SIGN UP

Why At Least 20 Years??

Avatar Image
ToraToraTora | 10:31 Tue 22nd Jun 2021 | News
38 Answers
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-57561349
What's wrong with at least a 100 years? Damn savage should never see the light of day again. What is wrong with these judges?

Answers

1 to 20 of 38rss feed

1 2 Next Last

Avatar Image
Toradamus is here.
10:40 Tue 22nd Jun 2021
A minimum of 20 years. He might never get out.
Question Author
in 20 years we'll be neck deep in TROB luvvies, they'll let him out if they can. Just don't give the future the chance to let him out.
A ex prison officer won't have it easy.
Some people should be locked up for ever, not just short time.
Toradamus is here.
Blame the sentencing guidelines, Tora, not the judges.
Question Author
gotta hand to you doug!
Question Author
judge, he got life and the judge can, it seems say the minimum, so can he not say a higher minimum than 20?
Yes he can. But the sentencing guidelines provide a framework for judges to work from which suggests a minimum tariff depending on the seriousness of the offence and murder is no different to speeding in that respect. They reflect the seriousness of the offence and the character of the offender. As perverse as it seems (because all the victims are equally dead) the guidelines see some murders as more serious than others.
Question Author
yeah but judge, murder is sort of serious isn't it? what is he getting credit for? Surely he could easily have said 40 years.
NJ this is a stupid stuff thread
you didnt get froo last week, last month ( sozza, munf)
and not today

give up trying

100 y sentence- jesus - why does anyone take this seriously
He pleaded not guilty so (assuming the verdict was correct) he should not be released without a confession as to how & why the killing took place. I don't know how the judge "calculated" 20 years in this case without him/her knowing more details. 30 would have been more appropriate IMV.
//What's wrong with at least a 100 years?//

Everything, he should be swinging.
//100 y sentence- jesus - why does anyone take this seriously//

Such sentences are handed out in the US. It reflects the seriousness of the crime, and you cant get more serious than murder IMHO.

We, the population, were sold the idea of stopping hanging with the promise of life sentences. Life should mean life, otherwise string them up.
// I don't know how the judge "calculated" 20 years in this case without him/her knowing more details//

I do

read NJ's post - sentencing guidelines - judges have much less discretion than the good old say of Judge Melford ( Hang 'em high!) ( Floggem to an inch of their lives!!) (Melly) (Mel Mel) ( Good old Melly!) ( That's the fella! ) Stevenson

why do I prolong these QAnun far right paeons
Good for you PP.

Doesnt make it right though.
OK then, here's a (very) abridged explanation of sentencing guidelines for murder:

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/FINAL-Murder-sentencing-leaflet-for-web.pdf

Don't try to fit it to the individual case in question. We don't know enough about it to do that. But hopefully it will give you some idea of why different sentences are imposed for what is essentially the same crime.
Guidelines need changing then.

Murder someone whole of life in prison or swing.
Those guidelines appear to refer to a case where there was a guilty plea and all the facts are known. I don't see how the judge can apply mitigating factors when he doesn't know what went on.
Ymb, just not enough space or money.

1 to 20 of 38rss feed

1 2 Next Last

Do you know the answer?

Why At Least 20 Years??

Answer Question >>