great news to hear you have some closure on it. I agree the sentencing is poor for the seriousness of the crimes. Just remember AndrewT that when they are out, no doubt they will continue in their way's & it could be your house they call on next!I don't reckon 35 years would of been too bad, besides do we want people like that loose in our society
It must of been an horrendous experience for the family of JDC & probably for many others in the past. Wish JDC & his family a peaceful christmas a happy new year & a relaxed 2009
|
Great news to hear that they were convicted and sentenced, and I hope the new helps jdc+family to enjoy theur christmas all the more knowing that those swine are safely locked away.
I'm surprised, though, to see people suggesting that 11 years is a lenient sentence. That's a long stretch to be locked up for, and will give the hoodlums a lot of time to reflect on whether crime pays.
|
I'm surprised though to see people suggesting that 11 years is a lenient sentence. That's a long stretch to be locked up for
It would be if they were going to do the full stretch!
|
|
|
I'm surprised though to see people suggesting that 11 years is a lenient sentence. That's a long stretch to be locked up for and will give the hoodlums a lot of time to reflect on whether crime pays.
Sorry NW, I don't agree. They will automatically only serve half that, so that means they've got 5.5 years (quite why it isn't called 5.5 years in the first place, i really don't know).
Then individual prison governors can release early to free up prison space... and they regularly do. There was an article recently in the DT where an experienced long term Magistrate threw in the towel in a provincial town because he was fed up with locking people up who thoroughly deserved it, then only see them walking around his town again.
Realistically, this lot could easily be out again in 3.5 - 4 years time...and when you consider what even one family went through, let alone the 69 other sets of victims, then that is an absolute disgrace.
The sentencing policy in this country is a complete 100% farce... and sadly it is often the weak, poor, elderly etc in society that feel it the worst, because the rest of us can live in nice areas, up our security, move to the country, etc, etc
|
Sorry NW I don't agree. They will automatically only serve half that
Not true, as I'm sure you know. After 5.5 years they will be eligible to apply for parole, not just automatically released.
so that means they've got 5.5 years (quite why it isn't called 5.5 years in the first place i really don't know).
Calling it 5.5 years would be simply wrong, because it's 11 years with the possibility of parole after 5.5. The parole system is in everyone's interest. The possibility of early release gives prisoners an incentive to behave, which keeps the prisons manageable, and it also gives them an incentive to participate in rehabilitation programs which mean that they will be better equipped to lead a non-criminal life when released.
Realistically this lot could easily be out again in 3.5 - 4 years time...and when you consider what even one family went through let alone the 69 other sets of victims then that is an absolute disgrace.
Trying to take time-on-remand out the equation is silly. Despite the difft label, it's time behind bars.
The sentencing policy in this country is a complete 100% farce... and sadly it is often the weak poor elderly etc in society that feel it the worst because the rest of us can live in nice areas up our security move to the country
Actually, the disgrace is the appallingly low conviction rate of criminals. For deterrent effect, it doesn't matter so much what the sentence is when the police manage to catch so few criminals. The best deterrent would be a vastly improved conviction rates, so that we no longer had a situation of most cri minals knowing that the odds are against them being caught.
But then it's so much easier for police to criticise the courts than for them to improve their own performance.
|
Calling it 5.5 years would be simply wrong because it's 11 years with the possibility of parole after 5.5. The parole system is in everyone's interest. The possibility of early release gives prisoners an incentive to behave which keeps the prisons manageable and it also gives them an incentive to participate in rehabilitation programs which mean that they will be better equipped to lead a non-criminal life when released.
NowWheels. I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this post. Good behaviour n prison now has no effect on Parole. It was deemed against a prisoners 'human rights' to deny parole, regardless of behaviour. The fact is that someone given a 11 year sentence, can be out in three, on a tag. Even when they then break the tag conditions, nothing happens.
Frankly, I don't care if they come out reformed or not. If they're locked up for 11 years, then that's 11 years they're not terrorising someone else.
|
|
|
Calling it 5.5 years would be simply wrong because it's 11 years with the possibility of parole after 5.5.
but NW, the vastly overwhelming majority of prisoners are provided with this opportunity, regardless, in reality, of their crime, their outlook on life and their behaviour inside. It is only the truly, truly evil such as high profile murderers that aren't afforded this, so my point is fairly accurate
The parole system is in everyone's interest. The possibility of early release gives prisoners an incentive to behave which keeps the prisons manageable and it also gives them an incentive to participate in rehabilitation programs which mean that they will be better equipped to lead a non-criminal life when released.
I'd agree with the angle of keeping good order in a prison...but that should be the old sytem, so anyone who misbehaves gets more of a sentence, not let everyone have a half off to start with. As for the comment about rehabilitation...good idea in theory, but hopelessly off the wall in reality...the places are full of scum who don't give two hoots about anyone other than themsleves.. and to think otherwise is naive in the extreme
Trying to take time-on-remand out the equation is silly. Despite the difft label it's time behind bars.
didn't mean that, but mlc has already explained it...they get let out early...far too early
But then it's so much easier for police to criticise the courts than for them to improve their own performance.
An unnecessarily cheap shot. The Old Bill in this country are not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but in comparison to most other countries they do more than o.k. There are many more answers to that comment, but as this is a motoring forum i'll refrain from posting too much detail, other than the court system itself isn't at fault, it's Govt sentencing policy which ties Judges and Magistrates hands badly, (inc weak sentencing options e.g. tagging) and not having enough prison space available..that's the real problem.
|
>> But then it's so much easier for police to criticise the courts than for >> them to improve their own performance. An unnecessarily cheap shot. The Old Bill in this country are not perfect by any stretch of the imagination but in comparison to most other countries they do more than o.k.
Not a cheap shot at all: it's the crux of the problem. The low detection rates are not necessarily the fault of police officers (who have to work the system they are provided with), but the fact remains that these hoodlums committed about 70 offences before being caught. They must be kicking themselves for not having the nous to stop at 69.
It's been fashionable for the last 10 or 15 years or so to focus heavily on sentences, but any deterrent effect of sentences has to be divided by the likelihood of being caught. Consider the extremes: If car theft carried a minimum 20 year sentence, that wouldn't be much of a deterrent if only 1% of them were caught; but if there was a 100% conviction rate, a much lower sentence would deter very well.
Increasing the low conviction rates probably involves an awful lot of factors, but one long-overdue starting point would be to stop driving drug users into crime by criminalising their addiction and the supply of their fixes. We are all paying an appalling price for the failed policy of prohibition, which has created a huge criminal network of supply, and a rash of smaller crimes as addicts seek cash for their fix. No wonder the police are overwhelmed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think you've overcomplicated my meaning.
I understand it to mean 70+ separate counts of armed robbery. What sentence would you expect to get for one count of armed robbery?
or course it's not as simple as multiplying the answer by 70, but really - to me this seems an horrendous crime, and to have repeated it 70 times with no compunction...
I take NWs point that 11 years is a long time in reality, as easily as it may trip of the tongue.
|
Sorry NW, you're wrong about eligbiity. They will be out (assuming it is a determinate sentence, rather than a sentence of imprisonment for public protection with a tariff of 11 years) after 5.5 years less time out on HDC (135 days in this instance due to the length of the original sentence). If they have been on remand for a year while taking it to Trial then they will be out in a little over four years unless they fail a risk assessment (i.e., have not gone through a programme of rehabiitation inside), have a record that would make them "presumed unsuitable" for early release and/or do not have a suitable address that could be monitored on their release.
If a sentence of imprisonment for public protection has been imposed however then the 11-year tarriff is actually equivalent to a 22-year determinate sentence with no guarantee of release at the end of the 11-year period (although remand time is still taken off).
There are powers of recall for non-compliance with Probation conditions that can easily lead to them spending the whole of the eleven years inside less a brief period during which they may show themselves still to be unreformed. If they were sentenced only to 5.5 years and released after the whole sentence, the state would have no power to punish them for anything other than a new criminal offence, which might be so minor as not to merit custody. Non-compliance with Probation conditions would not itself be a crime and therefore there would be no custodial sanction.
|
|
|
|
|
