Freed to kill again - It beggars belief !!

[Flat_Eric]

Just saw on the BBC News something that made me so fucking angry that I just had to vent my spleen.

Some sick, vile excuse for a human being has just been sentenced to life (minimum 35 years) for burning down a house earlier this year and killing the 4 people inside - the teenage girl he'd been briefly going out with, plus her younger brother & sister and her mother's boyfriend. Almost an entire family wiped out.

His motive? Nothing more than anger at being jilted.

But the worst part of the whole fucking story was that he'd already been jailed in 2001 for KILLING ANOTHER WOMAN he'd been seeing (which got him 7 years for manslaughter) but that the Probation Service, in its wisdom, had decided to release him on licence after just 3 years and that he was fit and proper person to be walking the streets.

And to add insult to injury, after today's verdict there was some smug fuck from the Probation Service outside the court reading a statement that he was "confident that all the guidelines had been followed" and that this psycho fuckhead was being "properly supervised".

Some fucking supervision!!!!

WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON?????!!!! What is WRONG with Britain these days???!!! Surely he should've been locked up for life after the first time he killed someone.

It's when I see things like this happening that I feel thankful that I don't live in the UK. But for better or worse it's still my country and it makes me MAD to see how it's gone to the dogs courtesy of all the politically correct, bleeding-heart, naby-pamby do-gooders who seem to run the shop these days.

What happened to dishing out proper punishment to fit the crime? Why are killers set free after just 3 years to go and kill again? Why does a "life sentence" often just mean 7 years? Why is the justice system weighted so heavily in favour of criminals as opposed to victims of crime? Why? Why? Why?

It maddens me too when I hear some idiot politician going on about jails being overcrowded and that they might have to look at "ways of means for finding alternatives to custodial sentences where appropriate" or (even worse) releasing some prisoners to free up space for new ones.

Well FUCK THAT!!!! To my mind the solution is simple: BUILD MORE FUCKING JAILS!!! It's not rocket science!!! And life should mean life - no exceptions, and certainly no fannying about with early release on probation with an electronic tag and "supervision" by some limp-wristed social worker, "councelling therapy" or other such trendy, namby-pamby, half-arsed "solutions".

Rant over.

- Eric

[mrchapel]

It costs more taxes to build jails would be the reply. In cases like this they piece of shit should just be put down like the animal he is. And social workers should fucking go with them. It must be disheartening for the police to work their arses off to get find these fucksticks then some social worker gets them off soft with a piss take of a sentence .

[Shopgirl]

I'm sorry to say this, but I don't think we need jails - I think we need to bring back the Death Penalty. If these people go out and kill people and there is no doubt, then they deserve to die. Of course this may be a different thread altogether, however, I do understand that courts can get it wrong and people are jailed that are innocent, but if they have been convicted beyond ANY doubt then a life for a life!! That's my opinion anyway, certainly would help with the lack of jail space for these scumbags.
In this case, this guy was given the opportunity to re-enter public life and learn from his mistakes, which of course he had no regard for human life and for this he only gets life imprisement, but does this mean if we run out of space he will be out in 30 years, this is not right. This whole system in the UK is not right!!.

[diplodocus]

this guy was a nut, no doubt, but not sure you can blame the probation service, they just follow what they get told. The guy was jailed for manslaughter, not murder, served the normal time and was let out. These people can't be watched 24/7. Even if he'd served the full 7 years who's to say he still wouldn't have done the same - blame the criminal

[tommy dickfingers]

i read about this last week, its shocking to think that a 7 year sentence actually is 3 years because of good behaviour ,if this scum is capable of that he wouldn't be in prison, bad behaviour in prison should mean a longer term in and good conduct no increase.

[Sam Slater]

Manslaughter should mean more than 7 years in my opinion, but there are different types of manslaughter. If I push a guy who just touched my girlfriends arse, and he fell and hit his head on a table, -and dies- then I killed him, but should I get life?

I agree to having shorter sentences for good behaviour but not to the extent where the sentence is halved! 6 months early on a 7 years sentence is ok, but not 4 years early for christ sake!

The death penalty could mean it being harder to convict people though. No judge would want to condemn an innocent man to death accidentally.

[c.j.jaxxon]

I agree with you. Here in the states life is life. You really can't predict what a so called "criminal" gonna do when he or she gets out though.

[steve56]

iagree shopgirl,but only for murders.

[Shopgirl]

I agree, hence the criminal would have to be guilty beyond any reasonable doubt, although I can't see many people wanting to attend jury service if we did have the death penalty.

I just think our whole justic system is a joke, of course most criminals are going to get off early on "good behaviour", they are in jail for god's sake they keep their heads down and know they will have their sentances halved, most don't rehabilitate and go and do exactly the same crime once released. Repeat offenders need stricter sentances, but for murderers, especially premedidated, they need life that means life or the death penalty. I am sure no-one would of lost any sleep if they had sent people like Brady, Hyndley and Huntley to the chair!

[DavidS]

The criminal standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt. Civil court standard is on the balance of probabilities. Some tribunals require the highest standard which is with no element of doubt whatsoever. If the death penalty was brought back, and it won't be, and the present jury system retained I don't think the conviction rate would be very high. It is unlikely that sentnce of death would be passed on a majority verdict.