Blue and true
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 13 Feb 2015
- Messages
- 3,162
Many times. Though that doesn't change the point I was making.Over the years, I wonder how often that has been said
Many times. Though that doesn't change the point I was making.Over the years, I wonder how often that has been said
No criminal sentence is handed down arbitrarily. In the instance of minors, there will always be mitigating circumstances determined by criminal psychologists that will lessen sentences. It's much easier to determine inherent, irredeemable evil in an adult than it is in an adolescent or child. I believe sentences should be much tougher, but many think whole tariffs should be mandatory when in reality a judge is hamstrung by the law in cases like this.At a cost of £300,000 per year apparently. £6m to potentially rehabilitate someone seems like an extreme waste of money to me.
Does it matter ?Bit of a Scouse accent on that girl, is she from Skelmersdale?
I’d rather the law was changed.No criminal sentence is handed down arbitrarily. In the instance of minors, there will always be mitigating circumstances determined by criminal psychologists that will lessen sentences. It's much easier to determine inherent, irredeemable evil in an adult than it is in an adolescent or child. I believe sentences should be much tougher, but many think whole tariffs should be mandatory when in reality a judge is hamstrung by the law in cases like this.
These two will be out in twenty years, that's the shit truth, so ask yourself this: would you rather nothing were done to correct them while they are inside. Or, would you rather spend taxes rehabilitating them and thereby greatly diminishing the chance of them striking again when they rejoin society?
At a cost of £300,000 per year apparently. £6m to potentially rehabilitate someone seems like an extreme waste of money to me.
I tend to agree. But that's a whole other thread entirely.I’d rather the law was changed.
These two will be out in twenty years