Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there! Sign in to have your say on this topicNew here? Join for free to post

12 years in prison for murder

Announcements Posted on
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by welshprincess)
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/south_west/7509783.stm

    What does everyone think of ths story?
    This has really hit a nerve with me. The attack was carried out in a town not too far from mine so it's been in the press a lot. I'm personally disgusted by the sentence. At the end of the day after the age of 14 people are meant to be treated like adults in court, so why can't they be sentenced the same too? The person whose been convicted had no motive for what he did, the evidence proved it was him and he knew what he was doing. Surely he deserves a life sentence. In 12 years time he'll not even be 30 yet, he can come out and start his life over. The victim and her family's lives will never be the same again.

    I'm curious to know what is everyone else's opinions?
    Do you think this is justice? Are sentences too lenient?
    I've said too much about these sorts of caes before, and it has become boring.

    So all i'll say is that 14 is actually very young, and i believe that the age of criminal responsibility in this country is too low. It ois one of the lowest in the developed world.

    Yes, prison is about punishment. But it is also about, and should be moreso, rehabilitation. Putting him in for longer than this would effectively cut his chances of ever being a functioning member of society, which is bad for society, because then he would be more likely to commit yet more crimes.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cottonmouth)
    I've said too much about these sorts of caes before, and it has become boring.

    So all i'll say is that 14 is actually very young, and i believe that the age of criminal responsibility in this country is too low. It ois one of the lowest in the developed world.

    Yes, prison is about punishment. But it is also about, and should be moreso, rehabilitation. Putting him in for longer than this would effectively cut his chances of ever being a functioning member of society, which is bad for society, because then he would be more likely to commit yet more crimes.
    I love your sig :yep:
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ConservativeNucleophile)
    So it's okay as long as only some murderers reoffend?

    Murderers do reoffend. That's a fact. Any possibility of recidivism when the result is the death of an innocent person is too great for society to bear.
    I don't agree.

    I believe a system of once chance only, that leaves rehabilitated individuals in prison, is immoral.

    I imagine many murders happen in the moment, with no thought of reason or consequence. 12 years of my life sounds a very long time to me and I would guess that many of these people would never reoffend after such a stint, for example.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Meoldmucker)
    An eye for an eye imo :yep:
    (Original post by ConservativeNucleophile)
    Life = Life.
    "An eye for an eye, and soon the whole world is blind" - Gandhi
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BillV3)
    Care to back up that 'fact' with some proof, you keep saying they do and announcing it as fact but you've yet to give any proof on the matter, and don't say, "they do and it's a well known fact" as thats still not proof, I'm sure some do but you're speaking as if they all do and then announcing it as fact, so some proof please or stop throwing about these 'facts'.
    As you deem my statement about recidivism of released murderers to be fallacious, all I have to do is show a single example to prove you wrong. Thus, I point you to the very well-known case of Donald Forbes.

    Forbes was a Scot who was convicted of murdering a man in Edinburgh in 1958. As such, in accordance with the law of the land at the time, he was sentenced to death by hanging. He was transferred to Barlinnie Prison in Glasgow (now HMP Glasgow) to await execution. During his time on death row, he was granted the very rare privilege of marrying his girlfriend. Allegedly as a result of his recent hitching, he was granted a reprieve from the noose by the Secretary of State for Scotland. His death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment. In 1970, after serving only 11 years in prison (compare that to this boy's 12 years, of which he may only serve two-thirds), he was released. Just seven weeks later, he murdered again. This time, however, he could not be sentenced to hang -- the death penalty for murder had been abolished the prior year in 1969. His second sentence wasn't reduced. He remains alive and incarcerated to this day. He is Scotland's longest serving prisoner. If the Right Honourable gentleman who granted the sentence commutation had the testicular fortitude to uphold the sentence imposed by a court of law, Forbes would have hanged first time round, and his second victim would have lived.

    There, "fact" proven correct. Now STFU.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ConservativeNucleophile)
    As you deem my statement about recidivism of released murderers to be fallacious, all I have to do is show a single example to prove you wrong. Thus, I point you to the very well-known case of Donald Forbes.

    Forbes was a Scot who was convicted of murdering a man in Edinburgh in 1958. As such, in accordance with the law of the land at the time, he was sentenced to death by hanging. He was transferred to Barlinnie Prison in Glasgow (now HMP Glasgow) to await execution. During his time on death row, he was granted the very rare privilege of marrying his girlfriend. Allegedly as a result of his recent hitching, he was granted a reprieve from the noose by the Secretary of State for Scotland. His death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment. In 1970, after serving only 11 years in prison (compare that to this boy's 12 years, of which he may only serve two-thirds), he was released. Just seven weeks later, he murdered again. This time, however, he could not be sentenced to hang -- the death penalty for murder had been abolished the prior year in 1969. His second sentence wasn't reduced. He remains alive and incarcerated to this day. He is Scotland's longest serving prisoner. If the Right Honourable gentleman who granted the sentence commutation had the testicular fortitude to uphold the sentence imposed by a court of law, Forbes would have hanged first time round, and his second victim would have lived.

    There, "fact" proven correct. Now STFU.
    So your using one case to say that the majority of people reoffend? That is one murder case out of the 1000's that exsist today since then and your sing that as proof that most people reoffend? 'fact' prove correct in one case however you were claiming that more than one reoffend therefore this doesn't proove the entirety of your so called 'fact'
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ooze)
    I don't agree.

    I believe a system of once chance only, that leaves rehabilitated individuals in prison, is immoral.

    I imagine many murders happen in the moment, with no thought of reason or consequence. 12 years of my life sounds a very long time to me and I would guess that many of these people would never reoffend after such a stint, for example.
    Time is a very good pacifier, but 12 years is not enough. The boy (and he is only a boy) in this case is 17. In 12 years time, assuming he serves his whole sentence, which he may not, he will be 29. A 29-year-old man is perfectly capable of reoffending. When he is 75 and relegated to a walking stick, then -- and only then -- can he be deemed safe.

    I would prefer to keep a convicted murderer in prison for longer than necessary, than to release him and risk the murder of another innocent individual. He has already proven himself to be incapable of living peacefully in society; what more proof of his dangerousness do you require? Another murder? And, moreover, why does he deserve our sympathy?
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BillV3)
    So your using one case to say that the majority of people reoffend? That is one murder case out of the 1000's that exsist today since then and your sing that as proof that most people reoffend? 'fact' prove correct in one case however you were claiming that more than one reoffend therefore this doesn't proove the entirety of your so called 'fact'
    No, I've proven my original statement that murderers can reoffend to be correct.

    Donald Forbes = convicted murder
    Donald Forbes released
    Donald Forbes commits another murder
    .'. Convicted murderers can reoffend

    Logic isn't your strong suit, is it?
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    So do you think it's better if we had harsher punishments put into force for people like this?

    People don't like the fact that the thieves in Saudi Arabia get their hands chopped off... And guess what? Barely anyone does it because of that.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ConservativeNucleophile)
    No, I've proven my original statement that murderers can reoffend to be correct.

    Donald Forbes = convicted murder
    Donald Forbes released
    Donald Forbes commits another murder
    .'. Convicted murderers can reoffend

    Logic isn't your strong suit, is it?
    You've said they do reoffend, you've proven they can and that one has however thats hardly saying the majority DO, you may have proven they can however your point was that they do, I quote: "
    That does happen, by the way."

    as far as I can see your saying they do not that they can.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ConservativeNucleophile)
    Time is a very good pacifier, but 12 years is not enough. The boy (and he is only a boy) in this case is 17. In 12 years time, assuming he serves his whole sentence, which he may not, he will be 29. A 29-year-old man is perfectly capable of reoffending. When he is 75 and relegated to a walking stick, then -- and only then -- can he be deemed safe.

    I would prefer to keep a convicted murderer in prison for longer than necessary, than to release him and risk the murder of another innocent individual. He has already proven himself to be incapable of living peacefully in society; what more proof of his dangerousness do you require? Another murder? And, moreover, why does he deserve our sympathy?
    Physical capability should have nothing to do with it.

    All the person has proved is their mental state at the time was capable of murder.

    He deserves 'sympathy' because people make mistakes, people DO change, people do have regrets, yaddayaddaetc. No human life is more important than another, in my opinion.
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Some people seem to think that the person who committed this crime is 14, maybe i wasnt clear enough he's actually 17. One year older and he'd face an adult sentence.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sk1lLz)
    So do you think it's better if we had harsher punishments put into force for people like this?

    People don't like the fact that the thieves in Saudi Arabia get their hands chopped off... And guess what? Barely anyone does it because of that.
    but in the US, the death sentence doesnt prevennt people from killing others.. (i do agree with the death sentence btw...)

    i agree that we should have harsher sentences, and capital punishment for some offences..
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BillV3)
    You've said they do reoffend, you've proven they can and that one has however thats hardly saying the majority DO, you may have proven they can however your point was that they do, I quote: "
    That does happen, by the way."

    as far as I can see your saying they do not that they can.
    I said murderers can reoffend. You asked for proof. I told you of a well-known example of a reoffending murderer. What more do you want?

    (Original post by ooze)
    Physical capability should have nothing to do with it.
    Of course it should. If you look up the murder rates amongst 29-year-olds and compare them with the rates amongst 75-year-olds, I'm sure you'd find a disparity. One blatant reason for that is that your average 75-year-old simply doesn't have the physical (or usually psychological) capacity to commit murder.

    (Original post by ooze)
    All the person has proved is their mental state at the time was capable of murder.
    So, say that at a murder trial a psychologist testifies that the defendant is no longer mentally capable of committing further murders. Should that defendant be released? How would you feel if a family member was the victim? I don't care whether or not you like it, there has to be an element of punishment when somebody breaks the law.

    (Original post by ooze)
    He deserves 'sympathy' because people make mistakes, people DO change, people do have regrets, yaddayaddaetc. No human life is more important than another, in my opinion.
    Utter nonsense. Murderers do not deserve sympathy. I wouldn't shed a tear if the lot of them were shot at dawn tomorrow.

    Somehow, I get the feeling your opinion would change dramatically were you to be a relative of a murder victim.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ViolatedTreason)
    but in the US, the death sentence doesnt prevennt people from killing others..
    Show me an example of an executed inmate who went on to murder again. Just one. I dare you.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ConservativeNucleophile)
    Of course it should. If you look up the murder rates amongst 29-year-olds and compare them with the rates amongst 75-year-olds, I'm sure you'd find a disparity. One blatant reason for that is that your average 75-year-old simply doesn't have the physical (or usually psychological) capacity to commit murder.
    I have the physical capability of murdering someone. I don't see police on my tail. It shouldn't be an issue at all.

    So, say that at a murder trial a psychologist testifies that the defendant is no longer mentally capable of committing further murders. Should that defendant be released? How would you feel if a family member was the victim? I don't care whether or not you like it, there has to be an element of punishment when somebody breaks the law.
    I absolutely do think they should be released, yes.

    As I've said before, I think 12 years wasted in prison, probable loss of support from family and friends, and the tag of "convicted murderer" on your head for the rest of your life would be punishment enough for many people. I do agree with an element of punishment for justice, but I do not agree with punishment for the sake of punishment.

    Utter nonsense. Murderers do not deserve sympathy. I wouldn't shed a tear if the lot of them were shot at dawn tomorrow.
    I disagree.

    Somehow, I get the feeling your opinion would change dramatically were you to be a relative of a murder victim.
    I don't doubt that, but what has that got to do with anything?

    Like I said before, I can't imagine how anyone could keep a rational mind about the case if a member of their family is murdered.

    Sentencing should not come about to satisfy someone's emotions alone.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    only 12 years?

    i didn't read the article but i'm sure the victim had more than 12 years to live.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ooze)
    I have the physical capability of murdering someone. I don't see police on my tail. It shouldn't be an issue at all.
    Have you ever murdered a person before? You've not demonstrated a tendency to murder people for no reason; this idiot has.

    (Original post by ooze)
    I absolutely do think they should be released, yes.
    Well then, praise the Lord that you're not in charge of the criminal justice system. Convicted murderers cannot say "ooo, sorry, never meant to kill anybody" and then walk free.

    (Original post by ooze)
    As I've said before, I think 12 years wasted in prison, probable loss of support from family and friends, and the tag of "convicted murderer" on your head for the rest of your life would be punishment enough for many people.
    Big ****ing deal. Miss Hyde has lost her life. The piece of filth responsible has lost nothing in comparison to her. None of those "consequences" stop him from murdering again.

    (Original post by ooze)
    I do agree with an element of punishment for justice, but I do not agree with punishment for the sake of punishment.
    Would you like to pull a random number of years out of your ass for which punishment should last?

    (Original post by ooze)
    I don't doubt that, but what has that got to do with anything?

    Like I said before, I can't imagine how anyone could keep a rational mind about the case if a member of their family is murdered.

    Sentencing should not come about to satisfy someone's emotions alone.
    Who stands up for the victim's rights then? You're ostensibly too busy concerning yourself with the "rights" of the poor, misunderstood murderer.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I have seen as low as 2 years for murder.
    Often it is 3 to 6 years.
    I think if you look into it the real sentance wont be 12, it might be, but usualy the advertised sentance is not whats served.
    Life sentances average six years i think, so its rare for a sentance to be above that.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ConservativeNucleophile)
    Have you ever murdered a person before? You've not demonstrated a tendency to murder people for no reason; this idiot has.
    If someone has been declared clear as you said here .. "say that at a murder trial a psychologist testifies that the defendant is no longer mentally capable of committing further murders. Should that defendant be released?" ... then I class this person on the same level mentally as anyone else. So if I am not considered a threat, despite being physically capable of murder, then this person shouldn't be either.

    Convicted murderers cannot say "ooo, sorry, never meant to kill anybody" and then walk free.
    I disagree.

    Big ****ing deal. Miss Hyde has lost her life. The piece of filth responsible has lost nothing in comparison to her. None of those "consequences" stop him from murdering again.
    What stops someone murdering again is a change in mental state. Regret and a realisation of the consequences. There is no set time limit on when/if that may happen. I don't see any point in keeping him in prison for longer than is necessary, and I do not agree with the concept of a life for a life.

    Would you like to pull a random number of years out of your ass for which punishment should last?
    No, that's the job of the juror :rolleyes:

    Who stands up for the victim's rights then? You're ostensibly too busy concerning yourself with the "rights" of the poor, misunderstood murderer.
    Not at all. I don't think it's the victim's right however to ruin another person's life.

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: August 4, 2008
New on TSR

Halloween 2014

Spooky tales from this year's fright night

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.