On a cérébral level

comment by Don (U22703)
posted 3 hours, 53 minutes ago
comment by Firkin (U19526)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by United we win (U19958)
posted 44 minutes ago
With current sentences, they will be able to leave prison at some point. Is that correct?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Possibly. He will serve 14 of his 21 years before being considered for parole.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The case is before the Attorney General for review. Considering a whole life sentence without parole

A whole life sentence without the chance of parole seems silly. Surely in that circumstance the death penalty is better for everyone involved.

I guess people may well want a long, drawn out harsher punishment for such people though (although that's probably not exactly what the current system is usually).

As a general point, a whole life sentence without the chance of parole seems silly.

Prison should be a about rehabilitation otherwise it's nothing more than a viscous circle for most people.
1. They're already broken in some way (having often been let down their whole lives themselves)
2. They commit a serious offence
3. They serve a punishment
4. They leave no more fixed than before but with a criminal record now hanging over them
5. They usually reoffend and then end up back in the same cycle.

The system gets more and more clogged up, the ripple effects are more time, money, human resources, worse outcomes for family members and the general public who suffer each time there's a reoffence.

However there has to be a point, like with these two child killers where it isn't about rehabilitation or second chances and instead punishment along with keeping them away from the public for the rest of their lives.

In that case the death penalty is a far better option for everyone involved.

I'm undecided on the death penalty..but i think these 2 should get life and that means life and never to be released.

comment by Two Balls, One Saka (U19684)
posted 19 minutes ago
As a general point, a whole life sentence without the chance of parole seems silly.

Prison should be a about rehabilitation otherwise it's nothing more than a viscous circle for most people.
1. They're already broken in some way (having often been let down their whole lives themselves)
2. They commit a serious offence
3. They serve a punishment
4. They leave no more fixed than before but with a criminal record now hanging over them
5. They usually reoffend and then end up back in the same cycle.

The system gets more and more clogged up, the ripple effects are more time, money, human resources, worse outcomes for family members and the general public who suffer each time there's a reoffence.

However there has to be a point, like with these two child killers where it isn't about rehabilitation or second chances and instead punishment along with keeping them away from the public for the rest of their lives.

In that case the death penalty is a far better option for everyone involved.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Spot on. If rehabilitation isn't the end goal then death should be the only option.

comment by Prankster - I’ll make you famous! (U22336)
posted 12 hours, 27 minutes ago
comment by *No Love – Get the fack in Big Div (U1282)
posted 2 hours, 42 minutes ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 49 minutes ago
comment by Prankster - I’ll make you famous! (U22336)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by Prankster - I’ll make you famous! (U22336)
posted 1 second ago
comment by Amado Carrillo Fuentes (U11781)
posted 10 minutes ago
"Social services staff should have spoken to Arthur about his bruises, the Director of Association of Child Protection Professionals has said."

Or

"Lord Laming led the public inquiry into the death of Victoria Climbie, who was killed by her great-aunt and her partner in 2000, and reviewed the case of baby Peter Connelly, who died in 2007 at the hands of his mother, her boyfriend and their lodger. He said the quality of training for social work "needs to be looked at again".

Or

"Former Children's Commissioner for England Anne Longfield told Today: "A lot of the services went on to the screens for children, and this child in particular, Arthur, wasn't in school.

"So there's a big lesson there, instantly about if there is a crisis, there are children who are going to slip from view and we have to make sure they have the protection, which does need face-to-face contact."

This is all from the BBC GT, I am probably the biggest Tory basher on this website as you well know but there was multiple own goals on the social here. The kids life could have been saved much earlier.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You do realise kids innocently get bruises every day and social services being underfunded and understaffed simply don’t have the resources to respond to every report of a bruise.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

This little boy was badly mistreated / harmed over a prolonged period.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No shiiiit, but what does that have to do with social services.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

This wasn't just 1 accidental injury they missed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly. There is no way to justify this. There's situations where you can cut them some slack. This isn't one of those situations. The fact that this happened to the boy and social services were unable detect it or to do anything about it means that someone is doing a sheet job.

Its the core of their job to stop this from happening. Its what they should be spending their first pennies on so I'm not buying the underfunded excuse either.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
we haven’t had all the interaction between social services and the family confirmed yet.
Let’s wait and see for that.
FYI This government has killed the budget going into social services
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair comment and this govt is an Almighty fack up, but still there is a budget and saving kids like Arthur should be the bare minimum that is acceptable.

comment by Cinciwolf--Whiney and easily offended! (U11551)
posted 5 hours, 50 minutes ago
comment by Two Balls, One Saka (U19684)
posted 19 minutes ago
As a general point, a whole life sentence without the chance of parole seems silly.

Prison should be a about rehabilitation otherwise it's nothing more than a viscous circle for most people.
1. They're already broken in some way (having often been let down their whole lives themselves)
2. They commit a serious offence
3. They serve a punishment
4. They leave no more fixed than before but with a criminal record now hanging over them
5. They usually reoffend and then end up back in the same cycle.

The system gets more and more clogged up, the ripple effects are more time, money, human resources, worse outcomes for family members and the general public who suffer each time there's a reoffence.

However there has to be a point, like with these two child killers where it isn't about rehabilitation or second chances and instead punishment along with keeping them away from the public for the rest of their lives.

In that case the death penalty is a far better option for everyone involved.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Spot on. If rehabilitation isn't the end goal then death should be the only option.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am against capital punishment but I wouldn't bat an eyelid if these two were put in the chair.

The problem with death penalty is incompetence of the justice systems. You can't trust them with the death penalty so it shouldn't exist.

Its a system run by human beings who we know can be corrupt, jealous, racist, incompetent, negligent, chasing convictions and not caring about truth etc.

Blackstone's ratio where you'd rather a guilty man go free than kill an innocent man.

Take the USA as an example. The number of people that get exonerated from death row is significant. Cops and prosecutors often caught hiding or suppressing evidence that would save accused persons or being lackadaisical with investigations.

A good percentage of people on death row turn out to be innocent or at least undeserving of the death penalty and for that reason its better to have them serving life sentences on the chance that they could be proven innocent at some point in future and released.

How many people that didn't deserve to die have they killed so far I wonder. I would let 10 guilty men go free than kill one innocent man.

comment by *No Love – Get the fack in Big Div (U1282)
posted 25 minutes ago
comment by Cinciwolf--Whiney and easily offended! (U11551)
posted 5 hours, 50 minutes ago
comment by Two Balls, One Saka (U19684)
posted 19 minutes ago
As a general point, a whole life sentence without the chance of parole seems silly.

Prison should be a about rehabilitation otherwise it's nothing more than a viscous circle for most people.
1. They're already broken in some way (having often been let down their whole lives themselves)
2. They commit a serious offence
3. They serve a punishment
4. They leave no more fixed than before but with a criminal record now hanging over them
5. They usually reoffend and then end up back in the same cycle.

The system gets more and more clogged up, the ripple effects are more time, money, human resources, worse outcomes for family members and the general public who suffer each time there's a reoffence.

However there has to be a point, like with these two child killers where it isn't about rehabilitation or second chances and instead punishment along with keeping them away from the public for the rest of their lives.

In that case the death penalty is a far better option for everyone involved.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Spot on. If rehabilitation isn't the end goal then death should be the only option.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am against capital punishment but I wouldn't bat an eyelid if these two were put in the chair.

The problem with death penalty is incompetence of the justice systems. You can't trust them with the death penalty so it shouldn't exist.

Its a system run by human beings who we know can be corrupt, jealous, racist, incompetent, negligent, chasing convictions and not caring about truth etc.

Blackstone's ratio where you'd rather a guilty man go free than kill an innocent man.

Take the USA as an example. The number of people that get exonerated from death row is significant. Cops and prosecutors often caught hiding or suppressing evidence that would save accused persons or being lackadaisical with investigations.

A good percentage of people on death row turn out to be innocent or at least undeserving of the death penalty and for that reason its better to have them serving life sentences on the chance that they could be proven innocent at some point in future and released.

How many people that didn't deserve to die have they killed so far I wonder. I would let 10 guilty men go free than kill one innocent man.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There are cases where the murderers /abusers have unquestionably done the crime, these sick cants filmed their abuse for instance

The justice system may well be flawed but there are cases which have no genuine doubt attached

True, if you can isolate those cases and mete out the death penalty then yes, do it. Problem is time passes and the loopholes you introduce in a legit case start being misused in other subsequent cases. You can't trust human beings as far as you can throw them.

comment by *No Love – Get the fack in Big Div (U1282)
posted 11 minutes ago
True, if you can isolate those cases and mete out the death penalty then yes, do it. Problem is time passes and the loopholes you introduce in a legit case start being misused in other subsequent cases. You can't trust human beings as far as you can throw them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes you're sadly probably right but I doubt we'll ever find out!