22 years in jail for a thought crime

[The Border Terrier]

 

 

 

my two pennorth...............if one intends to commit a crime it is the same as committing it IMO.........'cos it is only chance, (usually), that the crime wasn't actually committed.............e.g. you didn't get there, the blow wasn't hard enough, you were caught prior to, etc..........

 

I agree. He had stated his objective. He went equiped.

 

No problem with his conviction. But it's the length of the sentence that gets me.

 

And that no one is questioning it.

 

As another poster suggested, go back to pre 9-11, he would have been charged with attempted murder. 5 years and he is out.

 

Post 9-11 he is an enemy of the state. He gets 22 years

 

Why am I shocked at the sentence? Well, because the Judiciary is supposed to be seperate from the state. It is the Judiciary that is supposed to hold the state to account. It's all about the fundemental premise that no one is above the law. And that the law will not be influenced by career politicians looking for votes.

 

There is an erosion of human rights going on in the UK at the moment. The UK is spinning a world of fear for votes. And that is wrong.

 

The conviction was justice. He deserved to be convicted. The sentence was politically motivated. That was wrong.

 

Don't believe me? The guy on trial for murder at the monent on the Island will probably get 15 years if found guilty and convicted.

 

We are being brainwashed into believing that there is a difference between "normal" crime and "superlative" crime. It's the elected politicians that are differentating between the two.

 

That is just plain wrong.

 

 

 

>No problem with his conviction. But it's the length of the sentence that gets me.

 

If we agree the fact that he's guilty and received a fair trial then...

 

the sentence should also be about protecting the public (e.g. Lee Rigby) as much as it is about rehabilitation.

 

He's young, determined and hasn't yet fully understood the implications of the actions he was prevented from carrying out.

 

22 years, prior to a further review, should give him the time that he so obviously needs.

 

The sentence should be a two-way thing. Discouraging misbehaviour and protecting the innocent.

 

Seems fair to me. And if the police have been doctoring evidence or telling porkies, then I'd give them the exact same sentence.

 

TBT.

 

Quote...

 

"The sentence should be a two-way thing. Discouraging misbehaviour and protecting the innocent."

 

Good point. So why were the thugs that killed my mate not sentenced to 22 years?

 

The judge at the time gave them life. They were out in seven. One went on to be jailed again after he had been released. He got involved in drug dealing and was jailed for GBH.

 

Those guys killed. But their sentence was based on rehabilitation.Not removal from society as "an example"

 

Is justice based on "setting examples"? Or is it based on justice?

 

Yeah... lets set an example with the next driver caught talking on his mobile... life without parole.

 

 

>So why were the thugs that killed my mate not sentenced to 22 years?

 

Different tariff for the respective crimes. The Judge, quite rightly, has to operate within guidelines - early guilty plea, bubbles up a few others in the process, shows remorse, is a Freemason, has a Title etc. will all receive a reduced sentence at the discretion of His/Her Honour.

If you want murderers to receive 22 years instead of life, then you'll have to change the law.

 

Is your argument that 22 years is too much, or that Life is too short?

 

>lets set an example with the next driver caught talking on his mobile...

 

I don't own or use a mobile, so it wouldn't bother me. But I concur, the safety implications of phoning whilst driving are obvious. Similarly, I fail to understand the logic of combining driving with informing a family member that you're on your way to Shoprite to purchase a cabbage. 99% of calls/texts are pure drivel, the Telecoms industry must have some of the smartest marketeers going.

 

May need another gaol though, and at an initial £40million plus £6millionish annual running costs, it's not a cheap alternative.

 

TBT.

[ScotsAlan]

I say 22 years is way over the top.

 

But I agree with your point about guidelines. Because the laws are set by the elected lawmakers.

[Sheldon]

Ha ha. I hit like for your post spook. But it comes up as an error.

 

I think that rule is actually programmed into the very fabric of the site. On the extremely rare occasions that one does make it through, it's the IOM equivalent of a glitch in the Matrix.