helen

My object all sublime, I shall achieve in time …

10 posts in this topic

…To let the punishment fit the crime,
The punishment fit the crime.

There is much ado in the news about the case of John Worboys who was jailed indefinitely in 2009, with a minimum term of eight years for sexual offences, including rape, against twelve women in London (but perhaps another 93 not included in his prosecution).
Justice Secretary David Gauke is considering a challenge to the Parole Board’s decision to release Worboys on licence.
The Conservative party chairman Brandon Lewis told BBC1’s Andrew Marr Show he could understand the ‘public outrage’ at Worboys's release and Justice Secretary David Gauke would be doing everything he could to make sure Worboys "stays behind bars”.

London Mayor Sadiq Khan said he was "astonished" by the Parole Board's decision, "He should not be allowed to set foot in London”.

Labour MP Yvette Cooper tweeted that she had "deep, deep concerns" about the case after speaking to victims and their lawyers.

The Parole Board said it was "confident correct procedures were followed” and 60-year-old Worboys would not reoffend.

Now I don’t know much about this ‘public outrage’, if it exists, but I can spot a politician out to score a few points by pandering to it when they see the chance, and a little extra punishment is always likely to go down well.
I sympathise with the fears of Worboys’s victims but justice cannot be done by the victims, they are biased.
Some will deride the Parole Board as a bunch of lily-livered, liberal, do-gooders, but they are independent do-gooders in possession of the facts and, although it is unfashionable, they still base their decisions on them. Ill-informed politicians, newspaper editors and the public could learn something from that.

Edited by helen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm with you on this Helen.  The words of the MPs from both sides of the House are just posturing.  The only challenge that can be made is if the decision of the Parole Board has been made outside the rules for making such a decision.  I suspect the politicians will simply show themselves as powerless to amend the decision.

However, it is a constituent part of modern democratic nations that the implementation of justice is independent of politicians and with all the current constitutional arguments about where the decision making powers should lie post-Brexit, it ill behoves politicians to try to usurp the powers of independent bodies in order to curry favour in the Court of Public Opinion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both these posters skated for Great Britain in the last winter Olympics and it shows with the meandering of their posts which say a great deal about nothing.

No wonder the site is dying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, helen said:

…To let the punishment fit the crime,
The punishment fit the crime.

There is much ado in the news about the case of John Worboys who was jailed indefinitely in 2009, with a minimum term of eight years for sexual offences, including rape, against twelve women in London (but perhaps another 93 not included in his prosecution).
Justice Secretary David Gauke is considering a challenge to the Parole Board’s decision to release Worboys on licence.
The Conservative party chairman Brandon Lewis told BBC1’s Andrew Marr Show he could understand the ‘public outrage’ at Worboys's release and Justice Secretary David Gauke would be doing everything he could to make sure Worboys "stays behind bars”.

London Mayor Sadiq Khan said he was "astonished" by the Parole Board's decision, "He should not be allowed to set foot in London”.

Labour MP Yvette Cooper tweeted that she had "deep, deep concerns" about the case after speaking to victims and their lawyers.

The Parole Board said it was "confident correct procedures were followed” and 60-year-old Worboys would not reoffend.

Now I don’t know much about this ‘public outrage’, if it exists, but I can spot a politician out to score a few points by pandering to it when they see the chance, and a little extra punishment is always likely to go down well.
I sympathise with the fears of Worboys’s victims but justice cannot be done by the victims, they are biased.
Some will deride the Parole Board as a bunch of lily-livered, liberal, do-gooders, but they are independent do-gooders in possession of the facts and, although it is unfashionable, they still base their decisions on them. Ill-informed politicians, newspaper editors and the public could learn something from that.

 

59 minutes ago, Alteredbhoy said:

I'm with you on this Helen.  The words of the MPs from both sides of the House are just posturing.  The only challenge that can be made is if the decision of the Parole Board has been made outside the rules for making such a decision.  I suspect the politicians will simply show themselves as powerless to amend the decision.

However, it is a constituent part of modern democratic nations that the implementation of justice is independent of politicians and with all the current constitutional arguments about where the decision making powers should lie post-Brexit, it ill behoves politicians to try to usurp the powers of independent bodies in order to curry favour in the Court of Public Opinion. 

Ya just gotsta luv it!:58674be5c2392_EmojiSmiley-13:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The guy should have been sentenced to life, no minimum period,  no release date,  that would make the punishment fit the crime!! Never mind the deep deep concerns of the MP's or the Lilly livered liberal dogooders, Harsh sentencing should always be applied to serious crimes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jencd said:

The guy should have been sentenced to life, no minimum period,  no release date,  that would make the punishment fit the crime!! Never mind the deep deep concerns of the MP's or the Lilly livered liberal dogooders, Harsh sentencing should always be applied to serious crimes. 

That is an interesting point of view which I think will be shared by many, but it may be counter-productive. I understand one of the reasons why Worboys was not charged with more offences was the lack of enough evidence to get convictions. It is well known that sexual assaults are hard to prove and that juries are more reluctant to convict when the sentence is likely to be a long one. More crimes may go unpunished.
If more criminals are given long sentences in our overcrowded prisons it could also lead to complaints from the terminally angry old gits of the off topic forum about the cost of keeping them there.
I think I can guess what the next line would be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jencd said:

The guy should have been sentenced to life, no minimum period,  no release date,  that would make the punishment fit the crime!! Never mind the deep deep concerns of the MP's or the Lilly livered liberal dogooders, Harsh sentencing should always be applied to serious crimes. 

 

18 minutes ago, helen said:

That is an interesting point of view which I think will be shared by many, but it may be counter-productive. I understand one of the reasons why Worboys was not charged with more offences was the lack of enough evidence to get convictions. It is well known that sexual assaults are hard to prove and that juries are more reluctant to convict when the sentence is likely to be a long one. More crimes may go unpunished.
If more criminals are given long sentences in our overcrowded prisons it could also lead to complaints from the terminally angry old gits of the off topic forum about the cost of keeping them there.
I think I can guess what the next line would be.

You have to remember Jencd, that Helen/Melmoth is a confirmed liberalist and doesn't agree with punishment. He prefers to pat them on the head, slip them a wadge of notes (but not his wadge) and send them on their way to do further harm.

I wonder where this person will live and if the locals will be aware of his whereabouts. I don't rate his life expectancy very highly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He will be set up in someone's neighbourhood unbeknownst to the local residents, and there is every likelihood he will at sometime in the future re-offend!!  Which would never happen if the punishment fitted the crime (just my opinion)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The wife thinks he has been chemically castrated. The parole board are not allowed to give a reason for the decision. If he has been chemically castrated, then the parole board might think he is no longer is a danger to women.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now