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.
Options
15 years for a brutal stabbing.
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/5109898.stm
I saw the CCTV pictures of this on Sky News earlier, just a most senseless and horrific act of murder. The parents of the murdered student understandably want tougher sentences. Is it fair that scum like Michael Lynch could be out in under 15 years?
I personally have no qualms about the death penalty for these types of murders but that's another debate - however surely at the very minimum a life sentence for this kind of crime should mean exactly that? People capable of such cruelty do not deserve freedom. Life really should mean life.
Michael Lynch, 17, was told he would serve a minimum of 15 years
I saw the CCTV pictures of this on Sky News earlier, just a most senseless and horrific act of murder. The parents of the murdered student understandably want tougher sentences. Is it fair that scum like Michael Lynch could be out in under 15 years?
I personally have no qualms about the death penalty for these types of murders but that's another debate - however surely at the very minimum a life sentence for this kind of crime should mean exactly that? People capable of such cruelty do not deserve freedom. Life really should mean life.
0
Comments
I hope you're right. For such cases however I really don't see why there should be any recommendation that the murderer serves x amount of time. A life sentence should last until the prisoner dies.
But personally, I'd rather see all of them shot. But that's just me... if not, then full life sentences, but I see that as pointless.
in this country some people get parole but not all.
those whpo get parole whilst doing life ...continue the sentence till they die ...meaning ...get pissed and fall over in public ...straight back to the porridge bowl ...swear at a copper ...back on the porridge.
and there will be plenty of people ...even fifteen years down the line who will be goading this guy to make a mistake ...from the victims family to the police.
if your a killer and your never ever getting out ...you might as well kill some more inside ...favourite target being the poor sods who work there.
would get very difficult to recruit people to work in such a place meaning you would get the rottenest people in the job.
you would be building and running death camps but ...your ok with that i believe.
Of course, dis undoubtedly believes every word proclaimed by "official US sources" as the ineffible word of god, so all deaths of those he deems "scum" (without any shred of proof to the charge) must be "acts of terror" or "acts of war", like the good general said!
As for this violent chap, well he'll get a firsthand taste of what happens to 17 year old boys in maximum security prisons, I've little doubt.
It means he is eligible to be considered for parole in x number of years (usually half), not that he will be kicked out of prison then.
Serious murderers, like Huntly and Shipman and Hindley, would never be considered suitable for release by the parole board, so it really is a moot point. Whether this fine specimen would be, who knows.
It's also interesting to see the politicians coming out attacking a defencless judiciary (serving judges cannot defend themselves as they cannot talk about the case to the media) when its the politicians who set the laws and the tariffs.
You are right...Although not completely in this case. From the article:
So is Lynch somehow less of a danger to the public because he's got a lower IQ and had personal problems? I cannot see any reason why he should serve a shorter minimum sentence because of his IQ, his IQ does not change the fact that he committed an extremely senseless act of violence and above all is a danger to the public. (I do accept he may serve 24 years but I don't really see the justification for the judge giving a lower recommended minimum sentence).
I think the personal circumstances should be taken into account when sentencing- the person who nicks for food should be sentenced less than the person who nicks for laughs. Personal problems should be taken into account in a judicial system, and that does include mental health issues.
If he remains a danger to the public he won't be let out. If he stops being one then he will be let out, and because of his issues I do think it should be sooner.
All it means is that he will be given an assessment sooner, not that he will be let out sooner- not unless he is no longer a danger. I honestly don't see the issue with that.
It depends on how you see the criminal justice system really. I see it as a combination of punishment and rehavbilitation, and it is very unfair to punish someone who doesn't understand what they did wrong the same as someone who did understand and did it anyway.