Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Section Leader
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    (Original post by silverbolt)
    Are you just being deliberately obtuse?
    No - you suggested the difference that warranted the extended prison sentence was that the Lee Rigby killers "bleated on with pride". I challenged that pride (or bleating on with pride) is a criminal action, as only criminal activity can send a person to prison.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by miser)
    No - you suggested the difference that warranted the extended prison sentence was that the Lee Rigby killers "bleated on with pride". I challenged that pride (or bleating on with pride) is a criminal action, as only criminal activity can send a person to prison.
    The crime is the murder. The aggravating and mitigating features of a crime are not in themselves criminal.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    But why should the why never come into it?
    I don't know about you but I feel that someone murdering a man in broad daylight because religion or whatever is MUCH worse and deserves a much harsher punishment than say a woman murdering her father who repeatedly raped her since childhood. The why does matter.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reluire)
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30306145

    Hopefully this proves that UK justice isn't as light as many think.
    What is the root of terrorism ?

    Apart from that certain people don’t count

    If you think that's your tribe, your group, your posse are the people who all other people must yield !! Who all other people must submit !! Who all other people have no right !! Who they think they can dictate who should rule in other countries.

    If the UK and USA make it “us against them,” and project the idea worldwide that they see themselves locked in a crusader’s holy war against Islam, they can hardly act surprised if and when those on who they have declared that war on take them at their word and decide they have nothing to lose by taking as many of you down as they can in the process.

    Terrorism will always exist as long as white people remain committed to a politics of Western dominance around the globe; so long as they stand in the way of self-determination for the Palestinian people; so long as they act as though they act like they entitled to other people’s oil. So long as Israel is the only country allowed to have nuclear weapons in the middle east.

    If the UK and USA wishes to minimize the likelihood of terrorism being deployed against UK, then they must insist that the UK turn from the policies that have given rise to those grievances.

    It is not legitimate to station American troops in Saudi Arabia, or to fund Israel to the tune of billions of dollars as they continue to subjugate the Palestinian people in ways they could not do for one week were they to have to pay for their police state on their own.

    It is not legitimate to starve the people of Iraq with economic sanctions that kill hundreds of thousands of children.

    Just try to remember that Al Qaida was started by US money in 1980′s Afganistan where Osama was fighting your previous enemies the commies.

    "But....but we have nukes !!"

    Nukes don’t mean nothing. They are impractical weapons. They do not want to destroy the world. They would much rather control the world. And that’s what the ‘Robot Army’ concept allows for. But it takes a lot more drones to control the world than it takes nuclear weapons to destroy the world—thus the expense. Also the cost of keeping up with the state-of-the-art technology is VERY expensive.

    There is something to be said for understanding why no one likes you.

    If all the kids in the sandbox think you’re a thug and a bully, then after a while you’d best stop trying to beat them into submission, or thinking that they’re the problem, and instead begin to turn some of that analysis inward.

    That’s what you’d do, anyway, if you wanted to actually get to the bottom of the conflict on the playground. If, on the other hand, your main concern were showing what a badass you were, then maybe this wouldn’t matter much to you at all. And in that case, you would set out to show those other kids who was boss, who was king of the hill. You would continue to provoke them and then act shocked when they hit back.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    On what grounds were they given legal aid to launch this frivolous appeal?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by #Ridwan)
    On what grounds were they given legal aid to launch this frivolous appeal?
    We don't know whether they were.

    Given the high profile of the case the barrister may have taken it on to this stage pro bono.

    However the government also tends to be generous with legal aid in high profile criminal cases. The sums involved on a permission to appeal application are modest and the adverse publicity from someone like the defendants trying to argue the case personally, are considerable. The Court might well be highly critical of the government in such circumstances.

    Whilst the appeal against conviction was never going anywhere, the sentencing appeal was not so frivolous. This sentence did not reflect the sentencing guidelines, which are just that, guidelines. However the Court of Appeal is very keen to avoid having too many "exceptional" cases. It was just possible that the Court might have said that the criminal justice system was no stranger to terrorist executions (plenty in NI) and what really distinguished this case was that the public had seen it on television and that wasn't relevant to sentencing.
 
 
 
Poll
Who is your favourite TV detective?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.