[Petwrenny]

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/ckjmemorial/

I knew these kids and my sister used to play with them and bring them into our house. Both murdered by their father 2 doors from me. Feel free to sign and maybe the system can be changed in the future.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/839092.stm

[minowz]

I'm not sure what the point of this petition is? When someone is given a "life sentence" the judge specifies a minimum time they must serve after which they will be eligible for parole, but that doesn't automatically mean they will be released then. If they are and they break the terms of their parole they go straight back inside. In exceptional cases a judge can give a "whole life order", a person will stay inside until they die.

[Xodvbooj]

I'm not sure what the point of this petition is? If you are found guilty of murder you should never be released from prison, as opposed to now when you get a 'Life' sentence which doesn't mean life but can mean anything from 13 years upwards.

Not hard to understand surely? Anyone who commits murder or rape in my opinion should never be released ever. End Of.

I'll sign it Russ.

[minowz]

If you are found guilty of murder you should never be released from prison, as opposed to now when you get a 'Life' sentence which doesn't mean life but can mean anything from 13 years upwards.

The judge can already order that someone spends their whole life in prison, like I already said.
Not hard to understand surely? Anyone who commits murder or rape in my opinion should never be released ever. End Of. Not all murders are the same, that's why they get different sentences.

[Petwrenny]

The judge can already order that someone spends their whole life in prison, like I already said.
Not all murders are the same, that's why they get different sentences.

You think 20 years for taking 3 lives and 2 dogs' lives only deserves

[JackTimQSR]

It is too soft. Especially when you think that's less than 7 years per murder.

[minowz]

[quote]You think 20 years for taking 3 lives and 2 dogs' lives only deserves

[Shark&Nike]

Jesus Bungle.. sign it or don't sign it, no need to dissect it.

[Petwrenny]

Jesus Bungle

That's an image I didn't want to picture in my mind.

[SeelaypeKet]

Did I say that? I don't think I did.

Just because the minimum term issued by the judge has passed it doesn't automatically mean the person will be released. I believe I already said that.

Changed to what? Life already does mean life, in that a person is under the system for life. A judge can order a person stays in jail until they die. If it's decided they are fit to be released on parole they are released on life licence. If they break the terms of their parole, or are found a danger to the public, they get put straight back inside.

If only this was correct, i have know first hand that system fails!
What he needs is to be locked in a room and battered, quite plain and simple.
This human being should never be considered fit for reabilitation, hes wasting air and tax payers money i would rather see go to a much better cause.
Just batter the life out of him and leave him to shudder and shake in last throws as his life ebbs from him!
Give him the only thing he could understand.

Scum pure and simple!

[lalffibra]

I would like to see the death penalty restored ,absolutely no reason why in this day and age .If the person is guilty WITHOUT doubt, then he/she should die.I signed the petition

[Xodvbooj]

or are found a danger to the public This is what I can't get my head around with our so called 'Justice' system.

'or found to be a danger to the public?' So the guilty verdict for murder wasn't enough of a clue first time round?

[minowz]

This is what I can't get my head around with our so called 'Justice' system.

'or found to be a danger to the public?' So the guilty verdict for murder wasn't enough of a clue first time round?

"Murder" is not a black and white situation. Not all cases of murder are the same. Just because someone in the past has been convicted of murder it doesn't mean they will always continue to de a danger to the public.

[payloansday]

"Murder" is not a black and white situation. Not all cases of murder are the same. Just because someone in the past has been convicted of murder it doesn't mean they will always continue to de a danger to the public.

Yes it does bunghoolio. Murder is different to manslaughter.

[minowz]

Yes it does bunghoolio. Murder is different to manslaughter.

No it doesn't. Would you people please stop getting your info from the Daily Mail and the latest TV crime drama.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3542348.stm

[payloansday]

No it doesn't. Would you people please stop getting your info from the Daily Mail and the latest TV crime drama.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3542348.stm

I don't read the DM or watch TV much actually. A murderer is person capable of killing someone in cold blood, pre-meditated, the difference is that these people know that what they are doing beforehand will kill another person. If you are capable of killing another human in cold blood, then that doesn't change, no matter how much rehabilitation you get.

What's with posting a 7yr old link that actually goes against what you are saying anyway:

Following the commission's report campaigners said it was wrong to treat some killings as less serious than others. At the end of the day, if you kill someone without good reason, and the only good reason is to preserve your own or a loved ones life, then it's murder plain and simple and you should be subject to full force of the law. Just because some judges are assholes doesn't mean the system needs to change.

[minowz]

I don't read the DM or watch TV much actually. A murderer is person capable of killing someone in cold blood, pre-meditated, the difference is that these people know that what they are doing beforehand will kill another person. If you are capable of killing another human in cold blood, then that doesn't change, no matter how much rehabilitation you get.

Each case is diffferent. Why you people keep lumping all murder cases together like they are they same I have no idea

What's with posting a 7yr old link that actually goes against what you are saying anyway: Um, no it doesn't. It makes the case (as have I) that not all murders are the same.

Added to the debate is the fact that there's a strong difference of opinion between the general public and the legal profession on the issue, Daily Telegraph legal editor Joshua Rosenberg told BBC News 24.
While the public on the whole support the view that "all murder is dreadful", lawyers tend to argue for more flexibility in the law, he said.
"There is a difference between shooting three unarmed policement and a [mercy killing]," he added.

[payloansday]

Each case is diffferent. Why you people keep lumping all murder cases together like they are they same I have no idea.

I did no such thing, so stop putting words in my mouth. I clearly stated that there are differences. But that difference is merely the difference between manslaughter and murder. Murder is murder, no matter how they were killed, the end result is the same. Someone knowingly and needlessly taking the life of another human being.

Um, no it doesn't. It makes the case (as have I) that not all murders are the same.

Which is just the point, some things are over analysed by those too close to a subject for them to look at it objectively. Your link says that the Law Commission and solicitors in general feel that way, but the opinion of the people, the public, is that all "murders" are equally bad and that's the opinion that counts. You see the distinction? All "MURDER", not all "murders and manslaughter", there is already a distinction between these, but sometimes idiot judges fail to take that into account.

What you're saying is just as ridiculous as Ken Clarke saying that not all rape cases should be treated equally. [rolleyes]

[minowz]

I did no such thing, so stop putting words in my mouth. I clearly stated that there are differences. But that difference is merely the difference between manslaughter and murder. Murder is murder, no matter how they were killed, the end result is the same. Someone knowingly and needlessly taking the life of another human being.



Which is just the point, some things are over analysed by those too close to a subject for them to look at it objectively. Your link says that the Law Commission and solicitors in general feel that way, but the opinion of the people, the public, is that all "murders" are equally bad and that's the opinion that counts. You see the distinction? All "MURDER", not all "murders and manslaughter", there is already a distinction between these, but sometimes idiot judges fail to take that into account.

Why do you think we don't just hand out the same sentence to everyone convicted of murder? It's because each case is DIFFERENT!

And you definitely did state that all murders are the same. In fact you said it in your first paragraph above.

Hmm, who should we listren to? "The public" whose opinon has been formed by the latest rantings of the Daily Mail, or the professionals who actually know what they are talking about?

What you're saying is just as ridiculous as Ken Clarke saying that not all rape cases should be treated equally. [rolleyes] A 16 year old boy has sex with his 15 year old girlfriend. She cannot legally give consent so technically this is rape.

A masked man drags a woman off the street and brutally rapes her. This is rape

Are these two cases the same? Of course not; that's all Ken Clarke was saying.

[payloansday]

Why do you think we don't just hand out the same sentence to everyone convicted of murder? It's because each case is DIFFERENT!

And you definitely did state that all murders are the same. In fact you said it in your first paragraph above.

You need to read what i posted in context with the rest of the post, i clearly said that there are differences, differences that are already distinguished by using the terms murder and manslaughter. That's all the difference there needs to be. Either you meant to kill someone for the reason i gave earlier, or you had no good reason, in which case, murder is murder. It shouldn't matter whether you put a bullet through a persons head, or tortured them for hours before killing them.

Hmm, who should we listren to? "The public" whose opinon has been formed by the latest rantings of the Daily Mail, or the professionals who actually know what they are talking about?

Don't be so condescending about the general public. You speak as if the vast majority who may be interested in this subject are idiots, when it's the idiots who don't care about things like this. The ones who do care are the ones that are a little more intelligent than your average chav.

Not to mention, these so called professionals are here to serve the public, so ultimately they should listen to the people they serve, the public.

A 16 year old boy has sex with his 15 year old girlfriend. She cannot legally give consent so technically this is rape.

A masked man drags a woman off the street and brutally rapes her. This is rape

Are these two cases the same? Of course not; that's all Ken Clarke was saying.

Again you completely fail to acknowledge that there is already a difference, one is statutory rape, the other is rape. Kenneth Clarke did not distinguish clearly between the two, which is what caused the uproar.