Elliot Turner gets 16 years for murdering girlfriend Emily Longley

Daily Echo: Emily Longley Emily Longley

A violent man who strangled his aspiring model girlfriend in a jealous rage has been told he will serve at least 16 years in jail.

Wealthy jeweller's son Elliot Turner, 20, was found guilty by a jury at Winchester Crown Court yesterday of murdering 17-year-old Brockenhurst College student Emily Longley in his bed after going ''absolutely nuts''.

The attack was the culmination of a month of anger and upset over his suspicions that she was ''twisting his heart'' by seeing other men.

He had claimed during the trial he acted in self-defence when Emily attacked him and he grabbed her by the throat for five or six seconds and he then woke up to find her dead in his bed in Bournemouth, in May last year.

His parents, Leigh, 54, and Anita, 51, also face jail terms after being found guilty of helping to cover up the crime by destroying a confession letter from their son and taking away vital evidence after the killing at their home.

They will be sentenced later after being convicted of perverting the course of justice after the five-week trial. Turner had admitted the same charge.

Emily's father, Mark Longley, called Turner evil and said he hoped he would suffer every day in prison for killing Emily, who had come over from New Zealand to study at college just eight months before her murder.

Turner had a history of obsession with women and soon showed signs of jealousy towards Emily after they met in December 2010.

The short, volatile relationship quickly descended into violent arguments, with Turner threatening to kill his girlfriend on an almost daily basis.

The prosecution said Turner used a pillow to smother Emily and then strangled her after she went back to his house to talk things over following a violent argument that night.

Sentencing Turner, Mrs Justice Dobbs said: ''Emily was a lovely, kind, fun-loving girl who brought a ray of sunshine to those she touched.

''That light has been extinguished suddenly and needlessly by you.

''You told your parents you loved Emily - you really do not know the meaning of love.

''Loving someone is not telling them they are a whore, it is not trying to control them, it is not threatening them, it is not slagging them off to your friends.

''You did not love her, she was just a trophy.

''The relationship, if it can be called that, was all about you. It was about control: control you carried out using aggression and threats.

''You could not be seen to be dumped by her and be seen to look like an idiot to your friends.

''Your arrogance towards Emily when on remand and during the trial has been breathtaking. Your lack of remorse is chilling.

''It is particularly galling you conducted an interview with a New Zealand paper in which you appeared to show no remorse.

''In my judgment it's apparent you had been thinking of killing Emily and it was only a matter of time before it happened because it's clear she wanted to be free from you and you would not let that happen - if you could not have her no-one else would do.

''You bullied, harassed, threatened and assaulted her.

''You can put away thoughts of champagne, Bentleys and girls and concentrate on the reason you are serving a life sentence.''

Emily's mother, Caroline, father, Mark, and younger sister, Hannah, sat in the well of the court to hear the judge.

Mrs Justice Dobbs also sentenced Turner to nine months to run concurrently for perverting the course of justice.

Speaking outside court, Mr Longley said he was satisfied with the outcome.

''We are pleased he is not on the streets now. He's an incredibly dangerous person and we are relieved he cannot do this again.''

He said the family could now move on and grieve for Emily.

Comments (54)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:00am Tue 22 May 12

Shirayuki says...

16 years? That's a pathetic minimum term for someone who is clearly a danger to other people. Look at all the evidence - he has shown no remose and is an absolute waste of oxygen. Bring back capital punishment.
16 years? That's a pathetic minimum term for someone who is clearly a danger to other people. Look at all the evidence - he has shown no remose and is an absolute waste of oxygen. Bring back capital punishment. Shirayuki

11:02am Tue 22 May 12

Shoong says...

Enjoy the slammer you SOB, where is 'The Firm' now..?
Enjoy the slammer you SOB, where is 'The Firm' now..? Shoong

11:05am Tue 22 May 12

Smartiepants says...

Shirayuki wrote:
16 years? That's a pathetic minimum term for someone who is clearly a danger to other people. Look at all the evidence - he has shown no remose and is an absolute waste of oxygen. Bring back capital punishment.
Completely agree, this was calculated murder, backed up by his parents. An eye for an eye I say, if he has to be kept alive, put him inside forever. Why should he be allowed any human rights at all when he's robbed another person of theirs.
[quote][p][bold]Shirayuki[/bold] wrote: 16 years? That's a pathetic minimum term for someone who is clearly a danger to other people. Look at all the evidence - he has shown no remose and is an absolute waste of oxygen. Bring back capital punishment.[/p][/quote]Completely agree, this was calculated murder, backed up by his parents. An eye for an eye I say, if he has to be kept alive, put him inside forever. Why should he be allowed any human rights at all when he's robbed another person of theirs. Smartiepants

11:14am Tue 22 May 12

Mike New Forest says...

The arrogant little rich kid has got what he deserved! He won't go down well in prison and I suspect he will spend most of his sentence in isolation for his own protection with all the sex offenders! I hope to hear news of his hanging soon.
The arrogant little rich kid has got what he deserved! He won't go down well in prison and I suspect he will spend most of his sentence in isolation for his own protection with all the sex offenders! I hope to hear news of his hanging soon. Mike New Forest

11:16am Tue 22 May 12

Linesman says...

16 years?

61 years would be more appropriate, and I would still think that he got off light.
16 years? 61 years would be more appropriate, and I would still think that he got off light. Linesman

11:17am Tue 22 May 12

jimmy.little says...

even if he did server the full16 years he will come out aged 36 and free to get into another relationship with another women and act in the same way.... should have a tattoo on his forehead for life warning others!
even if he did server the full16 years he will come out aged 36 and free to get into another relationship with another women and act in the same way.... should have a tattoo on his forehead for life warning others! jimmy.little

11:25am Tue 22 May 12

ajw1986 says...

Disgusting, should have got 100 more.
Disgusting, should have got 100 more. ajw1986

11:28am Tue 22 May 12

Torchie1 says...

Mike New Forest wrote:
The arrogant little rich kid has got what he deserved! He won't go down well in prison and I suspect he will spend most of his sentence in isolation for his own protection with all the sex offenders! I hope to hear news of his hanging soon.
I can't help asking myself if this 'rich' family tried to understate their wealth by choosing to live in a bungalow more suited to a pensioner.
[quote][p][bold]Mike New Forest[/bold] wrote: The arrogant little rich kid has got what he deserved! He won't go down well in prison and I suspect he will spend most of his sentence in isolation for his own protection with all the sex offenders! I hope to hear news of his hanging soon.[/p][/quote]I can't help asking myself if this 'rich' family tried to understate their wealth by choosing to live in a bungalow more suited to a pensioner. Torchie1

11:31am Tue 22 May 12

roofspace says...

Poor little rich boy who was was the only child and never told "NO" by his parents.
His life and the poor girl he murdered has been ruined by their indulgence. Nasty people all three.
Poor little rich boy who was was the only child and never told "NO" by his parents. His life and the poor girl he murdered has been ruined by their indulgence. Nasty people all three. roofspace

11:32am Tue 22 May 12

Stillness says...

He has taken about 60 years of the girls life. I think he should be facing 60 years in prison.
He has taken about 60 years of the girls life. I think he should be facing 60 years in prison. Stillness

11:40am Tue 22 May 12

SaintJoeBhoy90 says...

Not long another. Emily was a friend of mine and a lovely girl, she wouldnt hurt a fly. I hope that he cant handle the abuse he will take daily in the showers! Lets see how long the little pr1ck lasts. RIP Emily x
Not long another. Emily was a friend of mine and a lovely girl, she wouldnt hurt a fly. I hope that he cant handle the abuse he will take daily in the showers! Lets see how long the little pr1ck lasts. RIP Emily x SaintJoeBhoy90

11:56am Tue 22 May 12

bigfella777 says...

This just about sums up the justice system in this country now, pathetic.
192 months for taking this beautiful young girls life away forever, where is the deterrent in this country not to commit murder?
Build more poor quality over crowded prisons now and get them all on hard labour building the roads we so badly need with shovels and picks.
This just about sums up the justice system in this country now, pathetic. 192 months for taking this beautiful young girls life away forever, where is the deterrent in this country not to commit murder? Build more poor quality over crowded prisons now and get them all on hard labour building the roads we so badly need with shovels and picks. bigfella777

12:01pm Tue 22 May 12

freemantlegirl2 says...

Linesman wrote:
16 years?

61 years would be more appropriate, and I would still think that he got off light.
Agree, 16 years is insulting - he took away not only Emily's life/future but destroyed that of her family.

Glad the parents will be convicted too, evil all three of them!
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: 16 years? 61 years would be more appropriate, and I would still think that he got off light.[/p][/quote]Agree, 16 years is insulting - he took away not only Emily's life/future but destroyed that of her family. Glad the parents will be convicted too, evil all three of them! freemantlegirl2

12:02pm Tue 22 May 12

Taskforce 141 says...

bigfella777 wrote:
This just about sums up the justice system in this country now, pathetic.
192 months for taking this beautiful young girls life away forever, where is the deterrent in this country not to commit murder?
Build more poor quality over crowded prisons now and get them all on hard labour building the roads we so badly need with shovels and picks.
Well said.
[quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote: This just about sums up the justice system in this country now, pathetic. 192 months for taking this beautiful young girls life away forever, where is the deterrent in this country not to commit murder? Build more poor quality over crowded prisons now and get them all on hard labour building the roads we so badly need with shovels and picks.[/p][/quote]Well said. Taskforce 141

12:13pm Tue 22 May 12

Saintcosser says...

Stillness wrote:
He has taken about 60 years of the girls life. I think he should be facing 60 years in prison.
Totally agree. Shocking to think that he could be out on the streets again in his mid 30's.
[quote][p][bold]Stillness[/bold] wrote: He has taken about 60 years of the girls life. I think he should be facing 60 years in prison.[/p][/quote]Totally agree. Shocking to think that he could be out on the streets again in his mid 30's. Saintcosser

12:19pm Tue 22 May 12

BillyTheKid says...

Why are the sentences for serious crime so low ?

My impression, over many years, is that the whole population of Britain feels that the length of prison sentences for murder and causing death by reckless behaviour are too short. So often victim's relatives have said that they have lost their loved one forever, but the killer will be out in 10 to 15 years and able to continue with their life. Obviously the possibility of a miscarriage of justice is always there, and sometimes happens, so bringing back capital punishment would not, perhaps, be a good idea. But how did we get from the death sentence to 15 years for similar crimes ?

Either we are all wrong, or our legal system isn't listening. With whom do we raise this issue ?
Why are the sentences for serious crime so low ? My impression, over many years, is that the whole population of Britain feels that the length of prison sentences for murder and causing death by reckless behaviour are too short. So often victim's relatives have said that they have lost their loved one forever, but the killer will be out in 10 to 15 years and able to continue with their life. Obviously the possibility of a miscarriage of justice is always there, and sometimes happens, so bringing back capital punishment would not, perhaps, be a good idea. But how did we get from the death sentence to 15 years for similar crimes ? Either we are all wrong, or our legal system isn't listening. With whom do we raise this issue ? BillyTheKid

12:26pm Tue 22 May 12

sb2012 says...

Aggravating factors should be
a) a significant degree of planning or premeditation;
b) the victim was vulnerable because of age or disability;
c) mental or physical suffering inflicted on the victim before death;
d) the abuse of a position of trust;

The minimum starting point for this offence is 15 years

and the only mitigating factor that can be proven is turners age

Summary the UKs justice system at present is a joke.

Elliot is a despicable individual who has shown no remorse and blatantly attempted to manipulate the justice system and his own family to escape justice 16 years is an insult to Emily's family and all others close to her, I believe Elliots life funded by his parents and not restricted at all has led him to believe he is above the law and his arrogance and his parents denial led to them trying to escape justice

I again summarise 16 years what a joke hopefully he will do us all a favor and have the respect to die in jail before he escapes
Aggravating factors should be a) a significant degree of planning or premeditation; b) the victim was vulnerable because of age or disability; c) mental or physical suffering inflicted on the victim before death; d) the abuse of a position of trust; The minimum starting point for this offence is 15 years and the only mitigating factor that can be proven is turners age Summary the UKs justice system at present is a joke. Elliot is a despicable individual who has shown no remorse and blatantly attempted to manipulate the justice system and his own family to escape justice 16 years is an insult to Emily's family and all others close to her, I believe Elliots life funded by his parents and not restricted at all has led him to believe he is above the law and his arrogance and his parents denial led to them trying to escape justice I again summarise 16 years what a joke hopefully he will do us all a favor and have the respect to die in jail before he escapes sb2012

12:27pm Tue 22 May 12

SaintsBridge says...

Mental! How is 16yrs life? Out at 36yrs old and able to carry on the rest of his life. Take someone’s life in this manor and you should lose your right to freedom and the hope of freedom for your life.
Mental! How is 16yrs life? Out at 36yrs old and able to carry on the rest of his life. Take someone’s life in this manor and you should lose your right to freedom and the hope of freedom for your life. SaintsBridge

12:28pm Tue 22 May 12

sb2012 says...

sb2012 wrote:
Aggravating factors should be
a) a significant degree of planning or premeditation;
b) the victim was vulnerable because of age or disability;
c) mental or physical suffering inflicted on the victim before death;
d) the abuse of a position of trust;

The minimum starting point for this offence is 15 years

and the only mitigating factor that can be proven is turners age

Summary the UKs justice system at present is a joke.

Elliot is a despicable individual who has shown no remorse and blatantly attempted to manipulate the justice system and his own family to escape justice 16 years is an insult to Emily's family and all others close to her, I believe Elliots life funded by his parents and not restricted at all has led him to believe he is above the law and his arrogance and his parents denial led to them trying to escape justice

I again summarise 16 years what a joke hopefully he will do us all a favor and have the respect to die in jail before he escapes
I meant to say released not escapes ooops!
[quote][p][bold]sb2012[/bold] wrote: Aggravating factors should be a) a significant degree of planning or premeditation; b) the victim was vulnerable because of age or disability; c) mental or physical suffering inflicted on the victim before death; d) the abuse of a position of trust; The minimum starting point for this offence is 15 years and the only mitigating factor that can be proven is turners age Summary the UKs justice system at present is a joke. Elliot is a despicable individual who has shown no remorse and blatantly attempted to manipulate the justice system and his own family to escape justice 16 years is an insult to Emily's family and all others close to her, I believe Elliots life funded by his parents and not restricted at all has led him to believe he is above the law and his arrogance and his parents denial led to them trying to escape justice I again summarise 16 years what a joke hopefully he will do us all a favor and have the respect to die in jail before he escapes[/p][/quote]I meant to say released not escapes ooops! sb2012

12:38pm Tue 22 May 12

The Salv says...

What a pathetic excuse of a man. There are many like him but only a few go on to do the utterly disgracefull act he did. The sentence is not tough enough, this "man" is not suitable for normal life and should never by released. His parents, especially his mum should be looking at the 16 year sentence with him banged up for life. Total scum and non human lowlife tool. Go to hell.
What a pathetic excuse of a man. There are many like him but only a few go on to do the utterly disgracefull act he did. The sentence is not tough enough, this "man" is not suitable for normal life and should never by released. His parents, especially his mum should be looking at the 16 year sentence with him banged up for life. Total scum and non human lowlife tool. Go to hell. The Salv

1:10pm Tue 22 May 12

Over the Edge says...

SaintsBridge wrote:
Mental! How is 16yrs life? Out at 36yrs old and able to carry on the rest of his life. Take someone’s life in this manor and you should lose your right to freedom and the hope of freedom for your life.
I know its no consolation and I am not defending this vile creature, but he will not be out in 16 years time.

He will be able to apply for parole in 16 years, I would wager my mortgage on it that parole will be refused on the 1st occasion, (anyone who knows anything about our criminal justice will tell that) is always is, he will have to wait at least another before he can apply for parole again and then I imagine with his refusal to show any remorse a trial will go against him, even after the 16 years his 2nd application will be turned down and rightly so, I personally don't think this thing will hit the street until at least 2032.

I totally agree that a life sentence should mean a whole life sentence, regardless of the crime, if your lifed off you should do the a whole life sentence.
[quote][p][bold]SaintsBridge[/bold] wrote: Mental! How is 16yrs life? Out at 36yrs old and able to carry on the rest of his life. Take someone’s life in this manor and you should lose your right to freedom and the hope of freedom for your life.[/p][/quote]I know its no consolation and I am not defending this vile creature, but he will not be out in 16 years time. He will be able to apply for parole in 16 years, I would wager my mortgage on it that parole will be refused on the 1st occasion, (anyone who knows anything about our criminal justice will tell that) is always is, he will have to wait at least another before he can apply for parole again and then I imagine with his refusal to show any remorse a trial will go against him, even after the 16 years his 2nd application will be turned down and rightly so, I personally don't think this thing will hit the street until at least 2032. I totally agree that a life sentence should mean a whole life sentence, regardless of the crime, if your lifed off you should do the a whole life sentence. Over the Edge

1:13pm Tue 22 May 12

Over the Edge says...

A few typo's earlier

I know its no consolation and I am not defending this vile creature, but he will not be out in 16 years time.

He will be able to apply for parole in 16 years, I would wager my mortgage on it that parole will be refused on the 1st occasion, (anyone who knows anything about our criminal justice will tell that) it always is, he will have to wait at least another year before he can apply for parole again and then I imagine with his refusal to show any remorse at trial will go against him, even after the 16 years his 2nd parole application will be turned down and rightly so, I personally don't think this thing will hit the street until at least 2032.

I totally agree that a life sentence should mean a whole life sentence, regardless of the crime, if your lifed off you should do the a whole life sentence.
A few typo's earlier I know its no consolation and I am not defending this vile creature, but he will not be out in 16 years time. He will be able to apply for parole in 16 years, I would wager my mortgage on it that parole will be refused on the 1st occasion, (anyone who knows anything about our criminal justice will tell that) it always is, he will have to wait at least another year before he can apply for parole again and then I imagine with his refusal to show any remorse at trial will go against him, even after the 16 years his 2nd parole application will be turned down and rightly so, I personally don't think this thing will hit the street until at least 2032. I totally agree that a life sentence should mean a whole life sentence, regardless of the crime, if your lifed off you should do the a whole life sentence. Over the Edge

2:14pm Tue 22 May 12

Walter K says...

16 years really isn't long enough. The poor girl had decades ahead of her cruelly and maliciously taken away. Turner has destroyed far more than one life, he's destroyed the lives of other members of Emily's family and his actions have had a massive impact on the future of his own parents. What an impossible position he put them in, resulting in a calamitous error of judgement fuelled by the love for their only child.
16 years really isn't long enough. The poor girl had decades ahead of her cruelly and maliciously taken away. Turner has destroyed far more than one life, he's destroyed the lives of other members of Emily's family and his actions have had a massive impact on the future of his own parents. What an impossible position he put them in, resulting in a calamitous error of judgement fuelled by the love for their only child. Walter K

2:43pm Tue 22 May 12

theamazingrob says...

16 years is a long time, but the right time. I believe prison should be about rehabilitation and correcting ways. You wont be able to achieve this by indefinite sentences.
For people saying that "life" will deter people from such heinous crimes, look at the history books. It has always been there, even with death penalties. I believe the only way to reduce this is by education and upbringing.
Although I think this is sickening, everyone should have a second chance.
16 years is a long time, but the right time. I believe prison should be about rehabilitation and correcting ways. You wont be able to achieve this by indefinite sentences. For people saying that "life" will deter people from such heinous crimes, look at the history books. It has always been there, even with death penalties. I believe the only way to reduce this is by education and upbringing. Although I think this is sickening, everyone should have a second chance. theamazingrob

2:56pm Tue 22 May 12

Shirayuki says...

Emily should have a second chance. Do you think she's going to get one?
Emily should have a second chance. Do you think she's going to get one? Shirayuki

2:58pm Tue 22 May 12

Georgem says...

Shirayuki wrote:
Emily should have a second chance. Do you think she's going to get one?
You're missing the point. Ever hear the phrase "two wrongs don't make a right"?
[quote][p][bold]Shirayuki[/bold] wrote: Emily should have a second chance. Do you think she's going to get one?[/p][/quote]You're missing the point. Ever hear the phrase "two wrongs don't make a right"? Georgem

3:03pm Tue 22 May 12

Georgem says...

theamazingrob wrote:
16 years is a long time, but the right time. I believe prison should be about rehabilitation and correcting ways. You wont be able to achieve this by indefinite sentences.
For people saying that "life" will deter people from such heinous crimes, look at the history books. It has always been there, even with death penalties. I believe the only way to reduce this is by education and upbringing.
Although I think this is sickening, everyone should have a second chance.
I half-agree. Prison is also about punishment, and about giving society a break from criminals. Long prison sentences are no deterrent, that's obvious. That's no reason not to give them out, though.
[quote][p][bold]theamazingrob[/bold] wrote: 16 years is a long time, but the right time. I believe prison should be about rehabilitation and correcting ways. You wont be able to achieve this by indefinite sentences. For people saying that "life" will deter people from such heinous crimes, look at the history books. It has always been there, even with death penalties. I believe the only way to reduce this is by education and upbringing. Although I think this is sickening, everyone should have a second chance.[/p][/quote]I half-agree. Prison is also about punishment, and about giving society a break from criminals. Long prison sentences are no deterrent, that's obvious. That's no reason not to give them out, though. Georgem

3:16pm Tue 22 May 12

theamazingrob says...

Georgem wrote:
theamazingrob wrote:
16 years is a long time, but the right time. I believe prison should be about rehabilitation and correcting ways. You wont be able to achieve this by indefinite sentences.
For people saying that "life" will deter people from such heinous crimes, look at the history books. It has always been there, even with death penalties. I believe the only way to reduce this is by education and upbringing.
Although I think this is sickening, everyone should have a second chance.
I half-agree. Prison is also about punishment, and about giving society a break from criminals. Long prison sentences are no deterrent, that's obvious. That's no reason not to give them out, though.
If you gave someone 99 years, why would they even bother to try and amend their ways, If anything it would spur non-compliance with prison officers ect. and make a bad situation worse. What would they have to loose?
Where as the possibly of a second chance with a foreseeable future would work as an incentive. Encouraging active participation in counselling, learning trade skills, and maybe being able to contribute back so society.
It could also emote guilt and remorse, which is surely what is wanted. Whereas, "banging" someone up for their life, is only going to make inmates angry and despise society and people associated with it, possibly, reducing guilt of action.

Im not talking from experience, nor any expertise in the area, it just seems logical to me
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]theamazingrob[/bold] wrote: 16 years is a long time, but the right time. I believe prison should be about rehabilitation and correcting ways. You wont be able to achieve this by indefinite sentences. For people saying that "life" will deter people from such heinous crimes, look at the history books. It has always been there, even with death penalties. I believe the only way to reduce this is by education and upbringing. Although I think this is sickening, everyone should have a second chance.[/p][/quote]I half-agree. Prison is also about punishment, and about giving society a break from criminals. Long prison sentences are no deterrent, that's obvious. That's no reason not to give them out, though.[/p][/quote]If you gave someone 99 years, why would they even bother to try and amend their ways, If anything it would spur non-compliance with prison officers ect. and make a bad situation worse. What would they have to loose? Where as the possibly of a second chance with a foreseeable future would work as an incentive. Encouraging active participation in counselling, learning trade skills, and maybe being able to contribute back so society. It could also emote guilt and remorse, which is surely what is wanted. Whereas, "banging" someone up for their life, is only going to make inmates angry and despise society and people associated with it, possibly, reducing guilt of action. Im not talking from experience, nor any expertise in the area, it just seems logical to me theamazingrob

3:21pm Tue 22 May 12

Walter K says...

Comments like those above are obviously far easier to make when it's not your child/loved one that's been murdered...
Comments like those above are obviously far easier to make when it's not your child/loved one that's been murdered... Walter K

3:21pm Tue 22 May 12

Shirayuki says...

Georgem wrote:
Shirayuki wrote:
Emily should have a second chance. Do you think she's going to get one?
You're missing the point. Ever hear the phrase "two wrongs don't make a right"?
Phrases can be both stupid and incorrect.

Someone who can do something this cruel and cowardly, attempt to cover it up and brag from prison about how he'll be released in 10 years or so and still a millionaire does NOT deserve a second chance.

If you think he does, I'd love to see you argue why to Emily's parents.
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shirayuki[/bold] wrote: Emily should have a second chance. Do you think she's going to get one?[/p][/quote]You're missing the point. Ever hear the phrase "two wrongs don't make a right"?[/p][/quote]Phrases can be both stupid and incorrect. Someone who can do something this cruel and cowardly, attempt to cover it up and brag from prison about how he'll be released in 10 years or so and still a millionaire does NOT deserve a second chance. If you think he does, I'd love to see you argue why to Emily's parents. Shirayuki

3:41pm Tue 22 May 12

Georgem says...

Walter K wrote:
Comments like those above are obviously far easier to make when it's not your child/loved one that's been murdered...
Right. Because they're not being coloured by emotion. When I was burgled, I felt like strangling the perpetrators. Does this mean the punishment for burglary should ACTUALLY be the death penalty?
[quote][p][bold]Walter K[/bold] wrote: Comments like those above are obviously far easier to make when it's not your child/loved one that's been murdered...[/p][/quote]Right. Because they're not being coloured by emotion. When I was burgled, I felt like strangling the perpetrators. Does this mean the punishment for burglary should ACTUALLY be the death penalty? Georgem

3:47pm Tue 22 May 12

Georgem says...

Shirayuki wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Shirayuki wrote:
Emily should have a second chance. Do you think she's going to get one?
You're missing the point. Ever hear the phrase "two wrongs don't make a right"?
Phrases can be both stupid and incorrect.

Someone who can do something this cruel and cowardly, attempt to cover it up and brag from prison about how he'll be released in 10 years or so and still a millionaire does NOT deserve a second chance.

If you think he does, I'd love to see you argue why to Emily's parents.
I don't see what his net value has to do with it. Are you suggesting people with money should have less rights than someone without?

The point is, we're not going to solve the crime problem by just locking it away. We've been doing it for centuries, and it hasn't worked.
[quote][p][bold]Shirayuki[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shirayuki[/bold] wrote: Emily should have a second chance. Do you think she's going to get one?[/p][/quote]You're missing the point. Ever hear the phrase "two wrongs don't make a right"?[/p][/quote]Phrases can be both stupid and incorrect. Someone who can do something this cruel and cowardly, attempt to cover it up and brag from prison about how he'll be released in 10 years or so and still a millionaire does NOT deserve a second chance. If you think he does, I'd love to see you argue why to Emily's parents.[/p][/quote]I don't see what his net value has to do with it. Are you suggesting people with money should have less rights than someone without? The point is, we're not going to solve the crime problem by just locking it away. We've been doing it for centuries, and it hasn't worked. Georgem

3:49pm Tue 22 May 12

Walter K says...

Didn't mention the Death Penalty - I personally feel that depriving Turner of 16 years liberty as the consequence for murdering a 17 year old girl with the majority of her life ahead of her is skewed.
Didn't mention the Death Penalty - I personally feel that depriving Turner of 16 years liberty as the consequence for murdering a 17 year old girl with the majority of her life ahead of her is skewed. Walter K

3:52pm Tue 22 May 12

Georgem says...

Walter K wrote:
Didn't mention the Death Penalty - I personally feel that depriving Turner of 16 years liberty as the consequence for murdering a 17 year old girl with the majority of her life ahead of her is skewed.
Sigh. Never mind. You're clearly not reading posts, rather, scanning them for words to react to. Forget everything I said, you win the Internet.
[quote][p][bold]Walter K[/bold] wrote: Didn't mention the Death Penalty - I personally feel that depriving Turner of 16 years liberty as the consequence for murdering a 17 year old girl with the majority of her life ahead of her is skewed.[/p][/quote]Sigh. Never mind. You're clearly not reading posts, rather, scanning them for words to react to. Forget everything I said, you win the Internet. Georgem

4:01pm Tue 22 May 12

theamazingrob says...

Walter K wrote:
Comments like those above are obviously far easier to make when it's not your child/loved one that's been murdered...
This is very true.
It is also probably the wrong forum for debate on the topic.
For that, I apologise if a caused any distress, it was not my intention.
Fullest sympathies with the victims family, on what must be an unthinkably tragic time.
[quote][p][bold]Walter K[/bold] wrote: Comments like those above are obviously far easier to make when it's not your child/loved one that's been murdered...[/p][/quote]This is very true. It is also probably the wrong forum for debate on the topic. For that, I apologise if a caused any distress, it was not my intention. Fullest sympathies with the victims family, on what must be an unthinkably tragic time. theamazingrob

4:01pm Tue 22 May 12

Shirayuki says...

Georgem wrote:
Shirayuki wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Shirayuki wrote:
Emily should have a second chance. Do you think she's going to get one?
You're missing the point. Ever hear the phrase "two wrongs don't make a right"?
Phrases can be both stupid and incorrect.

Someone who can do something this cruel and cowardly, attempt to cover it up and brag from prison about how he'll be released in 10 years or so and still a millionaire does NOT deserve a second chance.

If you think he does, I'd love to see you argue why to Emily's parents.
I don't see what his net value has to do with it. Are you suggesting people with money should have less rights than someone without?

The point is, we're not going to solve the crime problem by just locking it away. We've been doing it for centuries, and it hasn't worked.
No, don't put words in my mouth. My point is that boasts about wealth and getting out of prison quickly are extremely indicative of a lack of remorse.

And no, locking away a murderer does no good in most cases. We can prevent him carrying out future crimes by executing him.

Say what you want about capital punishment, but it sure does stop repeat offenses.
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shirayuki[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shirayuki[/bold] wrote: Emily should have a second chance. Do you think she's going to get one?[/p][/quote]You're missing the point. Ever hear the phrase "two wrongs don't make a right"?[/p][/quote]Phrases can be both stupid and incorrect. Someone who can do something this cruel and cowardly, attempt to cover it up and brag from prison about how he'll be released in 10 years or so and still a millionaire does NOT deserve a second chance. If you think he does, I'd love to see you argue why to Emily's parents.[/p][/quote]I don't see what his net value has to do with it. Are you suggesting people with money should have less rights than someone without? The point is, we're not going to solve the crime problem by just locking it away. We've been doing it for centuries, and it hasn't worked.[/p][/quote]No, don't put words in my mouth. My point is that boasts about wealth and getting out of prison quickly are extremely indicative of a lack of remorse. And no, locking away a murderer does no good in most cases. We can prevent him carrying out future crimes by executing him. Say what you want about capital punishment, but it sure does stop repeat offenses. Shirayuki

4:06pm Tue 22 May 12

Over the Edge says...

theamazingrob wrote:
Georgem wrote:
theamazingrob wrote:
16 years is a long time, but the right time. I believe prison should be about rehabilitation and correcting ways. You wont be able to achieve this by indefinite sentences.
For people saying that "life" will deter people from such heinous crimes, look at the history books. It has always been there, even with death penalties. I believe the only way to reduce this is by education and upbringing.
Although I think this is sickening, everyone should have a second chance.
I half-agree. Prison is also about punishment, and about giving society a break from criminals. Long prison sentences are no deterrent, that's obvious. That's no reason not to give them out, though.
If you gave someone 99 years, why would they even bother to try and amend their ways, If anything it would spur non-compliance with prison officers ect. and make a bad situation worse. What would they have to loose?
Where as the possibly of a second chance with a foreseeable future would work as an incentive. Encouraging active participation in counselling, learning trade skills, and maybe being able to contribute back so society.
It could also emote guilt and remorse, which is surely what is wanted. Whereas, "banging" someone up for their life, is only going to make inmates angry and despise society and people associated with it, possibly, reducing guilt of action.

Im not talking from experience, nor any expertise in the area, it just seems logical to me
Or they may realise that they're never getting out and top themselves.

Whole life sentences are an alternative to hanging and the lenient sentencing we have today.
[quote][p][bold]theamazingrob[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]theamazingrob[/bold] wrote: 16 years is a long time, but the right time. I believe prison should be about rehabilitation and correcting ways. You wont be able to achieve this by indefinite sentences. For people saying that "life" will deter people from such heinous crimes, look at the history books. It has always been there, even with death penalties. I believe the only way to reduce this is by education and upbringing. Although I think this is sickening, everyone should have a second chance.[/p][/quote]I half-agree. Prison is also about punishment, and about giving society a break from criminals. Long prison sentences are no deterrent, that's obvious. That's no reason not to give them out, though.[/p][/quote]If you gave someone 99 years, why would they even bother to try and amend their ways, If anything it would spur non-compliance with prison officers ect. and make a bad situation worse. What would they have to loose? Where as the possibly of a second chance with a foreseeable future would work as an incentive. Encouraging active participation in counselling, learning trade skills, and maybe being able to contribute back so society. It could also emote guilt and remorse, which is surely what is wanted. Whereas, "banging" someone up for their life, is only going to make inmates angry and despise society and people associated with it, possibly, reducing guilt of action. Im not talking from experience, nor any expertise in the area, it just seems logical to me[/p][/quote]Or they may realise that they're never getting out and top themselves. Whole life sentences are an alternative to hanging and the lenient sentencing we have today. Over the Edge

4:12pm Tue 22 May 12

Boatman says...

Can I remind those baying for capital punishment that only last week a young man was released after 7 years in prison. He had been convicted of murder in an appalling miscarriage of justice.
Can I remind those baying for capital punishment that only last week a young man was released after 7 years in prison. He had been convicted of murder in an appalling miscarriage of justice. Boatman

4:50pm Tue 22 May 12

Georgem says...

Boatman wrote:
Can I remind those baying for capital punishment that only last week a young man was released after 7 years in prison. He had been convicted of murder in an appalling miscarriage of justice.
The Echo Hivemind won't care. If you're not actively demanding the beheading of anyone committing so much as a minor parking offence, you may as well be wearing a dress and administering executive relief to hardened criminals for a living. There's no middle ground, no room for anything other than these two polar extremes.
[quote][p][bold]Boatman[/bold] wrote: Can I remind those baying for capital punishment that only last week a young man was released after 7 years in prison. He had been convicted of murder in an appalling miscarriage of justice.[/p][/quote]The Echo Hivemind won't care. If you're not actively demanding the beheading of anyone committing so much as a minor parking offence, you may as well be wearing a dress and administering executive relief to hardened criminals for a living. There's no middle ground, no room for anything other than these two polar extremes. Georgem

5:16pm Tue 22 May 12

espanuel says...

Georgem, I was quite interested on what people had to say until you came on at 2.58 pm and then you tried to demolish everybody on what they had to say. Read what they have to say and abide by there reasoning.
Georgem, I was quite interested on what people had to say until you came on at 2.58 pm and then you tried to demolish everybody on what they had to say. Read what they have to say and abide by there reasoning. espanuel

5:18pm Tue 22 May 12

Georgem says...

espanuel wrote:
Georgem, I was quite interested on what people had to say until you came on at 2.58 pm and then you tried to demolish everybody on what they had to say. Read what they have to say and abide by there reasoning.
You were quite interested in demands for Turner to be sodomized in prison?
[quote][p][bold]espanuel[/bold] wrote: Georgem, I was quite interested on what people had to say until you came on at 2.58 pm and then you tried to demolish everybody on what they had to say. Read what they have to say and abide by there reasoning.[/p][/quote]You were quite interested in demands for Turner to be sodomized in prison? Georgem

6:20pm Tue 22 May 12

cantthinkofone says...

espanuel wrote:
Georgem, I was quite interested on what people had to say until you came on at 2.58 pm and then you tried to demolish everybody on what they had to say. Read what they have to say and abide by there reasoning.
"Abide by there (sic) reasoning"? What on earth does that mean?

Unfashionable though it is, I'm a big fan of rehabilitation and forgiveness. I wouldn't expect those close to Emily to agree with that - but that's why the victims of crimes don't determine the sentences. And as it goes, there have been plenty of bereaved parents/partners/etc who HAVE demonstrated an incredible ability to forgive the people who have taken a loved one from them.

A crime like this is horrible. But the blood-**** of the general public is more disturbing still. I guess it's much more comfortable to think that these people are just 'evil' than to recognise that we are all at the mercy of mental health and circumstance.

As stated before, sentences are no deterrent. Carrying out an act of this nature is not the act of a rational mind, so balancing the pros and cons is not going to be foremost. 'Punishment' serves no one. What does it achieve? It sure as heck won't bring the person back or compensate their family. So that leaves rehabilitation. Our sentencing and prisons should be centred around rehabilitation, and for that reason crimes like this should receive an indeterminate sentence, released when those with expert knowledge and proven good judgement are satisfied that they are no longer a threat.
[quote][p][bold]espanuel[/bold] wrote: Georgem, I was quite interested on what people had to say until you came on at 2.58 pm and then you tried to demolish everybody on what they had to say. Read what they have to say and abide by there reasoning.[/p][/quote]"Abide by there (sic) reasoning"? What on earth does that mean? Unfashionable though it is, I'm a big fan of rehabilitation and forgiveness. I wouldn't expect those close to Emily to agree with that - but that's why the victims of crimes don't determine the sentences. And as it goes, there have been plenty of bereaved parents/partners/etc who HAVE demonstrated an incredible ability to forgive the people who have taken a loved one from them. A crime like this is horrible. But the blood-**** of the general public is more disturbing still. I guess it's much more comfortable to think that these people are just 'evil' than to recognise that we are all at the mercy of mental health and circumstance. As stated before, sentences are no deterrent. Carrying out an act of this nature is not the act of a rational mind, so balancing the pros and cons is not going to be foremost. 'Punishment' serves no one. What does it achieve? It sure as heck won't bring the person back or compensate their family. So that leaves rehabilitation. Our sentencing and prisons should be centred around rehabilitation, and for that reason crimes like this should receive an indeterminate sentence, released when those with expert knowledge and proven good judgement are satisfied that they are no longer a threat. cantthinkofone

6:51pm Tue 22 May 12

sb2012 says...

I hear posh spoilt brats are the ultimate must have to any self respecting prison heavy especially a woman abuser at that bye bye anal virginity the abuse this boy is going to suffer is half way to a sufficient punishment shame its not for longer
I hear posh spoilt brats are the ultimate must have to any self respecting prison heavy especially a woman abuser at that bye bye anal virginity the abuse this boy is going to suffer is half way to a sufficient punishment shame its not for longer sb2012

7:10pm Tue 22 May 12

rich the stitch says...

sb2012 wrote:
I hear posh spoilt brats are the ultimate must have to any self respecting prison heavy especially a woman abuser at that bye bye anal virginity the abuse this boy is going to suffer is half way to a sufficient punishment shame its not for longer
Do you think he'll do a 'long stretch inside'? I certainly hope so.
[quote][p][bold]sb2012[/bold] wrote: I hear posh spoilt brats are the ultimate must have to any self respecting prison heavy especially a woman abuser at that bye bye anal virginity the abuse this boy is going to suffer is half way to a sufficient punishment shame its not for longer[/p][/quote]Do you think he'll do a 'long stretch inside'? I certainly hope so. rich the stitch

7:43pm Tue 22 May 12

cantthinkofone says...

cantthinkofone wrote:
espanuel wrote:
Georgem, I was quite interested on what people had to say until you came on at 2.58 pm and then you tried to demolish everybody on what they had to say. Read what they have to say and abide by there reasoning.
"Abide by there (sic) reasoning"? What on earth does that mean?

Unfashionable though it is, I'm a big fan of rehabilitation and forgiveness. I wouldn't expect those close to Emily to agree with that - but that's why the victims of crimes don't determine the sentences. And as it goes, there have been plenty of bereaved parents/partners/etc who HAVE demonstrated an incredible ability to forgive the people who have taken a loved one from them.

A crime like this is horrible. But the blood-**** of the general public is more disturbing still. I guess it's much more comfortable to think that these people are just 'evil' than to recognise that we are all at the mercy of mental health and circumstance.

As stated before, sentences are no deterrent. Carrying out an act of this nature is not the act of a rational mind, so balancing the pros and cons is not going to be foremost. 'Punishment' serves no one. What does it achieve? It sure as heck won't bring the person back or compensate their family. So that leaves rehabilitation. Our sentencing and prisons should be centred around rehabilitation, and for that reason crimes like this should receive an indeterminate sentence, released when those with expert knowledge and proven good judgement are satisfied that they are no longer a threat.
"L-u-s-t" is automatically starred out? The censor software on these comment sections is radio rental.
[quote][p][bold]cantthinkofone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]espanuel[/bold] wrote: Georgem, I was quite interested on what people had to say until you came on at 2.58 pm and then you tried to demolish everybody on what they had to say. Read what they have to say and abide by there reasoning.[/p][/quote]"Abide by there (sic) reasoning"? What on earth does that mean? Unfashionable though it is, I'm a big fan of rehabilitation and forgiveness. I wouldn't expect those close to Emily to agree with that - but that's why the victims of crimes don't determine the sentences. And as it goes, there have been plenty of bereaved parents/partners/etc who HAVE demonstrated an incredible ability to forgive the people who have taken a loved one from them. A crime like this is horrible. But the blood-**** of the general public is more disturbing still. I guess it's much more comfortable to think that these people are just 'evil' than to recognise that we are all at the mercy of mental health and circumstance. As stated before, sentences are no deterrent. Carrying out an act of this nature is not the act of a rational mind, so balancing the pros and cons is not going to be foremost. 'Punishment' serves no one. What does it achieve? It sure as heck won't bring the person back or compensate their family. So that leaves rehabilitation. Our sentencing and prisons should be centred around rehabilitation, and for that reason crimes like this should receive an indeterminate sentence, released when those with expert knowledge and proven good judgement are satisfied that they are no longer a threat.[/p][/quote]"L-u-s-t" is automatically starred out? The censor software on these comment sections is radio rental. cantthinkofone

11:59pm Tue 22 May 12

BillyTheKid says...

cantthinkofone wrote:
espanuel wrote:
Georgem, I was quite interested on what people had to say until you came on at 2.58 pm and then you tried to demolish everybody on what they had to say. Read what they have to say and abide by there reasoning.
"Abide by there (sic) reasoning"? What on earth does that mean?

Unfashionable though it is, I'm a big fan of rehabilitation and forgiveness. I wouldn't expect those close to Emily to agree with that - but that's why the victims of crimes don't determine the sentences. And as it goes, there have been plenty of bereaved parents/partners/etc who HAVE demonstrated an incredible ability to forgive the people who have taken a loved one from them.

A crime like this is horrible. But the blood-**** of the general public is more disturbing still. I guess it's much more comfortable to think that these people are just 'evil' than to recognise that we are all at the mercy of mental health and circumstance.

As stated before, sentences are no deterrent. Carrying out an act of this nature is not the act of a rational mind, so balancing the pros and cons is not going to be foremost. 'Punishment' serves no one. What does it achieve? It sure as heck won't bring the person back or compensate their family. So that leaves rehabilitation. Our sentencing and prisons should be centred around rehabilitation, and for that reason crimes like this should receive an indeterminate sentence, released when those with expert knowledge and proven good judgement are satisfied that they are no longer a threat.
I cannot believe what you have just written. The person who commits a crime must be severely punished BECAUSE the loved one cannot be brought back. Also, it keeps a vast number of people on the straight and narrow, who, if punishments were not there, WOULD consider violence.

I ask you this, canthinkofone. Somebody with a psychological disorder breaks into your mother's, sister's, or your grandmother's house, ties them up, rapes them several times, tortures them, and many hours later finally kills them. Now you come back to this forum and tell us you would say "Oh dear, what a shame, lets rehabilitate this person. And I forgive them, by the way."

I have seen some absolute lunacy spelled out on this forum over the years, but yours takes some beating.
[quote][p][bold]cantthinkofone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]espanuel[/bold] wrote: Georgem, I was quite interested on what people had to say until you came on at 2.58 pm and then you tried to demolish everybody on what they had to say. Read what they have to say and abide by there reasoning.[/p][/quote]"Abide by there (sic) reasoning"? What on earth does that mean? Unfashionable though it is, I'm a big fan of rehabilitation and forgiveness. I wouldn't expect those close to Emily to agree with that - but that's why the victims of crimes don't determine the sentences. And as it goes, there have been plenty of bereaved parents/partners/etc who HAVE demonstrated an incredible ability to forgive the people who have taken a loved one from them. A crime like this is horrible. But the blood-**** of the general public is more disturbing still. I guess it's much more comfortable to think that these people are just 'evil' than to recognise that we are all at the mercy of mental health and circumstance. As stated before, sentences are no deterrent. Carrying out an act of this nature is not the act of a rational mind, so balancing the pros and cons is not going to be foremost. 'Punishment' serves no one. What does it achieve? It sure as heck won't bring the person back or compensate their family. So that leaves rehabilitation. Our sentencing and prisons should be centred around rehabilitation, and for that reason crimes like this should receive an indeterminate sentence, released when those with expert knowledge and proven good judgement are satisfied that they are no longer a threat.[/p][/quote]I cannot believe what you have just written. The person who commits a crime must be severely punished BECAUSE the loved one cannot be brought back. Also, it keeps a vast number of people on the straight and narrow, who, if punishments were not there, WOULD consider violence. I ask you this, canthinkofone. Somebody with a psychological disorder breaks into your mother's, sister's, or your grandmother's house, ties them up, rapes them several times, tortures them, and many hours later finally kills them. Now you come back to this forum and tell us you would say "Oh dear, what a shame, lets rehabilitate this person. And I forgive them, by the way." I have seen some absolute lunacy spelled out on this forum over the years, but yours takes some beating. BillyTheKid

12:15am Wed 23 May 12

IronLady2010 says...

BillyTheKid wrote:
cantthinkofone wrote:
espanuel wrote:
Georgem, I was quite interested on what people had to say until you came on at 2.58 pm and then you tried to demolish everybody on what they had to say. Read what they have to say and abide by there reasoning.
"Abide by there (sic) reasoning"? What on earth does that mean?

Unfashionable though it is, I'm a big fan of rehabilitation and forgiveness. I wouldn't expect those close to Emily to agree with that - but that's why the victims of crimes don't determine the sentences. And as it goes, there have been plenty of bereaved parents/partners/etc who HAVE demonstrated an incredible ability to forgive the people who have taken a loved one from them.

A crime like this is horrible. But the blood-**** of the general public is more disturbing still. I guess it's much more comfortable to think that these people are just 'evil' than to recognise that we are all at the mercy of mental health and circumstance.

As stated before, sentences are no deterrent. Carrying out an act of this nature is not the act of a rational mind, so balancing the pros and cons is not going to be foremost. 'Punishment' serves no one. What does it achieve? It sure as heck won't bring the person back or compensate their family. So that leaves rehabilitation. Our sentencing and prisons should be centred around rehabilitation, and for that reason crimes like this should receive an indeterminate sentence, released when those with expert knowledge and proven good judgement are satisfied that they are no longer a threat.
I cannot believe what you have just written. The person who commits a crime must be severely punished BECAUSE the loved one cannot be brought back. Also, it keeps a vast number of people on the straight and narrow, who, if punishments were not there, WOULD consider violence.

I ask you this, canthinkofone. Somebody with a psychological disorder breaks into your mother's, sister's, or your grandmother's house, ties them up, rapes them several times, tortures them, and many hours later finally kills them. Now you come back to this forum and tell us you would say "Oh dear, what a shame, lets rehabilitate this person. And I forgive them, by the way."

I have seen some absolute lunacy spelled out on this forum over the years, but yours takes some beating.
Not all families of Victims wish punishment, many want an understanding of what caused the initial crime, so they can understand as best they can.

Many emotions run through peoples minds after a crime, some want imprisonment, some want to face the offender. We can't be judge and Jury in all cases.

I'd rather they were all locked up, but that will never happen.
[quote][p][bold]BillyTheKid[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cantthinkofone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]espanuel[/bold] wrote: Georgem, I was quite interested on what people had to say until you came on at 2.58 pm and then you tried to demolish everybody on what they had to say. Read what they have to say and abide by there reasoning.[/p][/quote]"Abide by there (sic) reasoning"? What on earth does that mean? Unfashionable though it is, I'm a big fan of rehabilitation and forgiveness. I wouldn't expect those close to Emily to agree with that - but that's why the victims of crimes don't determine the sentences. And as it goes, there have been plenty of bereaved parents/partners/etc who HAVE demonstrated an incredible ability to forgive the people who have taken a loved one from them. A crime like this is horrible. But the blood-**** of the general public is more disturbing still. I guess it's much more comfortable to think that these people are just 'evil' than to recognise that we are all at the mercy of mental health and circumstance. As stated before, sentences are no deterrent. Carrying out an act of this nature is not the act of a rational mind, so balancing the pros and cons is not going to be foremost. 'Punishment' serves no one. What does it achieve? It sure as heck won't bring the person back or compensate their family. So that leaves rehabilitation. Our sentencing and prisons should be centred around rehabilitation, and for that reason crimes like this should receive an indeterminate sentence, released when those with expert knowledge and proven good judgement are satisfied that they are no longer a threat.[/p][/quote]I cannot believe what you have just written. The person who commits a crime must be severely punished BECAUSE the loved one cannot be brought back. Also, it keeps a vast number of people on the straight and narrow, who, if punishments were not there, WOULD consider violence. I ask you this, canthinkofone. Somebody with a psychological disorder breaks into your mother's, sister's, or your grandmother's house, ties them up, rapes them several times, tortures them, and many hours later finally kills them. Now you come back to this forum and tell us you would say "Oh dear, what a shame, lets rehabilitate this person. And I forgive them, by the way." I have seen some absolute lunacy spelled out on this forum over the years, but yours takes some beating.[/p][/quote]Not all families of Victims wish punishment, many want an understanding of what caused the initial crime, so they can understand as best they can. Many emotions run through peoples minds after a crime, some want imprisonment, some want to face the offender. We can't be judge and Jury in all cases. I'd rather they were all locked up, but that will never happen. IronLady2010

12:37pm Wed 23 May 12

BillyTheKid says...

Fortunately the law is not there to serve the multi-various whims of "the public". I thought it was there as a deterrent, a rock-solid yardstick that determines level of innocence and guilt, to make people think twice before doing something wrong, and to feel safe and secure when they do right.

But hanging has been replaced with 16 years in jail for murder. To me, that's like replacing a speeding fine of £80 and 3 points on your licence with a card from the police saying "Naughty, naughty" on it.

There are even instances where a prison sentence for murder is shorter than one for sexual abuse of a child. ( Before anyone tries to misinterpret my words, I believe child abuse crimes should always be dealt with very severely, with up to whole-life sentences where appropriate. I believe that the crime of murder is not dealt with severely enough. )

Think of that statue, holding the scales of justice. It is supposed to symbolise the right to a fair trial, the examination of all sides to the argument, and, if guilt is proved, the balancing of the crime with the punishment. I ask everyone who posts here : does forgiveness and rehabilitation equate with murder ?
Fortunately the law is not there to serve the multi-various whims of "the public". I thought it was there as a deterrent, a rock-solid yardstick that determines level of innocence and guilt, to make people think twice before doing something wrong, and to feel safe and secure when they do right. But hanging has been replaced with 16 years in jail for murder. To me, that's like replacing a speeding fine of £80 and 3 points on your licence with a card from the police saying "Naughty, naughty" on it. There are even instances where a prison sentence for murder is shorter than one for sexual abuse of a child. ( Before anyone tries to misinterpret my words, I believe child abuse crimes should always be dealt with very severely, with up to whole-life sentences where appropriate. I believe that the crime of murder is not dealt with severely enough. ) Think of that statue, holding the scales of justice. It is supposed to symbolise the right to a fair trial, the examination of all sides to the argument, and, if guilt is proved, the balancing of the crime with the punishment. I ask everyone who posts here : does forgiveness and rehabilitation equate with murder ? BillyTheKid

8:28pm Wed 23 May 12

bigal007 says...

mad thing is he be out in 7 years 3 cooked meals tv xbox and all the drugs that he wants

true fact
mad thing is he be out in 7 years 3 cooked meals tv xbox and all the drugs that he wants true fact bigal007

11:10pm Wed 23 May 12

Georgem says...

bigal007 wrote:
mad thing is he be out in 7 years 3 cooked meals tv xbox and all the drugs that he wants

true fact
3 meals, probably all cooked. That's about as close to 'fact' as this drivel gets. Did you even read the story? He'll serve a MINIMUM of 16 years. He has not been sentenced to 16 years, he will be eligible to apply for parole in 16 years. Which he probably won't get.

Still not long enough, but a far cry from the 7 years at Butlins you've been brainwashed into thinking.

That, my friend, is a true fact.
[quote][p][bold]bigal007[/bold] wrote: mad thing is he be out in 7 years 3 cooked meals tv xbox and all the drugs that he wants true fact[/p][/quote]3 meals, probably all cooked. That's about as close to 'fact' as this drivel gets. Did you even read the story? He'll serve a MINIMUM of 16 years. He has not been sentenced to 16 years, he will be eligible to apply for parole in 16 years. Which he probably won't get. Still not long enough, but a far cry from the 7 years at Butlins you've been brainwashed into thinking. That, my friend, is a true fact. Georgem

11:19am Thu 24 May 12

BillyTheKid says...

What is an "untrue" fact ?
What is an "untrue" fact ? BillyTheKid

6:03pm Thu 24 May 12

Down Pompey says...

Shirayuki wrote:
16 years? That's a pathetic minimum term for someone who is clearly a danger to other people. Look at all the evidence - he has shown no remose and is an absolute waste of oxygen. Bring back capital punishment.
This boy is even uglier on the inside than the outside - if that's possible! Hanging is to good for him, years and years o living each day in fear for his personal safety, having to check his food and drink carefully for "extras" and the knowledge that he ever gets out it'll be even worse isn't adequate punishment, but it'll hurt far more than 15 mins dangling at the end of a rope! I'm going out for a drink tonight, enjoy the first of many thousand nights in a shared cell scumbag!
[quote][p][bold]Shirayuki[/bold] wrote: 16 years? That's a pathetic minimum term for someone who is clearly a danger to other people. Look at all the evidence - he has shown no remose and is an absolute waste of oxygen. Bring back capital punishment.[/p][/quote]This boy is even uglier on the inside than the outside - if that's possible! Hanging is to good for him, years and years o living each day in fear for his personal safety, having to check his food and drink carefully for "extras" and the knowledge that he ever gets out it'll be even worse isn't adequate punishment, but it'll hurt far more than 15 mins dangling at the end of a rope! I'm going out for a drink tonight, enjoy the first of many thousand nights in a shared cell scumbag! Down Pompey

8:48pm Thu 24 May 12

BillyTheKid says...

Down Pompey wrote:
Shirayuki wrote:
16 years? That's a pathetic minimum term for someone who is clearly a danger to other people. Look at all the evidence - he has shown no remose and is an absolute waste of oxygen. Bring back capital punishment.
This boy is even uglier on the inside than the outside - if that's possible! Hanging is to good for him, years and years o living each day in fear for his personal safety, having to check his food and drink carefully for "extras" and the knowledge that he ever gets out it'll be even worse isn't adequate punishment, but it'll hurt far more than 15 mins dangling at the end of a rope! I'm going out for a drink tonight, enjoy the first of many thousand nights in a shared cell scumbag!
While I can understand and feel the outrage at this man's crime, when I read YOUR words, Pompey, I shudder that emotionally unstable people such as yourself may be called for jury service at any time. They need rational, balanced human beings, not candidates for a lynch/terror mob.
[quote][p][bold]Down Pompey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shirayuki[/bold] wrote: 16 years? That's a pathetic minimum term for someone who is clearly a danger to other people. Look at all the evidence - he has shown no remose and is an absolute waste of oxygen. Bring back capital punishment.[/p][/quote]This boy is even uglier on the inside than the outside - if that's possible! Hanging is to good for him, years and years o living each day in fear for his personal safety, having to check his food and drink carefully for "extras" and the knowledge that he ever gets out it'll be even worse isn't adequate punishment, but it'll hurt far more than 15 mins dangling at the end of a rope! I'm going out for a drink tonight, enjoy the first of many thousand nights in a shared cell scumbag![/p][/quote]While I can understand and feel the outrage at this man's crime, when I read YOUR words, Pompey, I shudder that emotionally unstable people such as yourself may be called for jury service at any time. They need rational, balanced human beings, not candidates for a lynch/terror mob. BillyTheKid

1:22pm Fri 25 May 12

flowtheartist says...

WOW the law has changed so much since my dad was put away! he didnt even hit his wife she was drunk and fell down the stairs onto a pile of glass which broke her eye socket then she goes and blames him for it and he gets 18 years! Just came out 2 weeks ago! Never been done for anything and he does that time then i read this and he does 16 years? Probs end up doing around 8-10 years if hes good and doesnt cause trouble. Bring back the death penalty for murderers
WOW the law has changed so much since my dad was put away! he didnt even hit his wife she was drunk and fell down the stairs onto a pile of glass which broke her eye socket then she goes and blames him for it and he gets 18 years! Just came out 2 weeks ago! Never been done for anything and he does that time then i read this and he does 16 years? Probs end up doing around 8-10 years if hes good and doesnt cause trouble. Bring back the death penalty for murderers flowtheartist

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree