Can anyone explain this to me...
21 March 2006, 01:05 PM
#1
Guest
Posts: n/a
Can anyone explain this to me...
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0...514853,00.html
vs
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0...216088,00.html
Wearside Jack didn't directly kill anyone although I agree his actions lead to the possible avoidable deaths of other victims and deserves his 8 years.
However two scum of the earth parents who in my view are responsible for manslaughter ONLY get 12 months and 2 years for locking their kids in their bedroom with a box of matches which results in their deaths.
How can 8 years for one crime and 2 years max for another just as if not more serious crime be comparable?
Unbelievable
vs
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0...216088,00.html
Wearside Jack didn't directly kill anyone although I agree his actions lead to the possible avoidable deaths of other victims and deserves his 8 years.
However two scum of the earth parents who in my view are responsible for manslaughter ONLY get 12 months and 2 years for locking their kids in their bedroom with a box of matches which results in their deaths.
How can 8 years for one crime and 2 years max for another just as if not more serious crime be comparable?
Unbelievable
21 March 2006, 01:10 PM
#2
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: riding the crest of a wave ...
Posts: 46,493
Likes: 0
Received 13 Likes
on
12 Posts
Difficult to judge what he should get really. However he wasnt doing much on the outside as far as i could gather, sounds pretty much as tho he virtually asked for it.
21 March 2006, 01:12 PM
#3
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Disco, Disco!
Posts: 21,825
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by **************
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0...514853,00.html
vs
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0...216088,00.html
Wearside Jack didn't directly kill anyone although I agree his actions lead to the possible avoidable deaths of other victims and deserves his 8 years.
However two scum of the earth parents who in my view are responsible for manslaughter ONLY get 12 months and 2 years for locking their kids in their bedroom with a box of matches which results in their deaths.
How can 8 years for one crime and 2 years max for another just as if not more serious crime be comparable?
Unbelievable
vs
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0...216088,00.html
Wearside Jack didn't directly kill anyone although I agree his actions lead to the possible avoidable deaths of other victims and deserves his 8 years.
However two scum of the earth parents who in my view are responsible for manslaughter ONLY get 12 months and 2 years for locking their kids in their bedroom with a box of matches which results in their deaths.
How can 8 years for one crime and 2 years max for another just as if not more serious crime be comparable?
Unbelievable
The parents should have got 12+ years and both be sterilised for their crimes imho
21 March 2006, 01:23 PM
#5
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Derbyshire
Posts: 12,304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The parents were charged with neglect. How can they be charged with man slaughter when they did not directly kill the kids, which I believe is the requirement. Murder is the same as man-slaughter but premeditated as I understand.
21 March 2006, 01:25 PM
#6
Guest
Posts: n/a
They were responsible for locking them in their room with a box of matches and no means of getting out of that room. At the ages of 2 and 1 there was only going to be one result giving them matches. The parents caused the death of those children yet only get 2 years and 1 year jail terms. Disgusting.
21 March 2006, 01:38 PM
#7
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Derbyshire
Posts: 12,304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by **************
They were responsible for locking them in their room with a box of matches and no means of getting out of that room. At the ages of 2 and 1 there was only going to be one result giving them matches. The parents caused the death of those children yet only get 2 years and 1 year jail terms. Disgusting.
Trending Topics
21 March 2006, 01:45 PM
#8
Guest
Posts: n/a
I thought the direct actions of an individual that leads to the death of another can lead to being held accountable for manslaughter? ie the father giving a box of matches to his 2 year old son and them locking him in a room with those matches. Those are direct actions taken by the father that led to the death of the child. Thats not just neglect, that is putting a 2 year old child in direct danger.
21 March 2006, 01:49 PM
#9
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Derbyshire
Posts: 12,304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by **************
I thought the direct actions of an individual that leads to the death of another can lead to being held accountable for manslaughter? ie the father giving a box of matches to his 2 year old son and them locking him in a room with those matches. Those are direct actions taken by the father that led to the death of the child. Thats not just neglect, that is putting a 2 year old child in direct danger.
21 March 2006, 02:16 PM
#10
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Disco, Disco!
Posts: 21,825
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by OllyK
I'm no lawyer, but I'm guessing there wasn't sufficient evidence otherwise they would have been charged accordingly. They can only be sentenced against what they are found guilty for.
The sentence in no way reflects what they did and that seems wrong to me, the law is in such need of an overhaul and NOW!
21 March 2006, 02:21 PM
#11
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Derbyshire
Posts: 12,304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Paul Habgood
The sentence in no way reflects what they did and that seems wrong to me, the law is in such need of an overhaul and NOW!
21 March 2006, 04:14 PM
#12
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 3,016
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agree with OllyK,
The CPS have targets to hit, presumably directed from the government, as a result they are more and more opting for lower charges for easier convictions to get a positive result.
It's a stupid situation which needs to be dealt with.
I think the sentence for Wearside Jack was right though.
The CPS have targets to hit, presumably directed from the government, as a result they are more and more opting for lower charges for easier convictions to get a positive result.
It's a stupid situation which needs to be dealt with.
I think the sentence for Wearside Jack was right though.
21 March 2006, 04:18 PM
#13
Originally Posted by Jamescsti
The CPS have targets to hit, presumably directed from the government, as a result they are more and more opting for lower charges for easier convictions to get a positive result.
Yep - much more sensible to charge them with a more serious offence which the jury will throw out, and then you can watch them walk away free.
M
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
ReallyReallyGoodMeat
Non Scooby Related
12
21 September 2015 11:34 AM
alcazar
Non Scooby Related
5
18 September 2015 11:49 PM