Inappropiate sentencing

[jambutty]

Originally Posted by jaysay

Must agree panther, mind you I've always thought that in cases like this the terrif should be set by a panel of mothers with young children, I think then scum like this would get their just desserts

Sadly the tariffs are set by the government and it seems to be in a world of its own so the blame lies fairly and squarely with it.

So lobby your MP to get things changed as well as making your views know on here.

[jambutty]

Originally Posted by katex

Of course Jambutty, and that is the way the law should operate. Just wondered what defence was put up here. Must have been particularly difficult to put up any kind. They surely must be completely off their trolley that's the only defence I can think of at this moment after reading that report ... heartbreaking case. Difficult to get the images out of your head of how this 3-year old must have suffered, isn't it.

I agree I just cannot imagine what sort of a defence was put forward, except possibly insanity.

Not being a learned lawyer I cannot see why the prosecution didn’t go for murder but I suppose that as the women pleaded guilty to manslaughter and the guy to child cruelty it was seen to be easier to get a conviction on those charges than to go for murder.

With the tariff for manslaughter and child cruelty being less than the one for murder the judge’s hands were tied. I suspect that they got the maximum allowed in law.

It makes you wonder how Ronald Biggs got 30 years just for robbing a mail train and GBH to the driver. But it was a Royal Mail train and thus the crime was against the crown and the public had to shown that you cross the monarchy at your peril.

At least the little girl is not suffering any more.

[derekgas]

Cases like this should not be defended, when it is so black and white, the charge should be murder, with no easy option to get an easier prosecution with a lighter sentence, many cases do require defence lawyers, but this one, in my opinion did not, killing a child is to me a far more serious crime than upsetting the monarchy.

[jambutty]

Originally Posted by derekgas

Cases like this should not be defended, when it is so black and white, the charge should be murder, with no easy option to get an easier prosecution with a lighter sentence, many cases do require defence lawyers, but this one, in my opinion did not, killing a child is to me a far more serious crime than upsetting the monarchy.

Do you advocate vigilantism?

It is black and white now that we’ve had access to the evidence and it may have seemed to be black and white when the police first made the discovery but we don’t live in a police state – yet.

The Judge Dreadd scenario only exists in comic books and films – so far.

[Wynonie Harris]

Originally Posted by derekgas

Cases like this should not be defended, when it is so black and white, the charge should be murder, with no easy option to get an easier prosecution with a lighter sentence, many cases do require defence lawyers, but this one, in my opinion did not, killing a child is to me a far more serious crime than upsetting the monarchy.

But who decides what's a "black and white case" and whether or not someone deserves a defence? Better to give everyone a fair trial with a defence and if they're found guilty, smash down on them like a ton of bricks - a real life sentence in a hard labour camp for these two.

Unfortunately, the present government hasn't the guts to implement anything like that and the opposition hasn't the guts to include anything like that in their manifesto...and not one member of the Labour, Tory or Lib Dem parties can come on here and justify this stance.