Mcsweeny
- Thread starter transam
- Start date
- Joined
- 7 Jan 2010
- Messages
- 13,740
- Reaction score
- 3,684
- Country
It's not his sentence that should have been cut.
Complete and utter disgrace. If you read some of the rationale given by the three judges who reached this decision, it just makes you think 'eh?!?'
However, having correctly found that Ms Aleena must have been rendered unconscious at an early stage in the attack, the judge had lacked a sufficient evidential basis on which to be sure that there had been additional mental or physical suffering such as to justify an increase in the 30-year starting point
Unless I'm misreading the above statement, the appeal judges are saying the sentencing judge didn't have enough evidence to give a 30+ year sentence at the time due to the victim being unconscious early on in the attack with no proof of suffering thereafter. Jeez, what a load of old sh1t.
'Your Honour, in the defence of my client, it is true they shot the victim at close range and then immediately cut the body up into a hundred pieces before eating them one by one. However, I assert a degree of leniency should be considered given the victim undoubtedly lost consciousness and was dead very early on in the encounter. Their suffering would therefore have been minimal'
We seem to be getting worse at sentencing heinous crimes.
However, having correctly found that Ms Aleena must have been rendered unconscious at an early stage in the attack, the judge had lacked a sufficient evidential basis on which to be sure that there had been additional mental or physical suffering such as to justify an increase in the 30-year starting point
Unless I'm misreading the above statement, the appeal judges are saying the sentencing judge didn't have enough evidence to give a 30+ year sentence at the time due to the victim being unconscious early on in the attack with no proof of suffering thereafter. Jeez, what a load of old sh1t.
'Your Honour, in the defence of my client, it is true they shot the victim at close range and then immediately cut the body up into a hundred pieces before eating them one by one. However, I assert a degree of leniency should be considered given the victim undoubtedly lost consciousness and was dead very early on in the encounter. Their suffering would therefore have been minimal'
We seem to be getting worse at sentencing heinous crimes.
LOL DIYnutjobs trying to make head nor tail of UK sentencing! PMSL.
What are you PYSL for? It doesn't take an expert to look at sentence after sentence to conclude the length of sentence given is frequently too short. Yes some of this might be down to limitations placed on the judge, which is why the whole system needs a complete review. Mind you, these days the growing consensus seems to be lock the poor dears up for less time.
Regarding this case. When you read what he did, I'd say full life tariff. Why? Well, the innocent victim doesn't have the chance to live their life, so why should the person that took it away in cold blood be afforded the chance, however remote, of ever being free again to live their life?
The same is true for those who commit serious crimes when driving. Speeding, no insurance, drunk, high, on their mobile (all of the aforementioned in some cases), they whack into the vehicle of an innocent person or family and seriously injure or kill them. Then you read the sentence handed down, more often than not <10 years, sometimes significantly so.
lol all you like, the fact remains in many cases sentencing is a joke.
