Anyone else feel the sentence is too small? 12 charges and all you get is under 6 years?
On an individual break down of each charge, apparently sexually assaulting a 7/8 year old girl only carries 9 months in jail. What?
Results 21 to 30 of 53
-
-
04-07-2014, 01:14 PM #22
Don't they take into account his age and other aspects? 6 years is huge for an 84 year old, whereas its relatively light for say a 20 year old.
Originally Posted by Kardan
That's when Ron vanished, came back speaking Spanish
Lavish habits, two rings, twenty carats
-
Why should they take age into account? Surely a 20 year old is just as guilty as an 84 year old if they carry out the same offences? Originally Posted by The Don
-
04-07-2014, 01:33 PM #24
Because the punishment is relative to a whole range of factors. A 6 year sentence is practically a life sentence for an 84 year old whereas it's a minor scratch for a young adult. We also do not know the full details of the crimes so how can you complain the sentence is too short when you don't know the details other than the vague ones which have been released? Originally Posted by Kardan
That's when Ron vanished, came back speaking Spanish
Lavish habits, two rings, twenty carats
-
Do you think that 9 months for sexually assaulting a 7 year old girl is fair then? Seems far too little imo.
And the fact is, in this case, surely Harris has already had all his 'freedom' he should have, these assaults took place years and years ago, and since then, he's been living as a free man. So if they did reduce the sentence, just because he's old - that's not right.
-
04-07-2014, 01:49 PM #26
Again, we don't know what he did so how can I say what's fair? Although the figure on it's own may seem small, when you look at it in conjunction with his age you realise he'll probably die before he gets out. What do you think about prisoners being released on compassionate grounds? Originally Posted by Kardan
That's when Ron vanished, came back speaking Spanish
Lavish habits, two rings, twenty carats
-
They should serve the sentence they were dealt. Life means life. Someone getting cancer (for example) doesn't excuse them from their crimes. Originally Posted by The Don
-
04-07-2014, 01:53 PM #28
Well then we fundamentally disagree because you obviously think prisons should be for punishment and retribution whilst I think they should be preventative and to rehabilitate. Originally Posted by Kardan
That's when Ron vanished, came back speaking Spanish
Lavish habits, two rings, twenty carats
-
So does someone getting terminal cancer suddenly rehabilitate someone enough for them to be released then? Originally Posted by The Don
-
04-07-2014, 02:04 PM #30
@Kardan; I've just read that he can only be sentenced in accordance with the law at the time which is why he got a comparatively lenient sentence as under the modern sentencing structure I've read that it's apparently likely he would have received a life sentence.
- - - Updated - - -
And no, but if they're no longer a threat then why keep them locked up when that money and space could go towards housing a true threat? Originally Posted by Kardan
So does someone getting terminal cancer suddenly rehabilitate someone enough for them to be released then?Last edited by The Don; 04-07-2014 at 02:07 PM.
That's when Ron vanished, came back speaking Spanish
Lavish habits, two rings, twenty carats
Reply With Quote
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts