Stive Pesley Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 1 hour ago, EssendonRam said: I'm not one of those habitual L&O people who endlessly call for longer and longer penalties but you have concede that 8 years (or 10 including the period he was on remand) is simply manifestly inadequate for 19 rape offences. That equates to just over 5 months per rape (6 if you include remand). Even if not all 19 offences were not rapes, it is still manifestly inadequate. That;s without considering the 100 or so women who've come forward since. Why on earth didn't the Crown appeal? Did you read the Secret Lawyer link I posted above? That answers some of your questions to a degree. What I don;t get from that article is this bit Quote the judge considered that the appropriate determinate sentence for an offence of this type would have been sixteen years. All prisoners serving determinate sentences are automatically released at the halfway stage Without stating the obvious, if that is an automatic right, then doesn't that make a mockery of sentences/tarrifs? Surely 16 years should mean 16 years? Is it purely to do with alleviating over-crowding in prisons? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GboroRam Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 4 minutes ago, StivePesley said: Did you read the Secret Lawyer link I posted above? That answers some of your questions to a degree. What I don;t get from that article is this bit Without stating the obvious, if that is an automatic right, then doesn't that make a mockery of sentences/tarrifs? Surely 16 years should mean 16 years? Is it purely to do with alleviating over-crowding in prisons? Half of the sentence is served in prison and half on license. Jail does not necessarily mean prison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stive Pesley Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 23 minutes ago, GboroRam said: Half of the sentence is served in prison and half on license. Jail does not necessarily mean prison. Ah right - makes sense. I did see it mentioned in a different news piece that he was out on license, but the Secret Lawyer article didn't make it clear. Are you speaking from experience Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PistoldPete2 Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 1 hour ago, GboroRam said: Half of the sentence is served in prison and half on license. Jail does not necessarily mean prison. oh I didnt know that jail doesnt mean prison.. learn something new every day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GboroRam Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 1 minute ago, PistoldPete2 said: oh I didnt know that jail doesnt mean prison.. learn something new every day. I suppose I mean a jail sentence doesn't necessarily mean imprisonment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sith Happens Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 2 minutes ago, GboroRam said: I suppose I mean a jail sentence doesn't necessarily mean imprisonment. Yeah ask Lionel messi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EssendonRam Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 8 hours ago, StivePesley said: Did you read the Secret Lawyer link I posted above? That answers some of your questions to a degree. What I don;t get from that article is this bit Without stating the obvious, if that is an automatic right, then doesn't that make a mockery of sentences/tarrifs? Surely 16 years should mean 16 years? Is it purely to do with alleviating over-crowding in prisons? I didn't TBH but I'll go back and read it. In Australia, we have state-based parole boards who can consider a prisoner for parole once he or she's completed the non-parole period of the sentence. Upon conviction, the judge assesses the sentence and, in most cases, nominates part of the sentence as the non-parole period. (Prisoners can earn remissions off both the full sentence and the non-parole period for good behaviour.) But there's no set formula for calculating the non-parole period, let alone an "entitlement" to a 50% remission. Part of me says that any such entitlement should not be overly problematic since judges are aware of the non-custodial component of the sentence and can take it into account' but I'm bewildered by the length of this guy's penalty. Even if his full sentence was 16 years, it still equates to 10 months to a year per rape. Manifestly inadequate. In Victoria (the state in which I live), we've had to tighten up the operation of our parole laws in recent years largely as a result of the rape and murder of an Irish women, Jill Meagher, by a serial rapist and sex offender who was on parole having served 22 months of a 5 year sentence and whose parole ought to have been revoked after he breached the conditions of his parole by assaulting another man. I've attached a link below to a summary of the circumstances of that case if anyone's interested. I'm not suggesting that the offender in this case is similarly unreformed - I wouldn't know - but it does highlight the risks of treating serial sex offenders lightly. Politicians, judges and bureaucrats here in Victoria were forced to offer their mea culpas in acknowledging that, ultimately, a young woman paid a terrible price because "the system" failed in several ways and no-one sat back and asked themselves if common sense, let alone justice, had been properly served. Violent-past-of-jill-meagher-killer-adrian-bayley-revealed www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-11/violent-past-of-jill-meagher-killer-adrian-bayley-revealed/4745406 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sith Happens Posted January 6, 2018 Share Posted January 6, 2018 Apparently the reason he wasnt charged with further offences is because the CPS felt the term he had been sentenced to was adequate and extra charges were not in the public interest. More women came forward after his conviction but they chose not to do anything about it. Its said that Prosecutors also slimmed down the charge sheet so they would not “overload” the jury. The CPS said his conviction “properly reflected his criminality and enabled a Trial Judge to impose a sentence which adequately protected the public” Sounds like gross incompetence to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PistoldPete2 Posted January 7, 2018 Share Posted January 7, 2018 23 hours ago, Paul71 said: Apparently the reason he wasnt charged with further offences is because the CPS felt the term he had been sentenced to was adequate and extra charges were not in the public interest. More women came forward after his conviction but they chose not to do anything about it. Its said that Prosecutors also slimmed down the charge sheet so they would not “overload” the jury. The CPS said his conviction “properly reflected his criminality and enabled a Trial Judge to impose a sentence which adequately protected the public” Sounds like gross incompetence to me. Agreed ... also incompetence by the police meant he wasn’t tried for many of the alleged offences. And what also gets my goat is the parole people saying they are sorry that the victims weren’t told about his release before it happened. As if that was the only thing they got wrong! What about the fact that he was granted parole at all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimRam Posted January 7, 2018 Share Posted January 7, 2018 Stand in a bank shouting "Give me all the money" and you will probably get twice that guys sentence ffs. On another ffs, how do you determine if a sex offender won't reoffend? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sith Happens Posted January 7, 2018 Share Posted January 7, 2018 4 minutes ago, TimRam said: Stand in a bank shouting "Give me all the money" and you will probably get twice that guys sentence ffs. On another ffs, how do you determine if a sex offender won't reoffend? Thats my thinking. Maybe as has been said earlier he has volunteered for chemical castration. If not, i still dont see why they cant force him to have it, its not permanent if they ever feel he is no danger whatsover. Its doesnt eliminate all sexual desire but it does reduce it significantly, surely thats got to be something to consider with clearly dangerous men like him and jon venables. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PistoldPete2 Posted January 7, 2018 Share Posted January 7, 2018 2 hours ago, TimRam said: Stand in a bank shouting "Give me all the money" and you will probably get twice that guys sentence ffs. On another ffs, how do you determine if a sex offender won't reoffend? Well yes, he wont have raped any women in a male prison, but that doesnt mena he wont re-offend. In any case surely the 100 offece she has committed should be enough to send him down for life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.