Minimum Jail Terms

  Sic 15:20 12 Jan 2007

Just read this story on the BBC: click here

I am shocked at the 7 year jail term, the guy had just finnished a supervision order 6 weeks earlier for a previous rape where he broke into a couples home with a ski mask and a pump action shotgun and beat and tied the husband up and then raped his wife.

Now staright ot of prison he rapes a 15 yr old girl over a 12 hour period and gets 7 years in prison.

Seriously, what is wrong with our legal system and more importantly how do we fix it?

  Jackcoms 16:05 12 Jan 2007

"what is wrong with our legal system and more importantly how do we fix it?"


If you are convicted by a jury of ANY crime, the punishment is death.

This solves several problems:

It gets the criminals off our streets and out of the overcrowded prisons and we (the taxpayers) don't have to pay to feed and clothe these low-lifes.

It also ensures that the criminals won't be around to repeat their crimes/s.

The only downside to this, of course, is that it will put a few thousand prison warders out of work.

  Sic 16:09 12 Jan 2007

I can see a couple other problems

  rezeeg 16:19 12 Jan 2007

With his history 7 years is derisory. Life unless he agrees to 7 years + castration.

  Sic 16:30 12 Jan 2007

yes there is a difference, this way he will serve 7 years instead of about 3!! That makes it ok then, seven years??!!!

Seriously, am i out of step with normal people in thinking this guy should serve 25 years minimum??

  Monoux 16:46 12 Jan 2007

SIC - According to the article Five Years for burglary 12 for rape and within 6 weeks of being released he's done it again. 25 years is NOT enough, for serial offenders like him life should mean life not some namby pamby 7 years so he can be released to do it again and ruin yet another persons life.

  namtas 17:12 12 Jan 2007

I am struggling to try to understand how anyone can offer such an useless solution to the problem.

  Jackcoms 17:49 12 Jan 2007

So you think it's "useless" to punish criminals, do you?

  DrScott 18:48 12 Jan 2007

this is a solution put forward and argued against in Crime & Punishment.

If the punishment for any crime is death, then when a criminal steals an apple from a grocery store and is seen to commit the crime, instead of just running away, the crook may as well kill the vendor as the punishment for both crimes is equally death. By killing the vendor the apple stealer is more likely to get away without being caught and subsequently executed.

The net result is that by condemning all to death, you just end up with a much higher homicide count. That is why your suggestion is useless :)

  knockin on 18:52 12 Jan 2007

As I understand it, the sentence is life. As usual this means that parole may be given after a period of time -IF approved.
Because he pleaded guilty, the law indicates that, in this case, parole MAYBE granted after a MINIMUM of seven years.
The judge has recommended that, as this man is unlikely to cease being a threat to society, that this should be taken into account if or when he is considered for parole.
It is not quite as simple as it appears, and doubtful that a satisfactiory solution, which can apply in all cases, is possible.
Certainly this man must not be allowed to threaten the public again, and the judges directive makes that clear to future parole boards

  Jackcoms 19:04 12 Jan 2007

"when a criminal steals an apple from a grocery store and is seen to commit the crime"

But since when has the theft of an apple been the subject of trial by jury? Read my post again.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

Best phone camera 2017

Stunning new film posters by Hattie Stewart, Joe Cruz & more

iPad Pro 10.5in (2017) review

28 astuces pour profiter au mieux de votre iPhone