Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

Sarah Payne

Judge asks for moment's silence to remember Sarah Payne
A sensitive comment by Mr Justice Simon after he announced the new minimum 40 year tariff for Roy Whiting. Sara Payne, mother of Sarah, and her other children were in court to hear the judge say: "I invite everyone present in court, before we go about our daily business, to pause and for a moment remember Sarah Payne who would now be 18 if she had not been murdered, and reflect the grave loss her death has caused to her family and others who loved her.”

This sounds odd, but hear me out. People are kicking off about this bloke getting reduced from 50 years to 40 years the time before he is able to get a chance of having parole.

Dont get me wrong here, since its only the chance to be eligible for parole, not actually setting him free, the bloke still is likely to die in prison anyway.

People talking about how this man has tried to deliberately prolong the pain of the family, yet as things stand the bloke is still likely to rot in prison anyway.

My question is, am I wrong to wonder why people who are not family/connected are kicking up such a fuss about this judgement?
Beep boop. I'm a bot.

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yea i think so, its still an injustice thats been done whether you know the family or not. To me, life should mean life, especially for men like him.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It is perfectly legit and right that the Courts have decided to shorten the sentence.

    Nothing wrong with imposing a 50-year minimum tariff. However there is a huge amount of wrong with the Home Secretary imposing such tariff.

    Thankfully the rules have now been changed so that doesn't happen again. It isn't up to the government, or ultimately the fucking newspapers, which were the ones that instigated such move, to dish out sentences.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Lexi99 wrote: »
    Yea i think so, its still an injustice thats been done whether you know the family or not. To me, life should mean life, especially for men like him.

    The bloke is going to be 90 or so when he is eligible for parole at the earliest, which doesnt guarantee that he is going to get out at all.

    I think the confusion as well is that I always thought that the "life sentence" for for taking a "life" not as a "lock you up for ever but you will be out in 10"
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    As I understand it a life sentence stays with you for life. If you are let out, it is on a 'licence', and any law breaking could see you back inside.

    One might argue that 'life should mean life' but the thing is most 'lifers' are released on licence without much fuss from anyone. The Payne case was one in which the judicial process was messed up with because of the pressure from the public and the press. That is a very serious occurrance, and one that must not be repeated.

    Sensationalist headlines outrage from the media, and shameful bandwagon jumping by the government must never be allowed to interfere in the judicial process. I see the Scum is already moaning about it (see Thursday's front page). Fuck 'em.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I really don't understand why the sentence was reduced to 40 years in the first place. The Home Secretary should never have interfered in it, granted, but I can't see why it needed changing now.

    Roy Whiting is still likely to be leaving Her Majesty's pleasure in a nailed-down box. No loss.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    It is perfectly legit and right that the Courts have decided to shorten the sentence.

    Nothing wrong with imposing a 50-year minimum tariff. However there is a huge amount of wrong with the Home Secretary imposing such tariff.

    I agree. If the law needs to be changed so that the courts give harsher sentences, so be it. But I fear a Home Secretary's decision could be based on political populism rather than the pursuit of true and legal justice.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I remember the Sarah Payne case, I was so young.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    lyric wrote: »
    I remember the Sarah Payne case, I was so young.

    Whether people remember it or not, its always interesting to see how extreme a view some people can have considering they were not involved in the case.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Personally, I don't think anyone should die in prison. I think everyone should be given a chance to see the world before they die, so I think it's a good thing he has the opportunity to be free. Although, it is doubtful he will be.

    Also, yeah, I think anyone who isn't involved in the case should be angry about his sentence. Yes, it's a horrible thing that a young girl lost her life... But let the family grieve (as I'm sure they still are) and let them deal with it how they will. Of course, everyone will have their own thoughts on what happened, but it's not always necessary to air them.
    Xx
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    G wrote: »

    People talking about how this man has tried to deliberately prolong the pain of the family, yet as things stand the bloke is still likely to rot in prison anyway.

    I'm sorry for seeming stupid, but how did he try to prolong the pain of the family?

    I was only six or seven when this happened, so although I can remember it, I can't really recall the details.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Personally, I don't think anyone should die in prison. I think everyone should be given a chance to see the world before they die, so I think it's a good thing he has the opportunity to be free.
    Absolutely, and Sarah Payne should also be allowed to see the world before she dies.

    Oh wait...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    G wrote: »
    Whether people remember it or not, its always interesting to see how extreme a view some people can have considering they were not involved in the case.

    The only view I have on it as that it was disguisting what happened to her!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote: »
    Absolutely, and Sarah Payne should also be allowed to see the world before she dies.

    Oh wait...

    Well said.
    He murdered a child. He has no rights.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    lyric wrote: »


    Well said.
    He murdered a child. He has no rights.

    He's still a human, regardless of his killing of a child.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well he has basic human rights but no, he should not be let out of prison.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    lyric wrote: »
    Well he has basic human rights but no, he should not be let out of prison.

    No he shouldn't. He took away someone else's right to a free life, so he has none of his own.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You're right.
Sign In or Register to comment.