Reply to: Lawrence's killers sentence to be reviewed as being too lenient

[AtW]

For a 17 year old, a 15 year sentence is a lifetime

They evaded justice for a very long time, IMHO that rule should be applied not for age at the time of crime but for age when person brought to justice (sentencing).

[BrilloPad]

Bring back the rope.

It's much cheaper.

This is one of the cases that will be used against the death penalty. They will be out in a few years due to the flimsiness of the forensics. If they had been hanged they would have been turned into Martyrs by some future liberals.

Death penalty needs to be reserved for the current "whole lifers". And the old woman who nearly ran me done at Lewisham roundabout on Wednesday morning.

[Troll]

I think you meant to say that the Lawrence family suffered for 18 years. I don't think these animals feel guilt - except perhaps at being caught.

Like all families of murdered children I imagine the suffering will last the rest of their lives - I expect the trial(s) can only begin to bring some kind of closure

[BrilloPad]

Also need to bear in mind that they have had 18 years of freedom whilst carrying this guilt. This should be added onto the sentences handed out to them IMHO.

I think you meant to say that the Lawrence family suffered for 18 years. I don't think these animals feel guilt - except perhaps at being caught.

[kaiser78]

Also need to bear in mind that they have had 18 years of freedom whilst carrying this guilt. This should be added onto the sentences handed out to them IMHO.

And the parents of whichever one it was who give a false alibi to cover up on the evening, saying they were at home all the time should be put on trial again. I recall they were tried before for this but case was dismissed due to lack of evidence - this is now more clear cut.

[mudskipper]

The issue is that Laurence's murders escaped justice for longer than they got sentenced for which should have been proper full life.

Pearton's murders got caught and convicted much quicker.

Unless there is a really good reason life for murder should be life and never it should be told to the convicted murderer that they might spend less time in jail than life, perhaps after 15-20 years for really good behavior.

For a 17 year old, a 15 year sentence is a lifetime - i.e. nearly as long as they've lived. For a man in their 30s, it isn't. Dunno what the right answer is in this case.

[AtW]

But isn't Troll's point that Pearton's murderers got similar sentences, even under the new laws?

The issue is that Laurence's murders escaped justice for longer than they got sentenced for which should have been proper full life.

Pearton's murders got caught and convicted much quicker.

Unless there is a really good reason life for murder should be life and never it should be told to the convicted murderer that they might spend less time in jail than life, perhaps after 15-20 years for really good behavior.

[MarillionFan]

Seems unjust.

I believe judges Darcus Howe and Winston Silcott will be the proceeding judges on the review.

[Troll]

But isn't Troll's point that Pearton's murderers got similar sentences, even under the new laws?

In which case, what are the grounds for saying Lawrence's murderers got off more lightly than they would have done if they'd committed the offence today?

That was the point I was attempting to make

[Doggy Styles]

"The judge was restricted by defunct legislation when he imposed the stiffest sentences allowable for offenders who were juveniles back in 1993."

Nicholas Pearton apears to have been murdered in May 2010.

------

I was certainly suprised to hear very lenient sentence for murders of Stephen Lawrence, however if specific law that applied at the time in 1993 restricted such sentence then it is certainly easily explainable.

But isn't Troll's point that Pearton's murderers got similar sentences, even under the new laws?

In which case, what are the grounds for saying Lawrence's murderers got off more lightly than they would have done if they'd committed the offence today?

[Troll]

I don't think so.

It's only reasonable for good citizens to be concerned why somebody who was convicted of murder only gets 14-15 years when they evaded justice for longer than that.

WTF is it 14-15 years in the first place, if it's a life sentence for murder then it should be exactly that - life murder, unless there murderer in question does something extra ordinary like getting Nobel Peace Prize or something.

All good sentiments and without the death sentence I agree life should mean life.

I believe these are minimum tariffs that have to be set to protect the guilty parties Human Rights bollox

[AtW]

Just my opinion but we seem to be moving from rule of law to lynch mobs.

I don't think so.

It's only reasonable for good citizens to be concerned why somebody who was convicted of murder only gets 14-15 years when they evaded justice for longer than that.

WTF is it 14-15 years in the first place, if it's a life sentence for murder then it should be exactly that - life murder, unless there murderer in question does something extra ordinary like getting Nobel Peace Prize or something.

[Troll]

Just my opinion but we seem to be moving from rule of law to lynch mobs.

To me it appears to be trial by media

[Troll]

"The judge was restricted by defunct legislation when he imposed the stiffest sentences allowable for offenders who were juveniles back in 1993."

Nicholas Pearton apears to have been murdered in May 2010.

------

I was certainly suprised to hear very lenient sentence for murders of Stephen Lawrence, however if specific law that applied at the time in 1993 restricted such sentence then it is certainly easily explainable.

So you also believe the sentences were too lenient?

[MrMark]

Just my opinion but we seem to be moving from rule of law to lynch mobs.