Lawence Killers Sentence

[AB Editor]

 

This poll is closed.

Is it fair to trial the Stephen Lawrence killers as juveniles (and therefore serve a reduced sentence)?

• Yes, the law is the law. - 60 votes
• 37%
• Yes, but the law is an ass. - 59 votes
• 36%
• No. - 43 votes
• 27%

See final stats

Stats until: 18:27 Sat 21st Dec 2024 (Refreshed every 5 minutes)

© AnswerBank Ltd 2000 - 2024. All Rights Reserved.

[rockyracoon]

Out of interest, what do you think an adult sentence would have been?

[ludwig]

It's unlikely the others will be convicted, because it will only come from one of these two 'grassing them up'. There's no forensic evidence, and no new witnesses are going to come forward after this time.

The problem is that having lied for so long, the convicted two are not really credible witnesses, and would only be doing the grassing to get reduced sentences. A decent defence should be able to easily use these facts to get the others off if it came to court.

[ludwig]

Philtaz - that's good news. thanks.

[flip_flop]

And there it is - it took nigh on 40 posts for the Nazis to be mentioned.

[venator]

How about a bit of Shariah law?

Hand them over to the victim's family...saw their heads off with rusty penknives?

Give it time ...

[rockyracoon]

On the news last night the police were asking for witnesses to come forward that were in the shape of girl/friends etc who would feel they had no loyalty now. Maybe ex who hasn't been paid child maintenance or is aggrieved for whatever reason might now do the right thing.

[ummmm]

15 years....

[jno]

if they're aggrieved that would count against the credibility of their testimony. Likewise having kept silent for 18 years would count against them, as would the fact they weren't there anyway. In the absence of hard evidence like blood and hair, I wouldn't expect any further prosecutions.

[catsrcool]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16403655

[New Judge]

As I said in another answer, they will be (and have been) sentenced as under-18s. They also did not get as much added on for the racially aggravated aspect of the offence as the sentencing guidelines were different in 1993.

It is correct that they have been sentenced according to the circumstances that prevailed when the offence was committed. Also prevailing at that time was the fact that individuals could not be tried twice for the same offence. One of the individuals had already been acquitted of the murder. But that fact seems to have somehow bypassed the usual principle that law changes cannot be applied retrospectively.

[lcg]

it might be correct that they are sentenced as juveniles, but it isn't morally right. as they evaded justice for so long and caused such distress and hurt, shown no remorse or regret, they should be facing current sentencing guidelines as it is an exceptional case. they are scum. plain and simple. jail for life is too good for them and will cost honest, decent people far too much money to keep.

i also understand the eye for an eye perspective as cases like this provoke such anger and disgust of the utter trash that this gang represent. it's also a shame that more roam our streets and mug/murder/carry knives/steal/swindle/beat/bully and screw others throughout their pathetic lives and use the pc/red tape driven approach to justice and wider society to hide behind. again, decent honest people lose out and pay the price of the counter culture that breeds within our country. druggies, benefit cheats/breeders, alcoholics, persistent criminals, racists, rubbish parents and blatant disregard for others and worth in society is ruining britain. the government should be doing more about that!

[EDDIE51]

It was this crime that has led to the change in UK law so that now a 'racially motivated murder' has a minimum tariff of 30 years.(the longest for any crime!)
However the law can not be applied retrospectively so they will be sentenced as if they were found guilty at the time the crime was committed.
Those who say they should be stabbed to death and allowed to die slowly and painfully should also be prepared to stand up for their beliefs and administer the sentence. This in my opinion make them no better than murders themselves.
As to Sharia law , that would have allowed the perpetrators to pay 'blood money ' to the victims family instead of facing trial for the crime . Under Sharia law a rich person could ,and often will, get away with murder by paying blood money instead of punishment. Remember the story of the Saudi prince who murdered his servant last year ?
Under Sharia law rape is always the fault of the woman and women can and have been stoned to death for the 'crime' of being raped , it is called 'forced adultery' So how about Sharia law now ?

[venator]

EDDIE51 - I don't think anyone could easily have taken my suggestion as serious - shouldn't "rusty penknives" have suggested something?

Still, do you think the Lawrence family would have accepted blood money?
No way!

[EDDIE51]

It was more intended as a 'protest' against the principle of 'an eye for an eye' in general rather than at you in particular venator.
Under Sharia law as practiced in fundamental Muslim countries, if the perpetrator is sufficiently wealthy and powerfull ( as in my example of a Saudi Prince) the accptance of 'Blood Money' is forced on the victims family, and the crime is hushed up.

[humbersloop]

Could we just row back a minute here please?

This was a vile crime, committed by vile people, mindless of consequence. As a result a family lost a child and have, after incredible tenacity, at great cost to themselves, secured some highly imperfect restitution for his death, although only as best our system currently allows.

The judge, to his great credit in my view, still called the Met to book in the course of sentencing, and there are at least three killers still at liberty.

Please leave the eye for an eye/Sharia law/benefit scroungers debates away from this - it's not helpful. Surely instead, thoughts tonight turn to the Lawrence family, what they've been through and that we all have responsibilities to make sure this never happens again.