Out on Licence

[Hobbit]

As news filtered through that the attacker responsible for the horrific London Bridge attack was out on licence it begs the question why. And on a wider note, should certain sentences be exempt from parole? There has, down the years, been a number of criminals convicted of serious offences released under licence who then go on to reoffend in a similar vein.

Should the chance for parole for criminals convicted of serious assault or murder be stopped?

Its an emotive subject. What are the stats for reoffending? How can things be tightened up? Should Parole Officers be subject to a capability charge for getting things wrong - they are supposed to be the experts?

Although the heart says bang 'em up for life, the head asks is that humane.

Thoughts?

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Story in the Daily Mail saying one of the people that tackled the terrorist was a convicted murderer on day release.
Is he a hero? The family of the 21yr old girl he murdered think not.
Very difficult to get your head around yesterday’s events and maybe some discussions will change once all the facts come out.

 

[Imurg]

Is clear that, in some cases, being humane simply doesn't work.
Sometimes life needs to mean life and if there's any doubt then they stay in.
If it means prisons get overcrowded then build more.
On one hand I'm all for giving a second chance but sometimes you just can't as, if the reports are correct, yesterday shows.

 

[Tashyboy]

In all Honesty I think Hobbit your post is only scratching the surface. No he should not of been let out. If people are let out for good behaviour having been reabilitated. It should work the other way. If they have not been re educated then the sentance is increased. What is the arguement against that.
But for me the whole of the judicial punishment needs radically overhauling. For me the punishment should be part of the deterrent.
Let me give you an example. Missis T is on a driver awareness course in January. It will cost her £90. Two days ago it's on the news that a motorist with no tax, driving licence, mot etc etc. He evaded the police smashed up X number of cars, endangered public life etc. Banned from driving, suspended sentance and fined £100. In essence he ain't going down, cannot drive anyway and pays £10 more than Missis T. How's that right. I applied and was successful in becoming a magistrate ( never took up role). Anyway some of the changes suggested were instead of having 3 magistrates looking into someone who admitted driving offences. Just have one who sits in a room and hands out the financial sentacing on his own. It was simply to cut costs. How's that right. I get that but there are more important matters than saving a few quid.
Part of applying to become a magistrate is to go into court and observe magistrates sessions. Lordy flippin Lordy. Some of the people who end up In there quite frankly do not give a ***. They think the risk of being caught and the subsequent slap on the risk is worth it. Whether it is motoring offences up to terrorism, our judicial sentacing needs radically changing.

 

[Backache]

I think there is a potential problem of parole whatever way you play it.
There is never in the forseeable future going to be a situation where you say with certainty that someone is or is not going to be violent following release.
If you release no one you are keeping incarcerated a lot of people who are genuinely repentant. The more you release the more certain that some will go on to be violent.
If you have no parole system you lose a lot of the ability to intentivise people to repent and improve their behaviour.
If the sentences are not for whole life you may well have more dissaffected offenders coming out at the end.

I am glad I am not having to work out the optimum strategy but my gut feeling is that sentences for serious violence should either be significantly longer or the consideration for parole come at a later stage in the sentence.

 

[Deleted member 21784]

Whilst I agree our system is rubbish , America have a 3 strike policy and even with that they seem to get a crazy amount of idiots

But then again more population could be a massive factor

 

[Deleted member 18588]

I can accept the principle of offenders being released on licence if they fulfill strict criteria.

However, I wonder if there are sufficient resources to monitor and control those released.

There has been a suggestion that the terrorist in this case was known to be involved with extremists since his release.

Surely that should have been sufficient for him to be returned to custody in view of his original offences?

 

[Tashyboy]

Story in the Daily Mail saying one of the people that tackled the terrorist was a convicted murderer on day release.
Is he a hero? The family of the 21yr old girl he murdered think not.
Very difficult to get your head around yesterday’s events and maybe some discussions will change once all the facts come out.

I believe the events of yesterday started at some kind of reabilitation centre for ex cons. Re the alleged murderer the fact he got involved, has he been reabilitated , was he on the course and saw what was happening from the outset? Who knows, but as you say the discussions will change over the course of time. We know more today than yesterday.

 

[Tashyboy]

I can accept the principle of offenders being released on licence if they fulfill strict criteria.

However, I wonder if there are sufficient resources to monitor and control those released.

There has been a suggestion that the terrorist in this case was known to be involved with extremists since his release.

Surely that should have been sufficient for him to be returned to custody in view of his original offences?

Odd thing is as well, he was known to be involved with extremists yet the terror level was reduced last week.

 

[Slime]

As news filtered through that the attacker responsible for the horrific London Bridge attack was out on licence it begs the question why. And on a wider note, should certain sentences be exempt from parole? There has, down the years, been a number of criminals convicted of serious offences released under licence who then go on to reoffend in a similar vein.

Should the chance for parole for criminals convicted of serious assault or murder be stopped?

Its an emotive subject. What are the stats for reoffending? How can things be tightened up? Should Parole Officers be subject to a capability charge for getting things wrong - they are supposed to be the experts?

Although the heart says bang 'em up for life, the head asks is that humane.

Thoughts?

My heart says bring back the death penalty, but my head says bring back the death penalty.
Two lives would have been saved if that were the case.
Someone on telly, this morning, said they shouldn't release a convicted terrorist unless they'd been de-radicalised!!
Who is to be the judge of that and is it even possible?
Remove them from the gene-pool, that'd be my solution. Take no chances what-so-ever.
Just think how it could have ended up if he'd had, say, an automatic weapon .................... or even a vehicle!
Why take the chance?

 

[Swinglowandslow]

There is too much considering how best to deal with/help/reform the offender.
By the time things get to the court, half the time the officials are hardly thinking of the victim, its all about the offender.
It's a fair bet by the end of proceedings, most of them couldn't put a name to the victim.
According to reports, we have a case where a terrorist( not a burglar, thief etc) but a terrorist whose Raison d'etre is to terrorise and kill innocent citizens, is given an indeterminate sentence in 2012, has it changed by a judge to 16 years, knowing, I repeat, knowing that the law will require him to be released in 8 years.
And when he was, he kills two people.
How many times does it happen, bad people being let out to kill innocents, ?just because we are run by the misguided who think all these villains are some sort of "prodigal son" types.
Releasing them doesn't mean you are civilised, it means you aren't giving enough consideration to the citizens of your country, a society which has given you a responsible and decisive position , and which you are failing.

 

[Backache]

My heart says bring back the death penalty, but my head says bring back the death penalty.
Two lives would have been saved if that were the case.
Someone on telly, this morning, said they shouldn't release a convicted terrorist unless they'd been de-radicalised!!
Who is to be the judge of that and is it even possible?
Remove them from the gene-pool, that'd be my solution. Take no chances what-so-ever.
Just think how it could have ended up if he'd had, say, an automatic weapon .................... or even a vehicle!
Why take the chance?

He hadn't actually commited an act of terror, he had planned one.
Don't think there's to many regimes would give the death penalty for that nowadays.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

You are never going to totally remove all crime

Every time this happens always get the call for the death penalty etc which is bore out of blood thirsty revenge because the death penalty isn’t a deterrent and this Guy was looking to plan an attack when he was arrested and killing someone for that ?!

And the guy who helped yesterday was a convicted killer it seems - so if the death penalty was around he wouldn’t have been there to help save lives - he was what can happen when people can rehabilitate themselves

Terrorism etc has been around for centuries in some form and It’s going to continue Same with all crimes - we have to put trust into our justice system , it’s a big part of us being a civilised society

There is prob the potential to add in a level in the prison - solitary confinement for life etc

 

[Deleted member 21784]

You are never going to totally remove all crime

Every time this happens always get the call for the death penalty etc which is bore out of blood thirsty revenge because the death penalty isn’t a deterrent and this Guy was looking to plan an attack when he was arrested and killing someone for that ?!

And the guy who helped yesterday was a convicted killer it seems - so if the death penalty was around he wouldn’t have been there to help save lives - he was what can happen when people can rehabilitate themselves

Terrorism etc has been around for centuries in some form and It’s going to continue Same with all crimes - we have to put trust into our justice system , it’s a big part of us being a civilised society

There is prob the potential to add in a level in the prison - solitary confinement for life etc

My best mates dad was convicted of fraud about 12 years ago

I used to take her to see him. He spoke about how Islam was growing inside , gangs were forcing people to convert for protection (I should point out this isn't a dig at the peaceful Islam real people worship or follow . Just the scummy king) he could handle himself so didn't get involved

Someone else I work with used to be a prison officer and he said similar that Islam converts were on the rise

Under funding of prisons , breeding grounds for radialisation

 

[Slime]

You are never going to totally remove all crime

Every time this happens always get the call for the death penalty etc which is bore out of blood thirsty revenge because the death penalty isn’t a deterrent and this Guy was looking to plan an attack when he was arrested and killing someone for that ?!

And the guy who helped yesterday was a convicted killer it seems - so if the death penalty was around he wouldn’t have been there to help save lives - he was what can happen when people can rehabilitate themselves

Terrorism etc has been around for centuries in some form and It’s going to continue Same with all crimes - we have to put trust into our justice system , it’s a big part of us being a civilised society

There is prob the potential to add in a level in the prison - solitary confinement for life etc

You are just wrong, it's born out of the fact that these people would not be able to kill other innocent people and ruin dozens of lives!!

If the death penalty had been around, he wouldn't have needed to save lives!!

 

[Deleted member 15344]

You are just wrong, it's born out of the fact that these people would not be able to kill other innocent people and ruin dozens of lives!!

If the death penalty had been around, he wouldn't have needed to save lives!!

This person hadn’t killed anyone until yesterday so tell me how the death penalty would have stopped him killing innocent lives ?

 

[Blue in Munich]

This person hadn’t killed anyone until yesterday so tell me how the death penalty would have stopped him killing innocent lives ?

By making it the penalty for belonging to a terrorist organisation or planning a terrorist attack?

 

[Deleted member 15344]

By making it the penalty for belonging to a terrorist organisation or planning a terrorist attack?

Wow.

I wonder the response would be

 

[Slime]

This person hadn’t killed anyone until yesterday so tell me how the death penalty would have stopped him killing innocent lives ?

He was a convicted terrorist who'd planned to kill in a terrorist attack, that would have attracted the death penalty if the death penalty was available at the time.
Sadly, it wasn't.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

He was a convicted terrorist who'd planned to kill in a terrorist attack, that would have attracted the death penalty if the death penalty was available at the time.
Sadly, it wasn't.

What other countries have that rule in place ?

Even when we had the death penalty I believe it was used when people had committed murder

Nelson Mandela was a convicted terrorist - should he have been given the death penalty as well