Justice ?

[iCraig]

Yeah but his life doesn't go on the way it was before, he has basic living and a few luxuries (which arguably shouldn't be there) and to know he's appealing to get out shows that he wants out. Good. Not because he should come out sooner, but I'm glad he wants out asap. That's the concept of prison working, he's suffering. So, it does frustrate me to see him win that appeal. Why do we bother? We sentence him to punish him and protect from society, and the minute we know the punishment is hitting him, we go easy on him. I mean, what's changed? Has the crime changed? Is the dead officer alive again? No. It's all still the same, so his sentence shouldn't bloody change either. :\

[Chuckles]

Originally Posted by leowyatt

I personally think it all comes down to what people deem the value or a human life.

Indeed. And those who value human life aren't generally part of the hang em and flog em brigade cheering outside the execution chambers when the buttons are pressed.

[Von Smallhausen]

Originally Posted by PvtPyle

Why is shooting a copper while he pleaded for his life any different to shooting anybody else Von? You might be familiar with the case of PC Patrick Dunne (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/jan/20/ukguns.rosiecowan) I am friends with one of his nephews and I know he feels that his uncle's murderer should have been tried and convicted the same way as anyone else. As a police officer, he knew that there were certain risks that he'd have to routinely undertake whilst performing his duties...

It is the case that I am highlighting.

Murder is not as black and white as some think. They should always be judged on the facts, pre-meditation, lack of etc.

For a case such as Bieber it is without doubt cold blooded and I believe he should have paid with his life. I also think the same of Patrick Dunne's killer.

[Von Smallhausen]

Originally Posted by Rich_L

I would just say that the HRA argument was actually rejected, the reduction was on the basis of the facts of the case alone.

I know it was rejected Rich but to even try to use it leaves a bad tase.

[TinkerBell]

I can see both sides, in some ways I do think that people who can do that should be killed for their actions as it is unacceptable behaviour, but then on the other hand I agree with Craig that people shouldn't be given the role of God, that is just as bad as the guy who killed people. I am still not completely decided on what should happen with regards to the punishment for this (i.e death or lifetime sentence)

There is one thing I know for sure, which is that people who can do that should NOT be able to reduce their life sentence even though 37 years is a long time, he was given a life sentence for a reason, he should have to stick to it.

[Chuckles]

Originally Posted by Kitten

yeah, they just tend to be the friends and relatives of those murdered in cold blood. Probably changes your perception a little.

Which is exactly the reason relatives etc are not involved in anything to do with the justice process, as they lose sense of logic and judgement which is what a sentence should be determined on.

[loki]

I am in no position to judge but how effective is the current prison system at punishing and rehabilitating a criminal. Of course 37 years is a long time and the question of his liberty has been brought into question. But by the same token, he has the abillity to sit there day in day out being fed and further his education should he choose to.

Om not in favour of people being locked up or punished to satisfy the vengence of society but prison should be tougher on the convicted than what it is at present

[Chuckles]

Originally Posted by TinkerBell

There is one thing I know for sure, which is that people who can do that should NOT be able to reduce their life sentence even though 37 years is a long time, he was given a life sentence for a reason, he should have to stick to it.

Are there any circumstances in which peoples sentences should be either reduced or increased?

[Mark]

Originally Posted by leowyatt

I think society is now too soft.

You won't get any disagreement from me on that. People come up with stupid ideas like banning the term 'black hole' just because it might insult one or two dark-skinned people. I'm sorry but anyone who thinks that is a sound idea really needs to get a grip. The same goes for the legal system but the problem there is often simply that there's either no scope or no room to accomplish anything better. Personally I'd like to see more Boot Camp style punishments and I don't give a toss if some namby pamby do-gooder thinks they're demeaning or too harsh.

Originally Posted by Kitten

Again and again we hear it's not about punishment, it's about reform.

I suspect you and I agree here. That's clearly a fallacy. The only time prison can legitimately be about reform is if the inmate wants to reform. You can encourage and attempt to persuade but there is simply no way currently known to force someone to reform against their will. Hardened criminals the likes of Bieber simply have no interest in reform, so for them it's about control and nothing more.

There is no respect for life anymore.

Agreed, and it is correct to attack the killer for that, but what does it say about our own respect for life (all life - not just that of the innocent party) if we appear so eager to end the killer's?

[Rich_L]

Originally Posted by Von Smallhausen

I know it was rejected Rich but to even try to use it leaves a bad tase.

True, but as I'm sure you know that's how these things get tested, if it wasn't his it would have been someone elses - as a 'silver lining' there's now a criminal CoA precedent endorsing irreducible sentences, for example.

There is one thing I know for sure, which is that people who can do that should NOT be able to reduce their life sentence even though 37 years is a long time, he was given a life sentence for a reason, he should have to stick to it.

Can't agree with that, any decision given by a court at the first instance should have oversight in the form of appealing the decision. I think as well because only the news-worthy reductions in sentences tend to make the news the public perception is slightly distorted, it is never really reported when a first instance sentence is refused permission to appeal or the appeal is dismissed.