Lee Rigby killers lose legal appeals

So a murder that's motivated by religion is worse than a murder motivated by say, jealousy? Approximately twice as wrong?

murdering someone in the street in broad daylight, yes that's something different

Reply 21

-Native Briton-

Original post by miser

If we're punishing Lee Rigby extra because of the on-going threat of terrorism, that is not doing justice - that's exploiting his position in order to better protect our own vulnerabilities.

I believe life for this despicable crime IS justice. I believe that Britain is too soft on murderers.

And if we are exploiting this position to protect our people then so be it. If sending this scum to life in prison prevents people from blowing up a bus or beheading a civilian on the street then so be it

I feel much better protected for it both by our intelligence services and our justiciary in regards to terrorism and people like you are nothing but Guardinistanis who live in a little bubble

Reply 22

Drunk Punx

19

Original post by Manitude

I disagree on that - part of the sentence should include risk of reoffending upon release. It doesn't seem as though these guys will repent their actions any time soon and, if released, I think are much more of a threat than say someone who killed someone over a very specific set of circumstances that only pertained to the individuals involved. If these guys are in prison for 45 years then that's nearly half a century where the public doesn't need to worry about being their next victim.

True, but I'd argue that the outlandish nature of the murder in question would be enough to justify the harsher sentence.

I suppose the problem with my view on it, should it be put into practice, is "who judges the severity of a murder?". The judge? Maybe too much pressure on one person, though by definition of their job title they should be used to it. The jury? Could go awry if they're feeling sympathetic to the murderers' plight (which is why why should never come into it, and that the concrete facts should be the only thing to be taken into account). Both seems more likely. The jurys' human input and the judges' legal input. Still doesn't 100% get around the problem though.

Reply 23

Clip

19

Apart from the blatant absurdity of lone wolf terrorists being PWs, why on earth would these people want to be PWs?

1. They would be incarcerated not by the Prisons Service, but by the Army. That's going to go down well.
2. Conditions would probably be a lot worse.
3. They would probably be under armed guard and shooting them is not prohibited.
4. They might not get released until the end of hostilities. That might be forever.

Reply 24

Manitude

20

Original post by Drunk Punx

True, but I'd argue that the outlandish nature of the murder in question would be enough to justify the harsher sentence.

I suppose the problem with my view on it, should it be put into practice, is "who judges the severity of a murder?". The judge? Maybe too much pressure on one person, though by definition of their job title they should be used to it. The jury? Could go awry if they're feeling sympathetic to the murderers' plight (which is why why should never come into it, and that the concrete facts should be the only thing to be taken into account). Both seems more likely. The jurys' human input and the judges' legal input. Still doesn't 100% get around the problem though.

Well the judge is obviously better acquainted with what the law says as well as previous experience in what other people have received for similar crimes so I think they're in the best place to determine what is and what isn't appropriate. The jury is there to determine guilt as the defendant's peers. I've read bits and pieces of the law which say a maximum or minimum penalty for certain crimes, it's up to the judge to weigh up any other factors involved to determine what's best for all parties. I guess they need to consider if justice is served, what is the chance of rehabilitation or re-offence, what impact has the crime had on the victim's family and/or wider community etc etc. I'm inclined to say in this particular case the judge got the sentence right, although I'm not claiming to be any kind of legal authority. The crime committed is truly horrific and the public should be kept safe for a long time, but assuming that they do fully rehabilitate there is a chance they will be released in 45 years.

As for them losing their appeals, I support their right to appeal but again I think the correct decision was made.

Reply 25

Manitude

20

Original post by Clip

Apart from the blatant absurdity of lone wolf terrorists being PWs, why on earth would these people want to be PWs?

1. They would be incarcerated not by the Prisons Service, but by the Army. That's going to go down well.
2. Conditions would probably be a lot worse.
3. They would probably be under armed guard and shooting them is not prohibited.
4. They might not get released until the end of hostilities. That might be forever.

I would suspect that in the mind of these guys, they want their crime to be recognised as an act of war rather than a cold blooded murder. It would probably help them come to terms with what they've done if they can justify it to the courts and it would possibly encourage others to do copycat attacks as they'd be seen to be soldiers doing their duty rather than raving lunatics murdering people because of their job. Hard to know what these people are thinking as they don't appear to be of sound mind.

Reply 26

Octohedral

16

Original post by miser

So a murder that's motivated by religion is worse than a murder motivated by say, jealousy? Approximately twice as wrong?

I think religion scares people more, because everyone can understand jealousy - we don't kill people, but we've all been in positions of extreme emotion - but there's something more alien and inhuman about killing for religion, particularly if the observer is not religious themselves. Also, jealousy is an isolated incident, but religion is a global movement - imprison one terrorist and five will appear, even angrier.

Of course, fear shouldn't dictate the prison sentence. I imagine the factors here were along the lines of deterrence, sending out a clear message, the bold and public nature of the attack, the element of 'planning', the lack of repentance and the fact that the two of them claim to be soldiers of Allah, fighting a war that will never end.

I know what you mean - one death is as tragic as another. However, they seem to fail every box on the list of reasons to let people out early. If they showed some remorse they would have got a more lenient sentence.

Reply 27

young_guns

1

Original post by Rock Fan

Should never had the right to appeal, hope they are never let out.

I don't understand. Why should they not have the right to appeal? Everyone should have the right to appeal, it's vital to the checks and balances against miscarriages of justice

Reply 28

young_guns

1

Original post by Drunk Punx

True, but I'd argue that the outlandish nature of the murder in question would be enough to justify the harsher sentence.

I suppose the problem with my view on it, should it be put into practice, is "who judges the severity of a murder?". The judge?

It's not totally discretionary; the judge must take into account the maximum sentence according to the relevant act of parliament, he must take into account a number of factors outlined by the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (are there aggravating factors, is it a first offence, etc).

The Sentencing Council also publishes guidelines on sentencing, and the Court of Appeal provides oversight by way of appeals if the sentence is manifestly incorrect (both for those that are too short as well as sentences that are too long)

This wiki is a very good outline of how sentencing works in England & Wales

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentencing_in_England_and_Wales

Murder done for the purposes of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause (i.e. terrorism) is treated harshly by the law, and given Adebelajo was given a whole life tariff, I don't see how his sentence could have been harsher.

On the 45 year sentence, it is still actually a life sentence except that he will be eligible for release after 45 years. That doesn't mean he will actually be released then, merely that the authorities will be capable of making that determination.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 29

Drunk Punx

19

Original post by Manitude

Well the judge is obviously better acquainted with what the law says as well as previous experience in what other people have received for similar crimes so I think they're in the best place to determine what is and what isn't appropriate. The jury is there to determine guilt as the defendant's peers. I've read bits and pieces of the law which say a maximum or minimum penalty for certain crimes, it's up to the judge to weigh up any other factors involved to determine what's best for all parties. I guess they need to consider if justice is served, what is the chance of rehabilitation or re-offence, what impact has the crime had on the victim's family and/or wider community etc etc. I'm inclined to say in this particular case the judge got the sentence right, although I'm not claiming to be any kind of legal authority. The crime committed is truly horrific and the public should be kept safe for a long time, but assuming that they do fully rehabilitate there is a chance they will be released in 45 years.

As for them losing their appeals, I support their right to appeal but again I think the correct decision was made.

Yeah I agree with you there man, I too think that the correct decision was made.

Original post by young_guns

It's not totally discretionary; the judge must take into account the maximum sentence according to the relevant act of parliament, he must take into account a number of factors outlined by the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (are there aggravating factors, is it a first offence, etc).

The Sentencing Council also publishes guidelines on sentencing, and the Court of Appeal provides oversight by way of appeals if the sentence is manifestly incorrect (both for those that are too short as well as sentences that are too long)

This wiki is a very good outline of how sentencing works in England & Wales

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentencing_in_England_and_Wales

Murder done for the purposes of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause (i.e. terrorism) is treated harshly by the law, and given Adebelajo was given a whole life tariff, I don't see how his sentence could have been harsher.

On the 45 year sentence, it is still actually a life sentence except that he will be eligible for release after 45 years. That doesn't mean he will actually be released then, merely that the authorities will be capable of making that determination.

That was quite an interesting read, thank you!

Just to clear the air a little bit: when I said that the sentence shouldn't be based on the belief behind the crime, I wasn't implying that I thought 45 years for these ****ers was too long. As far as I'm concerned, the longer the better. I was merely highlighting the thought that murder is murder regardless of why, and that I think how someone was murdered should be more important when taking into consideration prison sentencing than why someone was murdered.

Reply 30

young_guns

1

Original post by Drunk Punx

Just to clear the air a little bit: when I said that the sentence shouldn't be based on the belief behind the crime, I wasn't implying that I thought 45 years for these ****ers was too long. As far as I'm concerned, the longer the better. I was merely highlighting the thought that murder is murder regardless of why, and that I think how someone was murdered should be more important when taking into consideration prison sentencing than why someone was murdered.

I do honestly believe it should be a mix of considerations. I do think that murdering someone with premeditation to advance a cause it a particularly heinous crime, it strikes particularly at our system of government and democratic values.

But I also think how it's done should also be taken into consideration; the fact they butchered him on a public street is horrific and perhaps is as much a consideration as the reasons why they killed him.

I do also hold to some of the old aggravating factors; it used to be that it was considered much worse to "lie in wait" (i.e. ambush) someone than to kill them in the heat of the moment, even if the means by which they did the murder (say, by shooting) was identical in both cases.

Overall, I think we are in agreement. I do think both should have received whole life tariffs though, I think that would have been justified

Reply 31

Ganhad

2

Original post by miser

Well, it just seems a bit backwards if a multiple murder gets a mandatory sentence of 30 years, but a single murder committed because of ideology gets 45.

backwards? and you do have those hoops on your ears? and refuse to eat meat? terror is 100* worse then a normal murder.

Reply 32

miser

20

Original post by Ganhad

backwards? and you do have those hoops on your ears? and refuse to eat meat? terror is 100* worse then a normal murder.

Hoops? I'm vegetarian yes. Well in that case it appears you disagree with the sentence more than me by a factor of fifty.

Reply 33

Blue Label

Original post by Viva Emptiness

On what grounds was he appealing?!

Prison grounds.

Reply 34

nulli tertius

21

Original post by Clip

Apart from the blatant absurdity of lone wolf terrorists being PWs, why on earth would these people want to be PWs?

1. They would be incarcerated not by the Prisons Service, but by the Army. That's going to go down well.
2. Conditions would probably be a lot worse.
3. They would probably be under armed guard and shooting them is not prohibited.
4. They might not get released until the end of hostilities. That might be forever.

Remember that the IRA and loyalist terrorists once had "political prisoner" status and it was the removal of that status that led to the "Dirty Protest" and hunger strikes in the 1980s.

Gain a special status and you are half way to gaining acceptance that your conduct is legitimate.

I think the USA in Afghanistan was wrong from the outset to corrupt the clear demarcations between POWs and criminals.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 35

nulli tertius

21

Original post by Drunk Punx

I was merely highlighting the thought that murder is murder regardless of why, and that I think how someone was murdered should be more important when taking into consideration prison sentencing than why someone was murdered.

Murderers have never been treated alike. It is important for the equal sanctity of life that there is a consistent and wide definition of murder. Having done that one has to accept that there are enormous variations in the circumstances of murder.

In the old days reprieved murderers tended to serve much shorter sentences than all murderers do today and only a small minority of murderers were ever hanged.

Reducing the circumstances taken into account in sentencing would inevitably mean that more heinous murderers had shorter sentences.