Search blog.co.uk

Is it not time?

by lyndlj @ 2008-02-25 - 20:21:03

In just over a week no less than three men have been found guilty of murdering women, two of them proven to be multiple murderers and the other suspected of murders in Australia where he had gone after killing here in this country.

The crimes span six years between these three, and we have to ask the question, is it not time that this country had sentences that match the crime?

This is not a debate about Capital Punishment, though it has been proven that it can be a useful detterent it has also been proven that once having killed, even accidently a killer will decide that he has nothing to lose by doing it again as you can only die once.

This is about the ludicrous sentencing system in this country that means a Judge has to specify the amount of years that a killer has to serve, sentencing them to life does not work here as they would be out in a matter of a few years. Is it not time that 'life' sentences in this country matched those of the country the killers try to emulate?

In America 'life without parole' means just that, the only way you leave is in a box, not seven years later having had your sentence automatically halved the minute you enter the prison gates, and then get another half wiped off for 'good' behaviour!

These three hopefully will not walk out the gates in that time, no less than thirty five years for at least one of them, and it may be that he will never walk out, but there is also the chance that he will, how old will he be, seventies? Can you honestly say that even at that age they are not capable of carrying out a murder or of, even worse, training someone else how to do it? And yes there are people out there that will write to these people and beg them for pointers in their crimes!

We live in a world where Human life seems to be a throw away commodity, is it not time to say enough, and to place a proper value even if it is only in terms of sentencing, upon the lives of those unfortunate enough to cross paths with those that think it is their right to take what is not theirs, a life.

Trackback address for this post:

authimage

Comments, Trackbacks: Hide subcomments

discoboddiscobod [Member]
http://discobod.blog.co.uk
2008-02-25 @ 21:02

ooooh this is a subject i feel strongly about

serial killers usually receive multiple life sentances - about the only justice that works

drunk drivers who kill most of the time get manslaughter charges - why????
i think they should get some serious charge due to the fact they WERE drunk...

you mentioned the word deterrent - i think this is the real argument.

MOST criminals WOULD think twice about committing serious crimes if they knew there was a long prison sentence waiting for them if they get caught.

if a crime deserves 10 years make that the minimum they serve (if they don't behave in prison then add years on - not take them off for good behaviour)

how many times do we have to hear about people released early who go on to commit a serious crime almost on their way home from the prison?

an eye for an eye - and a life for a life

and murder is murder (most manslaughter cases make me sick with the fact they are not classed as murders)

lyndljlyndlj pro
2008-02-25 @ 22:57

I totally agree with you, anyone who knowingly drinks and then drives a vehicle should be charged with murder, they know they are breaking the law, they know they are a potentially lethal machine yet they do it anyway?

When you consider the amount of people that have been proved innocent years after they have been commited to prison the death penalty should not be reinstated until we have safeguards to prevent the innocent being executed. After all would that not make us all guilty of murder too?

bloglikesitbloglikesit [Member]
2008-02-26 @ 10:43

I agree with your point in your comment, the death penalty is only useful if you are 100% certain that someone committed the crime. And even then, the person who is put to death has their suffering cut short, whereas the family of the victim has to live on with their loss for the rest of their lives.

I think a better solution would be to keep them locked up for life, as in, until they die, with no privileges, no tv, no pool table, no radio, none of that, just the basics to keep them healthy. People shout about human rights - what about the rights of the person they killed?

Gosh, I sound vindictive...

Leave a comment :

Your email address will not be displayed on this site.
Your URL will be displayed.
Allowed XHTML tags: <!, p, ul, ol, li, dl, dt, dd, address, blockquote, ins, del, a, span, bdo, br, em, strong, dfn, code, samp, kdb, var, cite, abbr, acronym, q, sub, sup, tt, i, b, big, small, img>
URLs, email, AIM and ICQs will be converted automatically.
Options:
 
(Line breaks become <br />)
(Set cookies for name, email & url)
Validation code:
Please enter the above code here:
For protection from spambots (case-sensitive).

Footer

The content of this website belongs to a private person, blog.co.uk is not responsible for the content of this website.