Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Tony Martin and stuff

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    The 5 years was already a reduced sentence from the original sentence because he had the conviction lowered from murder to manslaughter on appeal.
    Jon Miller: MikeH speaks the truth
    Jon Miller: MikeH is a shockingly revolting dolt and a masturbatory urine-reeking sideshow freak whose word is as valuable as an aging cow paddy.
    We've got both kinds

    Comment


    • #77
      yes, but you get a third off your sentence automatically for good behaviour, so they kept him in as long as they could. the guy who got let out after 5 months for saying he's sorry has a record stretching back to 1984 with convictions for theft, burglary, various drug offences and assualt, but because he said he was sorry he gets let out after 5 months of an 18 month sentence.

      edit: and i agree with cerebesIV about the european convention, the human rights act is an especially odious piece of legislation which does nothing except protect the 'rights' of criminals and illegal immigrants and enrich 'human rights' lawyers (which include the PMs wife...).
      "The Christian way has not been tried and found wanting, it has been found to be hard and left untried" - GK Chesterton.

      "The most obvious predicition about the future is that it will be mostly like the past" - Alain de Botton

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by CerberusIV
        Prison governors used to be able to add time to sentences for misbehaviour in prison but a recent court ruling (stupid human rights legislation again!) put a stop to that.

        What seems to lie behind this is the application of the European convention on Human Rights to UK law. This annoys me for two reasons.

        First, a convention intended to stop another european country going down the route the Nazis took Germany in the 1930's and meant to stop state abuse of power is now used to prevent ordinary citizens from protecting themselves (I don't agree entirely with what Tony Martin did but it is moving towards requiring a burglar to sign a written statement that you warned them before you kick the sh1t out of them).

        Second, this human rights stuff forgets the responsibilities side of the equation and protecting the victims of crime. It seems to be applied so that the person who appears in court gets their rights asserted at the expense of the person they stole from or assaulted. (One of the rights in the European charter is about peaceful enjoyment of property IIRC)
        Personally speaking, I have no problem with restricting imprisonment to that allocated by the judicial system, rather than a prison governor acting as judge, jury and executioner. Criminal offences dealt with in prison can still be dealt with in the courts, after all.

        If we are to enjoy a reputation as a nation that upholds the rule of law, it takes some odd twists of logic to hold that this is compatible with summary justice, by civil servants in the prison service, or by embittered farmers with illegally-possessed 12-bores.
        The genesis of the "evil Finn" concept- Evil, evil Finland

        Comment

        Working...
        X