skinz Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 The sentence is life - because that's the only sentence permissible under law. The 25 years minimum is a recommendation. - A recommendation which will carry a great deal of weight! It means that they (almost certainly) won't even be considered for release on parole until they have served 25 years. Once the 25 years is up, they could apply for parole ... but that doesn't mean they will get it. The parole board will be aware that their crime was so heinous that the judge recommended a very long period of incarceration. No doubt they will consider that. So the recommendation is pivotal to the sentence? At what point (timewise) is the judge limited to on his recommendations? 25? 35? 45? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted August 4, 2012 Share Posted August 4, 2012 The sentence is always 'Life imprisonment' but in many cases, people are released on licence. (They can be returned to prison if they do anything wrong, too. - the Sentence is never served.) The trial judge can recommend (and it is a very strong recommendation!) 'Whole of life.' Originally, the Home secretary could do that, but somebody (I don't remember who) appealed the Home secretary's decision before the European Court of Human Rights. The ECHR ruled that the Home Secretary couldn't do that - but confirmed that both the trial Judge and the High Court can set a recommended minimum up to (and including) 'whole of life' I don't know how many people are serving 'whole of life' but (AFAIR) it's about 50. Ian Brady is the longest serving at the moment. He went to prison in 1966. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Convict Edd Posted August 4, 2012 Share Posted August 4, 2012 here we go, theres always one You mean you dont find it disgusting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mort Posted August 4, 2012 Share Posted August 4, 2012 I strongly recommend that you don't start up with the usual bickering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinz Posted August 4, 2012 Share Posted August 4, 2012 The sentence is always 'Life imprisonment' but in many cases, people are released on licence. (They can be returned to prison if they do anything wrong, too. - the Sentence is never served.) The trial judge can recommend (and it is a very strong recommendation!) 'Whole of life.' Originally, the Home secretary could do that, but somebody (I don't remember who) appealed the Home secretary's decision before the European Court of Human Rights. The ECHR ruled that the Home Secretary couldn't do that - but confirmed that both the trial Judge and the High Court can set a recommended minimum up to (and including) 'whole of life' I don't know how many people are serving 'whole of life' but (AFAIR) it's about 50. Ian Brady is the longest serving at the moment. He went to prison in 1966. This is why I asked if his hands were tied...bad use of term. I should have said how restrictive is his recommendations. My implication in an earlier post was the recommendation should have been a lot higher. 25 as a recommendation was light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted August 4, 2012 Share Posted August 4, 2012 25 is a lot longer than most murderers can expect to serve. Mr Ahmed will be 77 before he is eligible even to be considered to be released. Mrs Ahmed will be 74. I don't know what sort of treatment they will get from the other inmates in their prisons, but life may well be rather hard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinz Posted August 4, 2012 Share Posted August 4, 2012 25 is a lot longer than most murderers can expect to serve. Mr Ahmed will be 77 before he is eligible even to be considered to be released. Mrs Ahmed will be 74. I don't know what sort of treatment they will get from the other inmates in their prisons, but life may well be rather hard. I can live with that. At 77 and 74 they can make decisions which may help in their cause for release..that I'm uncomfortable with. They could of course now they have time, look at honour from a totally different perspective and end their own lives. Sorry to sound cynical but I have zero pity for those with no value for life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted August 4, 2012 Share Posted August 4, 2012 You mean you dont find it disgusting? yes of course BUT the constant undercurrent of bitching and sniping about muslims in general on this forum is also disgusting and DOESNT help in any shape or form either to get rid of the problems in the community or to bring both sets of communitys together Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted August 4, 2012 Share Posted August 4, 2012 yes of course BUT the constant undercurrent of bitching and sniping about muslims in general on this forum is also disgusting and DOESNT help in any shape or form either to get rid of the problems in the community or to bring both sets of communitys together If a minority group in a society know how much their behaviour offends the rest of that society, they may take action to change it, if it’s not talked about, or complained about they may feel that the society they live in accepts it. The Catholic church tried to keep the action of their priests quiet and it lead to more abuse, when everyone knows about and condemns the abuse, action is likely to be taken to prevent it happening again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinz Posted August 4, 2012 Share Posted August 4, 2012 If a minority group in a society know how much their behaviour offends the rest of that society, they may take action to change it, if it’s not talked about, or complained about they may feel that the society they live in accepts it. The Catholic church tried to keep the action of their priests quiet and it lead to more abuse, when everyone knows about and condemns the abuse, action is likely to be taken to prevent it happening again. I agree with this in principle but the Catholic church were denying crimes they preach against. The Pakistani community do not preach out against honour killings..reason being is because honour is a condition within that culture. Raping young boys within a catholic culture isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.