It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Subscribe to our Patreon, and get image uploads with no ads on the site!
Base theme by DesignModo & ported to Powered by Vanilla by Chris Ireland, modified by the "theFB" team.
Comments
"Take these three items, some WD-40, a vise grip, and a roll of duct tape. Any man worth his salt can fix almost any problem with this stuff alone." - Walt Kowalski
"Only two things are infinite - the universe, and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
Seriously: If you value it, take/fetch it yourself
Seriously: If you value it, take/fetch it yourself
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/acid-attacker-arthur-collins-given-11864966
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?
"Take these three items, some WD-40, a vise grip, and a roll of duct tape. Any man worth his salt can fix almost any problem with this stuff alone." - Walt Kowalski
"Only two things are infinite - the universe, and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
My Trading Feedback | You Bring The Band
Just because you're paranoid, don't mean they're not after youMy Trading Feedback | You Bring The Band
Just because you're paranoid, don't mean they're not after youIMO 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.
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.