Body & Soul2 mins ago
Perhaps Sentencing Needs Reviewing....
I refer you to the bottom of the page where this gentleman's 'previous' is discussed
http:// www.bbc .co.uk/ news/uk -englan d-beds- bucks-h erts-24 608144
http://
Answers
I'm not normally in favour of locking people up for ever; but for second offenders, yes. Goodness knows why he was set free to do it a third time.
11:51 Mon 21st Oct 2013
Whatever did the authorities think was beneficial in allowing him out for a day? What, a day out will get him integrated it society (or whatever the correct phrase is) ? So he can visit the graves of his victims ?
Sounds a proper candidate for a full life term (but not, of course, now to be without hope of release, following a European ruling)
Sounds a proper candidate for a full life term (but not, of course, now to be without hope of release, following a European ruling)
Why? Why not instantly? The beast is guilty - so what's the delay?
The delay is for proper consideration of the sentence
Well not the sentence that will be life but for what the tarrif will be
Multiple murders attract a full life tarrif
If judges just sentenced people without proper consideration there would be a lot more scope for expensive unnecessary appeals
The delay is for proper consideration of the sentence
Well not the sentence that will be life but for what the tarrif will be
Multiple murders attract a full life tarrif
If judges just sentenced people without proper consideration there would be a lot more scope for expensive unnecessary appeals
Agree with that Joeluke, they should all be hanged and there should be no Queen's mercy and leniency allowed. Miscarriages of justice in murders is , thankfully, rare. When it happens the deceased's estate, their family, should sue and be compensated for the death, as happens in other cases where someone has been killed because of the negligence of another.
That's fine but it never has happened. One hundred per cent of convicted murderers were not hanged. They escaped by the Queen (the Home Secretary on her behalf) granting leniency or, later, because the murder was not one which attracted the death penalty. Back in the 1930s I believe, no more than two thirds were hanged but, looking back, some of those hanged deserved leniency.
But I am not sure that the death penalty would reduce the number of murderers; that's because murderers don't contemplate the consequences.
That's fine but it never has happened. One hundred per cent of convicted murderers were not hanged. They escaped by the Queen (the Home Secretary on her behalf) granting leniency or, later, because the murder was not one which attracted the death penalty. Back in the 1930s I believe, no more than two thirds were hanged but, looking back, some of those hanged deserved leniency.
But I am not sure that the death penalty would reduce the number of murderers; that's because murderers don't contemplate the consequences.
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.