necessary and probably, the courts will grant it in increasing numbers of incidences.”

Very well said.

GusGus

11-12-2016

There was a former headmaster on Breakfast this morning. He has been investigating underage secure accommodation for offenders, and is about to issue his report
Apparently 70% of these offenders reoffend, and he wants to change the system
He proposes secure schools where the inmates would learn basic educations skills such as English and Maths, and be given apprenticeships. He bases this on the Spanish system which he went to investigate
Seems sensible but didn't we used to have "approved schools" and Borstals

anais32

11-12-2016

Originally Posted by GusGus:
“There was a former headmaster on Breakfast this morning. He has been investigating underage secure accommodation for offenders, and is about to issue his report
Apparently 70% of these offenders reoffend, and he wants to change the system
He proposes secure schools where the inmates would learn basic educations skills such as English and Maths, and be given apprenticeships. He bases this on the Spanish system which he went to investigate
Seems sensible but didn't we used to have "approved schools" and Borstals”

Yes. But what he seems to be advocating is something similar to child secure units here. Most young people from age 12 either got to secure training colleges (and we know what they're like from the BBC expose) or juvenile prisons which are absolutely abhorrent places - with that 70% reoffending rate you speak of. Actually we've done a really good job of getting the numbers of children in prison down (there are just under 900 now), If we can't spend a bit of money to deal with these young people properly when we can spend billions on nuclear weapons that will never be used; we'll we are pathetic.

Cheetah666

11-12-2016

Sounds like the right decision, they'd never be left alone by the press otherwise. If child offenders are to be given a second chance then they have to be given a proper chance and allowed to get on with their lives without being hounded forever more about their past.

5 of 5