Berlinah Wallace gets away with murder

ICBM

Phil_aka_Pip said:

nah. 12 years after what she did is getting away with it. life meaning life wouldn't be getting away with it

I agree with you up to a point, but it's still a life sentence, which is the same as she would have received for murder. Although she will be eligible for parole after 12 years, there's no guarantee she will actually get out then - or ever. It will be a controversial decision to release her, and I wouldn't be surprised if she does serve a lot more.

Phil_aka_Pip

@ICBM and even if she did get out after then, no bloke is going to risk getting shacked up with her!

Heartfeltdawn

Phil_aka_Pip said:

I did say she's got way with it didn't I

Any release will involve intensive psychological assessment. If you check some of the mentions of her psychological state during the trial, it's clear she is not a well woman. 

Paul_C

So she's single ?

Heartfeltdawn

Paul_C said:

So she's single ?

And she likes guitars. 

Phil_aka_Pip

Heartfeltdawn said:

Phil_aka_Pip said:

I did say she's got way with it didn't I

Any release will involve intensive psychological assessment. If you check some of the mentions of her psychological state during the trial, it's clear she is not a well woman.

batshit crazy would seem to be an accurate description, given her behaviour

earwighoney

ICBM said: 

 And she may - it's a life sentence with a minimum and which is more than has ever been given for an acid attack before. 

Arthur Collins was given 20 years, and has over 13 years minimum. 

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/acid-attacker-arthur-collins-given-11864966

ICBM

earwighoney said:

ICBM said: 

 And she may - it's a life sentence with a minimum and which is more than has ever been given for an acid attack before. 

Arthur Collins was given 20 years, and has over 13 years minimum.

Life is still more. She could theoretically never get out.

I'm not sure why we're so quick to dismiss the judiciary and the sentencing as not providing 'justice'. It seems to me exactly that justice has been done here - found guilty of a different crime which is what was actually committed, but sentenced the same as for murder... what more do you want?

Garthy

ICBM said:

earwighoney said:

ICBM said: 

 And she may - it's a life sentence with a minimum and which is more than has ever been given for an acid attack before. 

Arthur Collins was given 20 years, and has over 13 years minimum.

Life is still more. She could theoretically never get out.

I'm not sure why we're so quick to dismiss the judiciary and the sentencing as not providing 'justice'. It seems to me exactly that justice has been done here - found guilty of a different crime which is what was actually committed, but sentenced the same as for murder... what more do you want?

I want her to never be freed because she could do it again in 12 years time and as I said in my first post that if you removed someone’s face and eyes with a knife and injured them so gravely they could only move their tongue after 4 months in a coma and eventually lose all means of communication then it is unlikely you’d escape a whole life tariff. 

Legionreturns

There's a difference between justice and revenge. The law dictates justice, many people see the courts as some way of distributing vengeance...which isn't what they're for. 

Garthy

Legionreturns said:

There's a difference between justice and revenge. The law dictates justice, many people see the courts as some way of distributing vengeance...which isn't what they're for. 

I haven't mentioned revenge, but tell me you can read this and think that she could make parole in just 9 years being appropriate.

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/r-v-wallace-sentencing.pdf

Justice would be a whole life tariff, revenge would be to do as the Iranians do as mentioned elsewhere on this thread.

Bridgehouse

I fail to see how in any context and any understanding of the law she managed to “get away with it”

Legionreturns

Garthy said:

Legionreturns said:

There's a difference between justice and revenge. The law dictates justice, many people see the courts as some way of distributing vengeance...which isn't what they're for. 

I haven't mentioned revenge, but tell me you can read this and think that she could make parole in just 9 years being appropriate.

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/r-v-wallace-sentencing.pdf

Justice would be a whole life tariff, revenge would be to do as the Iranians do as mentioned elsewhere on this thread.

The point is, I've had absolutely no legal training to be able to make that judgement. To do so, you'd need not only ALL of the specifics of the case, but also full knowledge of the law and sentencing guidelines as ratified by parliament. Gut feeling and emotion shouldn't come into it, which is why very highly paid legal brains make these judgements and not tabloid newspapers.

earwighoney

ICBM said:

Life is still more. She could theoretically never get out.

Yes for sure.  The minimum term Arthur Collins will serve may or may not be longer than Berlinah Wallace prison sentence, and consequently there is a possibility her sentence may not be the longest given for an acid attack (but it also could be at the same time).   

IMO both sentences suggest show how seriously the judicial system is currently taking acid attacks and if there is anything that can be taken from this and other acid related attacks cases is whether they are able to continue tighten the control of sales of the acids as a means to reduce the possibility of future acid attacks. 

Snap

The problem with discussions like this, when it involves court cases and sentencing, is that most people don't understand the legal system, and more to the point are only reading information relayed via (usually) partisan media (whether that be online or hard copy).

This woman was tried, the evidence produced, found guilty, and then sentenced by a legal professional, within the confines of the law and precedent.

If found guilty of homicide (manslaughter or murder), then the precedent set by the case would be tricky. You then open a legal path to accusing people of homicide when the death is some distance from their actual actions. Her actions could have been argued to have led to his death, but the facts in the case at that time were decided not to be so: the causal link was deemed to be too distant.

As for life sentences: they are just that, life. All life sentences carry a tariff - the point at which a release is possible if the offender has addressed the crime and is deemed fit to be released. That's a big if. IF they get out, they are on a lifelong license meaning one offence and they go back in, technically for life again. The tariff is designed to allow for rehabilitation and for society to be relieved of the cost of keeping a prisoner who is now fit to be out in society contributing to society.

A life sentence gives society the mechanism to permanently remove someone, whereas a fixed long term sentence does not. On say a sentence of 20 years, the offender could be out, on good behaviour, after 10. Bu they have a fresh start.  A lifer always has the axe hanging over them, and one step out of line and they are back in. Which is surely good.

Where the legal system IMO falls short, is that life sentences should be available for more offences. For example any abuse on children or rape should be open to a life sentence by default. Particularly in the case of paedophiles. As the law stands now, a paedophile can do a few years and get out, ready to do it again (which often they do). A life sentence would allow more of them to permanently removed.