GlesgaKiss

I'm sure most of you have seen this story.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...=feeds-newsxml

I find it impossible to put into words my disgust at reading what this man has done. Can you imagine being subjected to something like this?

The worst thing is the fact he's only been given a minimum of 6 years. Some life sentence! I think 16 years as an absolute minimum before there are even any discussions about a potential release. He is clearly the kind of person who would give no thought in causing untold damage to the lives of others. A truly dangerous individual. How many are roaming the streets right now, I wonder.

The Zohan

+1

jef

iTrader: (13)

shocking situation!

another example of a callous, evil man.

even the judge stated how horrific it was but prosecution still accept a lesser sentance if pleads quilty to a lesser crime? is that how it happens?

thats so fcking wrong!!

i think there may be select cases where a lesser sentance could be used if a quilty plea is made to it, but not in a situation like this.
no justice there atall imo!!!

mamoon2

He has been jailed indefinitely, Which means he could be there for the rest of his life.

Normally on these sentences they will do a lot longer than the minimum 6 years stated. It's not like a regular sentence where you serve the 6 year minimum and get released.

Midlife......

iTrader: (2)

AFAIK He has been given an ideterminate sentence... he won't see the light of day, or if he does he will be so old that it doesn't matter. Like Ian Brady.

Shaun

GlesgaKiss

^^^^ Oh well, not such a bad outcome there then. I skimmed the article and just saw 6 year minimum!

ritchie21

He has been given an IPP (Imprisonment for Public Protection) which is as others say, effectively a life sentence.

What people don't appreciate is that Judge's are bound by sentencing guidelines and in these circumstances, the minimum period to be served is half of the determinate sentence that would have been passed-which is in turn, determined by the sentencing guidelines!

The reality is that,in the case of an IPP being passed, he will not be permitted to apply for release until he has served a minimum of 6 years. After that, he will have to make an application to the parole board and satisfy them that he is not a danger to the public. He has been found to be dangerous, which means that "that there is a significant risk of causing serious harm (physical or psychological) by the commission of further specified offences" ie similar offences.

It takes an awful lot to persuade the parole board that you are no longer dangerous, when an IPP is passed. IF he is eventually released, he will be on life licence, which means that he will be at risk of recall to prison for an indeterminate period of time for ANYTHING-even being suspected of an offence but not being charged. It is only if you have been out of trouble for a minimum of 10 years, can you apply for the life licence to be revoked (only for IPP sentences not LIFE sentences).

Don't blame the Judge's for lenient sentences (as some of you are complaining that the 6yr minimum is too lenient), blame the sentencing guideline's council who issue the sentencing guidelines which by law, the Judges MUST follow. Had he not got an IPP, he would have received 12 years-reduced from 18 for his early guilty plea (credit which must be given according to the sentencing guidelines council).

jef

iTrader: (13)

that clears up a lot for me

didnt know most of above, thanks

i understand judges are regulated by a governing body, and must act in accordance, i think they should maybe be extended some more influence in sentencing - even if it has to be agreed by more than one judge to try eliminate bias in anyway.

im sure there is complex set ups regarding sentencing guidelines - quite probable i knwo none of them, and with explanation i could understand - but i definitely mis-interpreted the sentencing in this case. heres hoping he doesnt infact see the light of day again.

jef

iTrader: (13)

good info mate

it does appear to have its flaws however, its seemingly quite common occurance for people to, slip the net so to speak. we do hear a lot about people re-offending, when they are under some kind of licence.
and whats the thinking behind reduced sentancing for guilty pleas?

on the face of it, it seems its driven by finance. less time/money needed to build a case ect - is that a million miles off?

thanks

LUCKO

iTrader: (3)

He attacked her nine times in the year leading up to him blinding her


why didnt she leave after the 1st, 2nd ????

Lisawrx

iTrader: (1)

It's easy to look at it that way when you are not involved, and think you might never be so weak for want of a better word. People can be very manipulative and over-powering making a partner feel either so fearful or worthless that they can't get out.

CrisPDuk

I know it sounds harsh, but to some extent these are self-inflicted injuries

The Police had made several previous attempts to prosecute him, for assaults on her and others, and were thwarted by her both refusing to testify, and also outright lying to protect him

I hear what you are saying about manipulation Lisa, but apparently she was warned by practically the entire town to steer clear from the beginning, but she thought she knew better

ritchie21

Credit for guilty plea is important. You have to give people incentive to plead guilty rather than have a trial-otherwise everyone will simply have a trial. Part of it is money saving BUT the primary factor is that if the evidence is there and you have a defendant who will plead guilty for a lesser sentence, it is better for the victims/witnesses who will have a speedy conclusion AND most importantly, will not have to re-live the experience by giving evidence.

Lee247

I see where you are coming from, Lisa, but LUCKO has a valid point.
She is a good looking lady and he is vile. I can never understand wimmins who put up with type of treatment when the door is so easy to find and walk out of

Terminator X

iTrader: (7)

Where does it say 6yrs as I can only see indefinite? Why only GBH? Seems a strange offence for deliberately blinding someone.

TX.

David Lock

"Guidelines" seems an inappropriate word?? They seem to be exact rules for sentencing and not "guidelines" at all. When can a judge decide for himself?

dl

Luan Pra bang

My issue here is that the guy had a long history of violence that he was never punished for hence his behavior got worse. I sympathise with the Woman but she voluntarily dated a notoriously violent thug becuase she found that aspect of him attractive. I have met loads of women who are attracted to violence and agression and then they act surprised when it bites them on the ****. Its one thing to be trapped in a relationship with a normal seeming man who has bouts of violent rage but a different thing to deliberately go out with aggressive thugs.

Dr Hu

Unfortunately the hotter the woman, the more of a b@stard she partners with..... In general

GlesgaKiss

Totally agree. It doesn't take any guilt away from him at all, but it does mean there was a certain amount of stupidity involved on her part. As you say, there are plenty of women around willingly consenting to poor treatment, mental more than physical, for this reason.

GlesgaKiss

Oh, and she had kids around as well. F*cking crazy. Just shows how strong the baser instincts can be and how they can lead a person away from making rational decisions in order to be gratified.

Yellow R

iTrader: (2)

one evil fu**ing cun*

zs_phil

iTrader: (1)

He has gone to a secure mental home for the rest of his life it said in the paper

Leslie

They should throw away the key!

Les