Now This What You Call A Sentence

[retrocop]

https://metro.co.uk/2019/07/12/serial-pedophile-gets-615-years-jail-sexually-abusing-five-girls-10223376/?ico=pushly-notifcation-small&utm_source=pushly
They certainly do things 'big' in the US of A. We have Parole Boards who let our disgusting filth out after Nine years. :-(

[tamaris]

Thatll stop him

[Gromit]

What is it with the muzzies and paedophilia ? And why did the article not mention his disgusting mudslim faith. It is all part of the worldwide conspiracy to absolve the religion of peas.

[retrocop]

//What is it with the muzzies and paedophilia ? And why did the article not mention his disgusting mudslim faith//

Sorry Gromit, you have lost me there. I can't see any mention or indication that he is a follower of Islam. I assume by using the word muzzies you are referring to Moslems and not Mosquitos?

[Old_Geezer]

When you hear that the US has set sentences such as 615 years then you tend to think that they've lost the plot. Good luck with the last 500 years plus.

[New Judge]

Yes I'm with OG.

It seems as though no thought goes into sentencing when such ludicrous terms are announced and does tend to bring the system into disrepute in every bit the same way as preposterously light sentences do.

[retrocop]

I would sooner see the former given to our paedophiles than the latter NJ

[New Judge]

Yes, me too, retro. But don't you think sentencing anybody to more than, say, 99 years is a bit silly?

[hereIam]

He'll only serve half of it though !

[aelmpvw]

nearly as silly as our system of giving life sentences that aren't life sentences

[sandyRoe]

With sentences like these where is the motivation for repentance and redemption?

[agchristie]

I'd be interested to know if by setting such ridiculously high tariffs does it act as a deterrent in the US?

I suppose it will vary from state to state...

[douglas9401]

The judge is just heading the lawyers at the pass.

Able to offer a one third reduction in sentence while satisfying everyone else.

[ToraToraTora]

great, why should longevity be of any relevance? Stop all this concurrent bowlocks that we do and dish out proper sentences.

[ToraToraTora]

he'll only do 308 years anyway.

[jourdain2]

Well, at least he won't be free to offend again.

[ludwig]

// Yes, me too, retro. But don't you think sentencing anybody to more than, say, 99 years is a bit silly? //

No, I disagree. They do things correctly in the states. They look at the crimes, impose a sentence for each and add them together. If that turns out to be 10 years, fine. If it turns out to be 725 years with the possibility of parole after 400 years, also fine.

It's a way of ensuring that life means life for the most dangerous scumbags, and that they're not let out after a few years to offend again as they are in this country.

The court is not a scientific body, it's not it's business to make any assumption about human life expectancy. It should simply impose a sentence for the crimes committed, whatever that amounts to.