I’m probably in a minority with this thinking but some crimes absolutely deserve punishment rather than rehabilitation…you’ve had your chance and fucked it, tough shit.
What a pathetically short sentence. Her initial sentence was too short, and the parole board allowed to be too lenient. Laws need to be changed to toughen sentences like hers.
Edited: pointed out parole board may have had no choice.
I don’t think she’s served enough time for such a horrific crime. She’ll never have a normal life if she gets out, too infamous. Who’d hire or rent to someone like this?
[removed]
“including a ministerial check for the most serious offenders – so that it serves and protects the public.”
I agree she shouldn’t be out yet but no fucking way would I want minister making personal involvement in cases. Well beyond their remit and really up for corruption. Comes down the sentencing laws.
I can sympathise in a way with the parole board making these decisions as they have to go on face value. The risk *now*, what the sentence was originally, the guidelines set out to them and so on. Whereas it is natural for us to consider her a sick individual who should basically never be released and be beyond redemption based on the original crime. There is more on the [BBC article](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-61332465) where she has been refused before, now there are multiple extra licenses including a tag, monitoring of internet, relationships and so on so would be back inside if these were breached. Don’t know there is always an element of catharsis, I can imagine the comments here are going to be “let her rot” or worse but it really needs to be looked at in a very dry legal way like this, by an independent panel as it was. For all individuals, from minor crimes to the worst like this. And it needs to be accepted instead of politicians picking and choosing the ones they don’t like.
[deleted]
To be fair she’s probably less safe outside than inside. That ain’t a face you can forget easy.
Since privatisation the Parole Board has made some really shit decisions.
[removed]
Ministerial check is a *really* bad idea. The decision to whether to parole or release prisoners on licence shouldn’t be up to elected officials who will just keep offenders locked up for the rest of their lives for political clout.
That being said, the custodial sentences given out to paedophiles, child molesters, child abusers and child killers are typically pathetically short. So much so that I feel like if the Tories started dishing out far harsher sentences for these crimes (like mandatory life sentences with lengthy minimum tariffs, or even reinstating the death penalty), the next Britain Elects update would be CON+20.
Imagine she gets pregnant again? I mean what does that mean? Is there some kind of arrangement in place that any baby she has is immediately taken away?
13 comments
[deleted]
I’m probably in a minority with this thinking but some crimes absolutely deserve punishment rather than rehabilitation…you’ve had your chance and fucked it, tough shit.
What a pathetically short sentence. Her initial sentence was too short, and the parole board allowed to be too lenient. Laws need to be changed to toughen sentences like hers.
Edited: pointed out parole board may have had no choice.
I don’t think she’s served enough time for such a horrific crime. She’ll never have a normal life if she gets out, too infamous. Who’d hire or rent to someone like this?
[removed]
“including a ministerial check for the most serious offenders – so that it serves and protects the public.”
I agree she shouldn’t be out yet but no fucking way would I want minister making personal involvement in cases. Well beyond their remit and really up for corruption. Comes down the sentencing laws.
I can sympathise in a way with the parole board making these decisions as they have to go on face value. The risk *now*, what the sentence was originally, the guidelines set out to them and so on. Whereas it is natural for us to consider her a sick individual who should basically never be released and be beyond redemption based on the original crime. There is more on the [BBC article](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-61332465) where she has been refused before, now there are multiple extra licenses including a tag, monitoring of internet, relationships and so on so would be back inside if these were breached. Don’t know there is always an element of catharsis, I can imagine the comments here are going to be “let her rot” or worse but it really needs to be looked at in a very dry legal way like this, by an independent panel as it was. For all individuals, from minor crimes to the worst like this. And it needs to be accepted instead of politicians picking and choosing the ones they don’t like.
[deleted]
To be fair she’s probably less safe outside than inside. That ain’t a face you can forget easy.
Since privatisation the Parole Board has made some really shit decisions.
[removed]
Ministerial check is a *really* bad idea. The decision to whether to parole or release prisoners on licence shouldn’t be up to elected officials who will just keep offenders locked up for the rest of their lives for political clout.
That being said, the custodial sentences given out to paedophiles, child molesters, child abusers and child killers are typically pathetically short. So much so that I feel like if the Tories started dishing out far harsher sentences for these crimes (like mandatory life sentences with lengthy minimum tariffs, or even reinstating the death penalty), the next Britain Elects update would be CON+20.
Imagine she gets pregnant again? I mean what does that mean? Is there some kind of arrangement in place that any baby she has is immediately taken away?