Posted on 11/03/2013 4:51:02 PM PST by nickcarraway
Well, if it saves one child...
Why is an Orlando TV station reporting on a UK crime? Not enouogh horrors in their own patch??
Original story:
Sickening!
That diversity stuff keeps working.
They are trying to keep even with all the stories the American press doesn't cover and we have to get from the UK.
Britain has returned to the state of civilization it was at when the Romans came.
At least they didn’t use a gun. British are really down on guns.
You would have been out their burning him, or cheering it on, with your bloodlust.
Do you get mad that some people are called Jews, because you think they should all be called Israelis?
Do you know the reason why?
Don’t post that, some here will think the PM is actually doing that. I keep having to tell people here that the UK dosent register kitchen knives or that they haven’t been banned.
Erm, no.
The UK has gone far too soft on crime, but we aren’t that bad.
God knows what that makes your country then, if we are barbarians.
Well, truth be told I was being a bit sarcastic there.
I watch ID Channel often, and I’ve noticed that both England and Australia seem to hand down very light sentences for serious and heinous crimes, and I can’t really understand that.
I mean heinous crimes too, and they’ll get a minimum of 10-13 years, and I just shake my head.
I agree, and so do most Britons.
I watch ID Channel often, and I’ve noticed that both England and Australia seem to hand down very light sentences for serious and heinous crimes, and I can’t really understand that.
I mean heinous crimes too, and they’ll get a minimum of 10-13 years, and I just shake my head.
Let me explain why it happens in Australia - I don't agree with all of it, but there is some logic to it.
Most serious crimes (Murder, rape, armed robbery etc) carry a maximum Life sentence, and that is the sentence that a court will give if they believe there is either no realistic hope of the person being rehabilitated, if the person is likely to be a threat for the rest of their life, or if the crime is so seriously outrageous that no other sentence is appropriate.
Therefore it follows that if a life sentence is not given, it is considered a person has a realistic chance of being rehabilitated, and of not being a danger to someone in the future. So non-life sentences are based on those assumptions.
This means that sentences of above about fifteen years are very rare unless they are life sentences. You are not going to see very many sentences of 20 or 25 years, for example - those people would have got life.
Life does not always mean life. Judges are encouraged to give even most prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment some hope of release for a couple of reasons - and these minimums can be high - 30 or 40 years. It makes them more likely to behave themselves in prison, but also it makes is less likely a future Judge (or government exercising clemency and pardon powers) will take it upon themselves to release somebody. We know from long experience that sometimes after crimes have passed into memory, an appeals court or a politician might say "Did this person really deserve to go to prison for life", and let them out - but are less likely to do so early, if they know that (A) the original Judge specifically considered the possibility this person might one day be eligible for release and said "Not for at least thirty five years" or (B) the Judge at the time had every option to decide the person might one day be eligible for release and Judges normally set some sort of minimum, so if the Judge did not do so in this case - that this is a true "Never to be Released" case, they knew what they were doing.
Most of the time, it actually does seem to work. The times when it doesn't can be tragic, though.
Ah I really appreciate that explanation, that does make sense to me.
The programs that I’ve seen where I’ve noticed these light sentences is “Deadly Women”, and it just floors me how light the sentences are considering some of these crimes.
Like this one girl, this story was made into a movie too starring Guy Pierce as the victim’s father, where this heavier girl was obsessed with a dancer that she baby sat for.
She tricked her and lead her to a violent, violent end for seemingly the purpose of killing her and becoming her. She is out of prison now as far as I know.
But anyway, I will also say that I have seen some crimes committed by these ladies in which they did receive much harsher sentences, like this one particular torture and abuse killing in England, so what you have said has shed some light on why this is, and I really appreciate that!
Thank you kindly ^^
She tricked her and lead her to a violent, violent end for seemingly the purpose of killing her and becoming her. She is out of prison now as far as I know.
Not yet. But she has now served her minimum non-parole period. It's been denied for the moment, and she will be in prison until at least the end of next year.
The is the Rachel Barber case (name of the murdered girl). The murderer's name is Caroline Reed Robertson.
Her sentence was quite light (Twenty years with a minimum non parole period of fourteen years) considering the crime, but that was largely because of her age. Under the law in most of Australia, somebody between the age of 18-21 is a 'Young Offender', and unless there is a compelling reason not to, it's assumed they can be rehabilitated - so she got the benefit of that assumption because she was only nineteen at the time of her crime.
That was a tough crime to watch when it came on ID and when I saw that movie.
I am happy to know she is still imprisoned. I really cannot imagine what I would do if I was the murdered girl’s father.
I suspect it would likely be something along the lines of well, you’re out of jail, and now your going to deal with me, and you are not going to like it all, and then I’d go serve my own light sentence.
Not sure where you live. I live in So Cal which has a huge Iranian population. FYI, they like to refer to themselves as Persians because they have a strong distaste for the current Iranian government, and because it makes them feel better about themselves and hope that Americans do not treat them with distain.
I am an American of Italian descent. Does that mean it is OK for me to walk around telling everyone that I am Roman?
As to Jews and Israel, I have Israeli friends. They refer to themselves as Israelis. My American Jewish friends refer to themselves as Americans.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.