2 of the convicted men have been given a minimum 35 year term and the other 2 a minimum of 27 years.

Where's the logic in that?
Child killers get let out sooner than that.

I guess it's all about politics and sending a message to black males, don't pick up a gun.

 

maybe the message is even deeper and is dont pick up a gun and kill other people?

 

I wasn't defending it if you look, I asked where the logic was.
Child killers get less and you find it acceptable?

 

they are child killers arent they?

whats you point? they got too long or child killers get too little?

 

String them up on the nearest lampost!! Feed their ***** to the dogs (while they are alive!)

One of them was closely related to one of the girls ....... they have NO emotion at all!

Pete

 

No-one said it was acceptable!!

Its NOT because they are BLACK - its because they are cold blooded killers!!

Pete

 

Has there ever been logic in our legal system.....

I don't like the idea of child killers being freed too soon, but I do like the idea of these cold blooded f***ers being banged up where they should be.

 

You'd get my vote B2Z

 

Child killers get too little.
Obviously when I said "Child killers get less " wasn't clear enough for you.

A murder conviction should mean a life term in the true sense, not 10,15 or 20 years.
I questioned the logic in this particular case with the 35 year minimum term as opposed to a child killer getting "life" and being out in 15.

 

I can see both points of view - 35 is a long time ( compared to some other people sentences) but it was a very bad crime and i feel for there parents as a 135 years wouldnt bring them back

 

Indeed, bring back the death penalty for paedophiles and child killers where it can be proved beyond any doubt at all that they did it.

It's the next logical step in the fight against these lunatics who insist on carrying out crimes against helpless children. They can't help themselves they claim, fine if you can't control yourself then you should never again be released into society and there's no reason the tax payer should have to fund them sitting in a cell watching tv all day so hanging it is.

 

I sort of agree with this. The death penalty in cases where DNA evidence indisputably proves guilt would suit me.

 

Did I cause offence by using the word "black"?
What I meant was you don't see teenage white males get handed such stiff sentences for gun crimes and I questioned whether it was politically motivated.

 

Can you reference a couple of recent cases where a white male got a shorter sentence for the drive by shooting of 2 teenage girls just so that we have a comparison. BBC News of Sky websites would be fine.

 

How many white males commit these type of crimes?
It is safe to say "drive-by shootings" are glamourised by Black America hence why such crimes are less likely to be committed by young white males.
I will however search for some statistics for you.

 

That's kind of my point, you can't claim that a black guy has been given a more harsh sentence for a crime than a white guy if a white guy hasn't been convicted of the same crime, you haven't got a datum against which to make the comparison. If you can find a comparable case within the last 5 years involving a white guy getting a lesser sentence, then I'll accept your point, if you can't then please stop trying to make this some kind of racial issue.

As far as I am concerned the guy killed two innocent girls, and should get the maximum sentence permitted by the law regardless of the skin colour, ethnic origins etc of any of them.

 

Olly, my point was the political motivation, to send a message to black males.
I wasn't making a racial issue out of it other than to highlight what I perceive to be politically motivated.

 

I would hope the judge's motivation was to send a message to any wannabe gangster (regardless of colour or creed) that gun crime will not be tollerated, I see no need to narrow the field to only blacks, male or otherwise.