So Why Is This Lowlife Not Spending Longer In Hmhc?

[ToraToraTora]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-37726225
murder in all but name but this pond life will be able to resume his sorry existence less than 4 years, sadly his victim will not.

[jno]

for a start, because he pleaded guilty.

[Mamyalynne]

As the family rightly state, no length of time would ever be enough.

They have the legacy forever.

[ToraToraTora]

jno, ah so that's alright then! PMSL!

[youngmafbog]

jno would let all the little snowflakes out, give them a cup of tea and a stern talking to (maybe but not if the talking to upset the perpetrator)

Sums up all that is wrong with our justice system.

[Mamyalynne]

In fairness Jno was quoting the article linked to.

[andy-hughes]

TTT - //jno, ah so that's alright then! PMSL! //

jno is not saying that it's 'alright then' - but simply stating a fact - the defendant got a lesser sentence because he pleased guilty, which is common practice.

Everyone can completely sympathise with the dreadful tragedy, and the loss to the family, but railing against it on here really doesn't change anything.

[andy-hughes]

ymb - //jno would let all the little snowflakes out, give them a cup of tea and a stern talking to (maybe but not if the talking to upset the perpetrator)

Sums up all that is wrong with our justice system. //

I refer you to my post above - having an unjustified pop at another AB'er solves nothing.

[hc4361]

It is not murder by the legal definition. If you choose to think of it as murder you are wrong.

[jno]

you asked why he wasn't spending longer behind bars. I answered you. (It's in your own link so you could have found it out yourself.) I've expressed no opinion on how long the sentence should be.

If it was really another question you wanted an answer to, ask it.

Reading the report, it's possible the fact that the victim wasn't wearing a seatbelt might have been a factor too, since they're required by law; but I don't know if the court would see this as a reason to mitigate the sentence.

[youngmafbog]

No, surely the question is why the law allows such a paltry sentence. i.e the OP, and myslef consider the law to be wrong and dont understand how it is like that.

Just saying 'because he pleaded guilty' means nothing.

[andy-hughes]

TTT - you are getting really agitated, for no good reason.

No-one knows why the sentencing structure of this country is measured the way it is - if you really want an answer to your question, write to the judge for this case.

Attacking AB'ers because of some futile anger of your own is really not helping anyone anywhere.

[andy-hughes]

YMB - //No, surely the question is why the law allows such a paltry sentence. i.e the OP, and myslef consider the law to be wrong and dont understand how it is like that. //

Then as advised to TTT - write to the judge, no-one on here can answer that question.

// Just saying 'because he pleaded guilty' means nothing. //

No it doesn't mean nothing - it means exactly what it says.

The judge elected to give a lesser sentence because the defendant pleased guilty - that is standard legal practice in this country.

Because you don't like it as a statement of fact does not mean that it ceases to be a statement of fact.

[jno]

//'because he pleaded guilty' means nothing.//

not so, it means he got almost a third off his sentence. This is presumably to save court time, save the CPS the trouble of presenting a full hearing, and leave a few lawyers with less money in their pockets.

Is this all worth it? Given the cost of running the justice system these days I suspect it is, but I can perfectly well understand anyone disagreeing. We, the taxpayers, have to fund all this, plus the costs of any extra time spent in jail by those who plead not guilty and lose.

[hc4361]

The family says they are happy with the sentence. The defendant pleading guilty has saved the family from more heartache.

[ToraToraTora]

well I'm pleased you are all happy.

[Zacs-Master]

I don't think there's any happiness just an reasoned explanation of the facts, which doesn't equate to being any more pleased with the situation than you are.

[andy-hughes]

TTT - //Question Author

well I'm pleased you are all happy. //

I think you are deliberately failing to see what is in front of you because you feel so upset about this case, and the sentence.

No-one is 'happy' about the sentence - no-one has expressed any opinion about it all. I, and others, are naturally distanced and objective because we know nothing of the people involved.

Maybe you should try a step back as well?

[andy-hughes]

Zacs and I have cross-posted, but it demonstrates an agreement about your posts and the rest.