Discussion
baconsarney said:
Can someone please explain to me how someone can be sentenced to life imprisonment and ‘will do a minimum of 15 years’
What a load of b
ks..
Rant over..
The convicted has been given a sentence whereby they must serve a minimum of 15 years, (otherwise known as a ‘rec’), but they are likely to serve much longer. The general rule of thumb being to add 25% on top of your ‘rec’.What a load of b
ks..Rant over..
However, if they don’t behave, don’t engage with offender management programmes, and generally behave like a dick, they’ll never pass parole in order to progress through the system.
I’ve known an individual be given a 28 day ‘rec’ and still be in a Cat-B prison five years later. Mind you, he was a complete and utter immature bellend who thought he was Gangster no:1.
The ‘life’ part also refers to the amount of time the individual can spend on licence, (probation), once released, although I believe this monitoring via probation can be overturned after a certain period of good behaviour, (ten years I think?).
In a nutshell, it says 15 years behind the door, but it could be life. It may be life on probation, or it may not. This all depends on the behaviour of the convicted.
105.4 said:
The convicted has been given a sentence whereby they must serve a minimum of 15 years, (otherwise known as a ‘rec’), but they are likely to serve much longer. The general rule of thumb being to add 25% on top of your ‘rec’.
However, if they don’t behave, don’t engage with offender management programmes, and generally behave like a dick, they’ll never pass parole in order to progress through the system.
I’ve known an individual be given a 28 day ‘rec’ and still be in a Cat-B prison five years later. Mind you, he was a complete and utter immature bellend who thought he was Gangster no:1.
The ‘life’ part also refers to the amount of time the individual can spend on licence, (probation), once released, although I believe this monitoring via probation can be overturned after a certain period of good behaviour, (ten years I think?).
In a nutshell, it says 15 years behind the door, but it could be life. It may be life on probation, or it may not. This all depends on the behaviour of the convicted.
Thank you for explaining, being given ‘life’ seems to be a bit of a misnomer! Thanks again However, if they don’t behave, don’t engage with offender management programmes, and generally behave like a dick, they’ll never pass parole in order to progress through the system.
I’ve known an individual be given a 28 day ‘rec’ and still be in a Cat-B prison five years later. Mind you, he was a complete and utter immature bellend who thought he was Gangster no:1.
The ‘life’ part also refers to the amount of time the individual can spend on licence, (probation), once released, although I believe this monitoring via probation can be overturned after a certain period of good behaviour, (ten years I think?).
In a nutshell, it says 15 years behind the door, but it could be life. It may be life on probation, or it may not. This all depends on the behaviour of the convicted.
baconsarney said:
Thank you for explaining, being given ‘life’ seems to be a bit of a misnomer! Thanks again
It really depends on how you look at it. A life sentence does have certain factors which will have an effect for life. As well as what has already been very well described above, the offender once released can be recalled to prison at any time during the rest of his life. Basically a threat to keep out of trouble - and it does just have to be that - I have experience of people being recalled simply on intelligence that they were consorting with undesirable elements!Russell Bishop, late of Brighton, was sentenced to a minimum of 14 years in 1990 for attempted murder of a 7-year-old. He was still inside in 2016 when he was rearrested for the murders of two young girls, the ‘babes in the wood’ murders, offences for which he’d previously been found not guilty, way back in the middle 80s. There were some gaps in the evidence, but the main reason he got off was the skills of his defence team, paid for by one of Murdoch’s papers.
The file for the att. murder was more than water-tight and the defence was reduced to personal attacks on the prosecution witnesses, particularly the SIO. That’s always a sign the defence are struggling against overwhelming evidence. He got a minimum term of 36 years for the two murders.
The reasons Bishop was still in prison 12 years after his eat-by date is the subject of rumours, but the main culprit would seem to be attitude.
Is his attitudes change, he’ll be eligible for release on licence, or whatever they’ll call it then, when he’s 86.
The file for the att. murder was more than water-tight and the defence was reduced to personal attacks on the prosecution witnesses, particularly the SIO. That’s always a sign the defence are struggling against overwhelming evidence. He got a minimum term of 36 years for the two murders.
The reasons Bishop was still in prison 12 years after his eat-by date is the subject of rumours, but the main culprit would seem to be attitude.
Is his attitudes change, he’ll be eligible for release on licence, or whatever they’ll call it then, when he’s 86.
Not ranting, just my little thought about life sentence
If punishment needs to fit the crimes, crimes needs to be deterred and public needs to be protected (some of the aims of CJA 2003)
Then all crimes (indictable or summary) should carry maximum life sentence (and suffering based sentencing) for the following reasons
1- A person can commit the same crime for multiple times and to a grave magnitude.
2- Public can be killed or serious injured in all crimes, no matter how remote the possbility.
Here I explain what I mean.
1.0- Ruth Ellis got executed for murder her boyfriend. The Dunblane shooter if guilty then he must be sentenced to more than mere hanging. Otherwise from an offending Cost Benefit Analysis than the Dunblane shooter seems to be getting a "Multi harm” offer.
1.2- Use Burglary as an example. I can steal 10 rich people homes, steal bunch of COVID vaccine and ventilator in 10 hospitals, or more extreme steal uranium in 10 nuclear power stations.
2-Arson is a crime which can carry life sentence- The official name is "Arson/criminal damage with intent to endanger life or reckless as to whether life endangered"
Take "Arson/Criminal damage" out of the offence name than "(Offence Name) with intent to endanger life or reckless as to whether life endangered"
I can replace it with Theft/ burglary/ Riot/ Fly tipping/ Harressment/ Malicious communications to the extent that life can be endangered.
Theft of covid meds or uranium can surely cause serious harm or kill someone.
Riot is certain violence and someone can be serious harmed and killed as a result.
Flytipping can cause a epidemic and someone can be killed as a result of being infected.
Malicious communications- If I say someone grossly offensive and as a result someone killed themselves should I face a life sentence?
All crimes if you think creative enough then you can find a way that life being endangered and therefore receive a life sentence.
If punishment needs to fit the crimes, crimes needs to be deterred and public needs to be protected (some of the aims of CJA 2003)
Then all crimes (indictable or summary) should carry maximum life sentence (and suffering based sentencing) for the following reasons
1- A person can commit the same crime for multiple times and to a grave magnitude.
2- Public can be killed or serious injured in all crimes, no matter how remote the possbility.
Here I explain what I mean.
1.0- Ruth Ellis got executed for murder her boyfriend. The Dunblane shooter if guilty then he must be sentenced to more than mere hanging. Otherwise from an offending Cost Benefit Analysis than the Dunblane shooter seems to be getting a "Multi harm” offer.
1.2- Use Burglary as an example. I can steal 10 rich people homes, steal bunch of COVID vaccine and ventilator in 10 hospitals, or more extreme steal uranium in 10 nuclear power stations.
2-Arson is a crime which can carry life sentence- The official name is "Arson/criminal damage with intent to endanger life or reckless as to whether life endangered"
Take "Arson/Criminal damage" out of the offence name than "(Offence Name) with intent to endanger life or reckless as to whether life endangered"
I can replace it with Theft/ burglary/ Riot/ Fly tipping/ Harressment/ Malicious communications to the extent that life can be endangered.
Theft of covid meds or uranium can surely cause serious harm or kill someone.
Riot is certain violence and someone can be serious harmed and killed as a result.
Flytipping can cause a epidemic and someone can be killed as a result of being infected.
Malicious communications- If I say someone grossly offensive and as a result someone killed themselves should I face a life sentence?
All crimes if you think creative enough then you can find a way that life being endangered and therefore receive a life sentence.
Derek Smith said:
Russell Bishop, late of Brighton, was sentenced to a minimum of 14 years in 1990 for attempted murder of a 7-year-old. He was still inside in 2016 when he was rearrested for the murders of two young girls, the ‘babes in the wood’ murders, offences for which he’d previously been found not guilty, way back in the middle 80s. There were some gaps in the evidence, but the main reason he got off was the skills of his defence team, paid for by one of Murdoch’s papers.
The file for the att. murder was more than water-tight and the defence was reduced to personal attacks on the prosecution witnesses, particularly the SIO. That’s always a sign the defence are struggling against overwhelming evidence. He got a minimum term of 36 years for the two murders.
The reasons Bishop was still in prison 12 years after his eat-by date is the subject of rumours, but the main culprit would seem to be attitude.
Is his attitudes change, he’ll be eligible for release on licence, or whatever they’ll call it then, when he’s 86.
Russell Bishop - wikiThe file for the att. murder was more than water-tight and the defence was reduced to personal attacks on the prosecution witnesses, particularly the SIO. That’s always a sign the defence are struggling against overwhelming evidence. He got a minimum term of 36 years for the two murders.
The reasons Bishop was still in prison 12 years after his eat-by date is the subject of rumours, but the main culprit would seem to be attitude.
Is his attitudes change, he’ll be eligible for release on licence, or whatever they’ll call it then, when he’s 86.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Bishop_(murd...
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff