Click here
Shooting would be too kind and a waste of decent bullets.
Please can someone tell me what grounds these animals have for wasting my money on an appeal.
Click here
Shooting would be too kind and a waste of decent bullets.
I tend to agree, though I can't see how they could challenge their sentence, on what possible grounds could they have??
May just be a formality that they just happen to have the right to appeal, many are simply turned down and that’s that. Hopefully appealing so early
on in their sentence and then getting it refused will mean that they have to wait even longer for their next opportunity which, had they waited longer
and pretended to have taken some punishment may have had more chance of successes.
Could just backfire in their faces 
what a pity…
Its absolute nob's like this that give young people a bad name!
You have to remember these young lads probably had a difficult upbring maybe they came from a broken home, in general society has failed them by allowing them to have encountered such a torrid time. Maybe they are having flashbacks of the event, nightmares or god forbid they could even be taking prescripted drugs to overcome the emotional upset caused by having to watch the victim dying in front of there very eyes (oh the shock). Where as the victims family well they'll get over it wouldn't they. The above statement could easily have come from there socialworker or whatever they call themselves nowadays. My opinion however is to sandblast there legs from the bottom up and make there families watch. Oh what fun that would be. We need judges on the bench with more common sense a judge willing to give out some real sentences.
It's their right to appeal.
It's societies right to (if the evidence is there) find them guilty and lock them up for a nice long time.....
Personally I think if you appeal and are found guilty again (I if you pretend twice to be innocent!!) you should get a longer sentance. Shorter
sentances help persuade people to admit to offences they have done, why not do the same with appeals. At the moment it's a bit like no win, no
fee (ie nothing to lose and might get let out on a technicality).
Trouble is, we can't remove the right to appeal. I've personally been involved with some gross cases of injustice- I think removing the
right to appeal would be a very very bad idea....
In some jurisdictions the prosecution can appeal against a manifestly inadequate sentence, for instance members the
"Bali Nine" appealed against their life sentences for trying to smuggle heroin out of Bali
and back to Australia and had their sentences increased to a date with the firing squad...
It is much the same as the terrorists who are caught, then are given hundreds of thousands in legal aid for their defense, and appeal. As well as the
lifestyle for the foriegn legal team think where else that money goes.......
Absolutely agree, if the appeal fails, the result should be an increased sentence.
How comes the smugglers get a rendez-vous with the firing squad but the users/abusers who actually kill only get a few years, "with good
behavior", in jail?
Totally unjustified but the good people of England need to do more than just moan n groan. Vote with your feet: if you hear of any petitions where
you feel there is injustice sign it!! Petitions too. March on Downing street if thats what it takes... The trouble is the police just keep leaving
it as a petty crime. All this poor man did was ask the criminals to bugger off and then he gets his head kicked in.
A few years ago in Blackburn, Lancashire a young driver drove through a puddle splashing a policeman. The driver was initially charged with something
daft and eventually the charges where dropped. It did cost the tax payer 20,000 GBP before it was dropped mind you!!!
Laughable example just a shame he didn't record the moment on his mobile phone!!!
I agree with BenB - if someone appeals against a sentence then they should risk having their term increased if they lose, or total loss of
remission.
At the moment it's a one-way thing - if the villain's appeal is successful, he wins. If he's unsuccessful, then he's had a bit of
time out of his cell which helps to relieve the boredom.
Nearly everyone knows the difference between right and wrong. Some just DONT CARE, and do things as they think they will get away with it.
The prison sentences are not severe enought, and life inside is almost a holiday and better conditions that they probably live in as normal.
Jails should be more like those in the USA, where its hard, tough, and they have to work on Chain gangs, and risk getting shot or killed if they try
to escape.
Its just a joke in this country.
I dont do crime as I dont want to go to jail. but for some, its not that bad inside, so its an acceptable risk.
Make the punishment at least fit the crime, as a minimum.
Remember Saddam's chum who appealed against the length of his prison sentence... the appeal Judge agreed that the sentence was indeed incorrect - Saddam's buddy was hung 8 hours later!
I've got one thing to say .......
BRING BACK THE DEATH PENALTY
I fail to understand the concept of modern prisons full stop. I occasionally visit them via work and I have to say that it is not uncommon for the
cells to be more luxurious than the hotel room I am staying in a few miles down the road.
In my view the cost of prison should be met by the prisoner ie. every belonging sold to pay for your "care" and the remainder given to any
victims or given to a victoms fund. And why is prison not simply a bunch of walls, bread and a tap??? I know they want to keep prisoners calm and
avoid riots but that's what batons and water cannons are for.
And while I'm on one.......if a woman cries rape but is proven to be lying should she not be given the equivalent sentence that the accused would
have been given had he been found guilty????
quote:
Originally posted by eznfrank
IAnd while I'm on one.......if a woman cries rape but is proven to be lying should she not be given the equivalent sentence that the accused would have been given had he been found guilty????
quote:
Originally posted by phoenix70
quote:
Originally posted by eznfrank
IAnd while I'm on one.......if a woman cries rape but is proven to be lying should she not be given the equivalent sentence that the accused would have been given had he been found guilty????
I would say if a woman was found to be lying, surely she should be charge with attempted to pervert the course of justice, just like anyone should be if they lie to the police or courts.
That is what would currently happen but why should she get a slap on the wrists when she potentially tried to put someone away for a significant spell. By the way the above was more of an example and I would say it should be applied to any case where a witness is proven to be lying, and where their lie would have a significant bearing on the case.
[Edited on 23/5/08 by eznfrank]
smart51 - 23/5/08 at 11:52 AMquote:
Originally posted by BenB
Personally I think if you appeal and are found guilty again (I if you pretend twice to be innocent!!) you should get a longer sentance.
What if they're not pretending? You would give an "actually innocent" person a longer sentence because a court made 2 mistakes? This is a fundamental part of a justice system. Courts are fallible and do occasionally convict someone who is innocent. There are always cases were several years in, new evidence proves the convict didn't do it. Thats why we don't have the death penally any more. You can't undo death.
Just as it is wrong to convict an innocent person, it is wrong to give them a longer sentence because their appeal fails.
smart51 - 23/5/08 at 11:55 AMquote:
Originally posted by eznfrank
In my view the cost of prison should be met by the prisoner ie. every belonging sold to pay for your "care" and the remainder given to any victims or given to a victoms fund.
Which might be workable if the convicted person is single with no children.
I believe that at one time, prisoners had to work to support their stay in prison. Growing vegetables and making sacks. I don't see what is wrong with that.