Rawrrrrrrr Posted November 26, 2008 Share Posted November 26, 2008 What an absolute joke of a sentence. Definitly imo should have been life long detention. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/south_yorkshire/7747711.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sawdust Caesar Posted November 26, 2008 Share Posted November 26, 2008 I agree, the only possible consolation for the family is that he may die naturally before his time is up. Not much of a consolation I know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legend Claws Posted November 26, 2008 Share Posted November 26, 2008 Prancer you are fast becoming JKB's no 1 political comentator! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Say What Again Posted November 26, 2008 Share Posted November 26, 2008 Doesn't that just mean it will be 19 1/2 years before he's eligible for parole? His actual sentence was life x 25 wasn't it? NB: I haven't read the link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cosanostra Posted November 26, 2008 Share Posted November 26, 2008 There was a lawyer on BBC earlier who said that the guy will never get out. Due to European human rights legislation, the judge has to give a minimum time before being eligible for parole so that's what the 19.5 years is for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig R Posted November 26, 2008 Share Posted November 26, 2008 Doesn't that just mean it will be 19 1/2 years before he's eligible for parole? His actual sentence was life x 25 wasn't it? Yep. Can't get much tougher a sentence than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rawrrrrrrr Posted November 26, 2008 Author Share Posted November 26, 2008 In 19 1/2 years he will be in his late 70's, Joseph Fritzl was well into his 70's and still subjecting his family to hell. Whilst I agree its unlikely he will get out, its not completely infeasible, he will go to jail, behave himself, con the staff into thinking he is reformed, and get out at 76 and still have a good few years ahead of him. For me the judge should have used the life long imprisonment were there was no opportunity for parole at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goose Baxter Posted November 26, 2008 Share Posted November 26, 2008 It's shocking and disgusting that someone could even do such a thing! What kind off sick mind do you ave to do such a thing. I think they should cut the feckers thing off as part of the punishment as well. I hope he get the **** kicked out off him everyday that he is in prison for the rest off his life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I P Knightley Posted November 26, 2008 Share Posted November 26, 2008 Is this the Easily Offended bus? Unfortunately, the UK courts can only go so far in administering justice. In a case like this, everyone knows what the guy deserves (and I think that 25 life sentences means that he won't taste freedom again) but we have to make do with what appears to be lenient. Don't forget that it'll cost the tax payer a hefty whack to keep him banged up with the latest DVDs & PlayStations etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses Posted November 26, 2008 Share Posted November 26, 2008 Doesn't that just mean it will be 19 1/2 years before he's eligible for parole? His actual sentence was life x 25 wasn't it? I guess that'd be 1,750 years, with 1,730.5 years off for good behaviour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Doctor Posted November 26, 2008 Share Posted November 26, 2008 Doesn't that just mean it will be 19 1/2 years before he's eligible for parole? His actual sentence was life x 25 wasn't it? NB: I haven't read the link Correct. In cases like this I always wonder just how much time a convicted man should serve before it makes up for the abhorrent nature of the crime. How long would be long enough? Would 30 or 40 years make it ok? Of course not, no length of sentence could ever make up for the crimes he committed and the apparent lack of remorse, but one of the things justice is supposed to achieve is to redress the balance of wrongdoing. Sometimes it's just impossible. If he even gets to the parole board in 2027 they will certainly take into account his lack of remorse today and his refusal to leave his cell to appear in court for sentencing as well as the nature of the crimes over such a prolonged period. He could be the nicest guy in world for the next 19.5 years and he'll still be going nowhere, but I suspect he is incapable of displaying any kind of human decency. Don't worry, he's going nowhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Comedian Posted November 26, 2008 Share Posted November 26, 2008 Why should this guy live? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Doctor Posted November 26, 2008 Share Posted November 26, 2008 Why should this guy live? No reason. But that's not at all the same as saying we should kill him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Comedian Posted November 26, 2008 Share Posted November 26, 2008 No reason. But that's not at all the same as saying we should kill him. Deterrent, punishment, cheaper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chip Douglas Posted November 26, 2008 Share Posted November 26, 2008 What an absolute joke of a sentence. Definitly imo should have been life long detention. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/south_yorkshire/7747711.stm Why don't you apply for a job with the Scottish Law Commission and let everyone else get on with talking pash in the Shed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Say What Again Posted November 26, 2008 Share Posted November 26, 2008 Prancer you are fast becoming JKB's no 1 political comentator! Glad to see it isn't interfering with his current job as JKB's no 1 ***** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Doctor Posted November 26, 2008 Share Posted November 26, 2008 Deterrent, punishment, cheaper. I don't think it would be any of these things. Countries with the death penalty typically have the highest murder rates, even in the US, states with the death penalty have higher murder rates. The fact is if you run the risk of the death penalty you're more likely to kill to your victim, leaving no witness. It's no deterrent. I don't understand how it's a more effective punishment, surely for an animal like this death would a be relief compared to life imprisonment. Prison should not be easy, it should be more of an ultimate sanction, harder time than prisoners currently do. The cost of putting someone to death is many times higher than the cost of incarceration, when you have exhausted the appeal process, through several court cases the costs are astronomical. Unless you're casual about the whole process. I don't think you've thought this through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deevers Posted November 27, 2008 Share Posted November 27, 2008 I don't think it would be any of these things. Countries with the death penalty typically have the highest murder rates, even in the US, states with the death penalty have higher murder rates. The fact is if you run the risk of the death penalty you're more likely to kill to your victim, leaving no witness. It's no deterrent. I don't understand how it's a more effective punishment, surely for an animal like this death would a be relief compared to life imprisonment. Prison should not be easy, it should be more of an ultimate sanction, harder time than prisoners currently do. The cost of putting someone to death is many times higher than the cost of incarceration, when you have exhausted the appeal process, through several court cases the costs are astronomical. Unless you're casual about the whole process. I don't think you've thought this through. Problem is the "liberal" thinkers here have made prison an easy option for almost anybody who goes there. Maybe if conditions were spartan, the food basic, and there was absolutely no access to TV's play stations, radios etc ect then people might not see it as just a short but pleasant break in their criminal activities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
felix Posted November 27, 2008 Share Posted November 27, 2008 I don't think it would be any of these things. Countries with the death penalty typically have the highest murder rates, even in the US, states with the death penalty have higher murder rates. The fact is if you run the risk of the death penalty you're more likely to kill to your victim, leaving no witness. It's no deterrent. I don't understand how it's a more effective punishment, surely for an animal like this death would a be relief compared to life imprisonment. Prison should not be easy, it should be more of an ultimate sanction, harder time than prisoners currently do. The cost of putting someone to death is many times higher than the cost of incarceration, when you have exhausted the appeal process, through several court cases the costs are astronomical. Unless you're casual about the whole process. I don't think you've thought this through. Countries with the death penalty don't necessarily have high murder rates, in fact some have very low rates. The cost of death vs cost of incarceration argument relies purely on high legal bills, which really needn't be an issue. I don't think you've thought this through Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted November 27, 2008 Share Posted November 27, 2008 What an absolute joke of a sentence. Definitly imo should have been life long detention. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/south_yorkshire/7747711.stm What an absolute joke of a post! Did you actually read the link you put in the post? You're attention seeking/grasping for a reaction is pitiful. Please stop it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Doctor Posted November 27, 2008 Share Posted November 27, 2008 Countries with the death penalty don't necessarily have high murder rates, in fact some have very low rates. The cost of death vs cost of incarceration argument relies purely on high legal bills, which really needn't be an issue. I don't think you've thought this through Any link between the death penalty and deterrent is tenuous at best, the two countries in the world with the highest murder rates Columbia and South Africa have both abolished the death penalty, the third highest, Jamaica has it. As I said originally, it's no deterrent. In the US the murder rate in states with the death penalty has been 48 to 101 percent higher than in states without the death penalty. (Amnesty International) As I said in my post the alternative to high legal fees, a quick trial and no or even a lessened appeal process is treating the death sentence casually. We couldn't afford not to pay several million for any person we did put to death. This is all precluded by the moral implication of the state taking the life of a human being, let's put aside what the person's done, what the costs are, whether it satisfies justice. Is it right for the elected representatives of us all to decide that someone should die, deliberately, with premeditation? Does this mean that we would all be responsible for that death? I don't want that. I wouldn't be having young men killed in Afghanistan and Iraq either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
felix Posted November 27, 2008 Share Posted November 27, 2008 Any link between the death penalty and deterrent is tenuous at best, the two countries in the world with the highest murder rates Columbia and South Africa have both abolished the death penalty, the third highest, Jamaica has it. As I said originally, it's no deterrent. In the US the murder rate in states with the death penalty has been 48 to 101 percent higher than in states without the death penalty. (Amnesty International) As I said in my post the alternative to high legal fees, a quick trial and no or even a lessened appeal process is treating the death sentence casually. We couldn't afford not to pay several million for any person we did put to death. This is all precluded by the moral implication of the state taking the life of a human being, let's put aside what the person's done, what the costs are, whether it satisfies justice. Is it right for the elected representatives of us all to decide that someone should die, deliberately, with premeditation? Does this mean that we would all be responsible for that death? I don't want that. I wouldn't be having young men killed in Afghanistan and Iraq either. Yes it's right for elected representatives to decide on life or death. Medical life and death decisions are taken every day, legal ones concerning heinous crime, shouldn't be any different. I would have no hesitation in defining crimes punishable by death, in fact it should be fairly easy - multiple murder, repeated rape of minors etc etc.....in these circumstances, I'd argue it's morally wrong to keep cetain persons alive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spud Posted November 27, 2008 Share Posted November 27, 2008 Any link between the death penalty and deterrent is tenuous at best, the two countries in the world with the highest murder rates Columbia and South Africa have both abolished the death penalty I had occasion to drive the ex head of pathology at Wits University, Johannesburg a few years back. South Africa had the death penalty for murder but abolished it around 1996(?). Because of his long career he was able to make interesting comparisons. According to him the actual murder rate never changed, whether the death penalty was available or not. What did change was the weapon of choice and the demography of the victim; from blacks killed with a knife to whites killed with a gun in general. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hate_hibs Posted November 27, 2008 Share Posted November 27, 2008 They should chuck hot burnning fat over him and let him die in pain in his cell. People like him need to have the dick chopped off and put thought torture like they infilcted on there victims.. Sick dirty ******s!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djf Posted November 27, 2008 Share Posted November 27, 2008 Nobody commits a crime thinking they will get caught. Most murders take place in extreme or abnormal circumstances. As such the death penalty is not a detterrant. To fully put someone through the judiciary system to the point of execution in a country as civilised as ours would cost similar to a life time imprisonment. As far as I can see, the only two arguements which may stand up depending on your viewpoint, are punishment and protection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deevers Posted November 27, 2008 Share Posted November 27, 2008 Nobody commits a crime thinking they will get caught. Most murders take place in extreme or abnormal circumstances. As such the death penalty is not a detterrant. To fully put someone through the judiciary system to the point of execution in a country as civilised as ours would cost similar to a life time imprisonment. As far as I can see, the only two arguements which may stand up depending on your viewpoint, are punishment and protection. It certainly makes sure that they don't re-offend though!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PsychocAndy Posted November 27, 2008 Share Posted November 27, 2008 Problem is the "liberal" thinkers here have made prison an easy option for almost anybody who goes there. Maybe if conditions were spartan, the food basic, and there was absolutely no access to TV's play stations, radios etc ect then people might not see it as just a short but pleasant break in their criminal activities. Aye but I'm no taking in lodgers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.