"unimaginable Cruelty’"...unimaginably Lenient Sentence !’

Avatar Image
bazwillrun | 19:41 Fri 17th Jul 2015 | News
25 Answers

" judge told a sick child abuser who systematically tortured a seven-year-old boy that he was guilty of ‘unimaginable cruelty’ as she jailed him for 11 years."

yup so unimaginable its worth a paltry 11 years...another useless judge that needs to be removed ...

truly horrendous crime and a paltry sentence...out in 6 tops i imagine


1 to 20 of 25rss feed

1 2 Next Last

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by bazwillrun. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Ridiculous sentence
I hope he gets his just punishment in prison. All it needs is someone to nod the wink and he'll be eating his own poo and drinking someone 's sick. No doubt the psychologist will give him an excuse for his behaviour, pat him on the back and give him a flat and put him on disability for the rest of his life when he comes out.
If he ever gets out!
hopefully he will 'commit suicide'
Free barbering to my jail guard clients will see he gets schitt designer cuisine
Early guilty pleas contributed to a lower sentence. Is it the maximum sentence that Her Honour could have given under the circumstances?
No mention of a mother, perhaps she is facing separate charges.

This would probably have escalated to murder if he hadn't have been caught now.

Yes, I think that 11 years is the maximum that could be given in the circumstances.
''another useless judge that needs to be removed''
People do not seem to realise that a judge does not have the power to decide the sentence. He /she MUST go by the guidelines for each offence.
They can go up or down from the guidelines but can not sentence over the maximum permitted or ( except in very unusual situations) go under the minimum sentence.
Thanks Eddie - human nature is such that in these type of crimes a much stiffer sentence is often called for. Judges are therefore much in the firing line, harshly in many cases.
Eddie...I've lost count of the amount of times you've repeated that. Some people simply don't take it on board it seems.
Also read my 'best answer' here.
I can guarantee the cons will be waiting to see which 'nick' gets to house this person. He has a price on his head already, they will be fighting to be first in the queue to 'get him'!

And I think that's more punishment than being able to opt out.

The fear he'll feel on a daily basis might give a small idea of the fear the poor little boy felt. The prisoners that do get to him might give him a small idea of the pain the poor little boy felt.
"He /she MUST go by the guidelines for each offence. "

And that is a major problem. Surely the Judge should have a duty and responsibility to decide each case individually and not by some general guideline.

If the conviction is safe then this bloke should be hanged.
But we don't have hanging in the UK any more - are you saying it should be brought back Orderlimit?
No sentence he got would have made it better for the poor boy. He will be one of the hated inmates, and have to watch his back.

Yes he should have got more, but the judges hand are tied.
For heinous offending yes but i do get the arguments against it.
Hanging is rather barbaric. On the other hand a short, sharp, lethal injection ....
Hanging is certainly barbaric, but lethal injection in the USA is not short or sharp.
Probably at least as barbaric, I think.
The injections my local vet uses to put animals out of their misery are very gentle.
2014 was the worst year in lethal injection history with three different US states botching executions....

1 to 20 of 25rss feed

1 2 Next Last

Do you know the answer?

"unimaginable Cruelty’"...unimaginably Lenient Sentence !’

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.