quote:

Originally posted by *Pesky-Pixie*:
I hope the parole board now step in when the time comes and ensure more appropriate sentencing is enacted. It seems they have more power than the judge in this case.

quote:

Originally posted by Bigdaddyostrich:
A little clarity, if I may.

The indeterminate sentences passed on Peter's mother and the lodger, Jason Owens, mean that they have to satisfy the Parole Board that they no longer present a threat to the public before they can be considered for release.

That process will not commence until after the minimum terms have been served - 5 years in the case of the mother and 3 in the case of Owens.

None were convicted of murder or manslaughter and thus none could be sentenced on that basis.

So far as the boyfriend is concerned, once the specified minimum period for the purposes of the life sentence, namely 10 years, is past, he too could seek release, which he would only obtain if he were able to persuade the Parole Board that he no longer presented a risk to the public and in particular to small children.

It is by no means guaranteed that such persuasion would follow, and thus there is a strong likelihood that all of them will spend longer in stir than the minimum terms would suggest.

The sentencing remarks clearly demonstrate that the boyfriend was the worst of the three, if such quantative analysis can be engaged in.

Ultimately, the Judge was bound by the law and by the sentencing guidelines within which he is constrained to operate. Were he to step outside those restrictions the sentence could and would be successfully challenged on appeal. To see the test he applied carefully set out, and indeed read the judicial summary of this horrific business, I urge anyone interested to read the sentencing transcript, available here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared...g_remarks_baby_p.pdf

quote:

Originally posted by Daniel J*:
The judgements ought to be published prominently in the mass media in these sort of cases. Loads of people seem to come away from these cases thinking the justice system, mainly the judges, are ridiculous (in the bitter sense) and that the system is arbitrary rather than process-driven. That said, I've come across some really wank magistrates and JPs at the lower levels.

quote:

I've read the transcript, I'm crying as I type. The whole bunch of them including the 15 year girlfriend's parents, Peters grandmother, the whole lot of them are subhuman scum.

quote:

Originally posted by Daniel J*:

quote:

Originally posted by *Pesky-Pixie*:
I hope the parole board now step in when the time comes and ensure more appropriate sentencing is enacted. It seems they have more power than the judge in this case.

Noooo. He's set the bounds of what they can do.

quote:

Originally posted by Kaytee:
Longcat & BDO

I understand that the judge had to act according to the law as it stands. However, as all three were responsible for that little boy's death, I wish that the niceties of who struck the final blow among many did not have to be taken into account and that all three could face the maximum punishment for such a heinous crime.

quote:

Originally posted by ~Orchid~:

quote:

I've read the transcript, I'm crying as I type. The whole bunch of them including the 15 year girlfriend's parents, Peters grandmother, the whole lot of them are subhuman scum.

It does make very difficult reading

quote:

Originally posted by Bigdaddyostrich:
Got busted, did ya?

quote:

Originally posted by Kaytee:
Longcat & BDO

I understand that the judge had to act according to the law as it stands. However, as all three were responsible for that little boy's death, I wish that the niceties of who struck the final blow among many did not have to be taken into account and that all three could face the maximum punishment for such a heinous crime.

quote:

Originally posted by *Pesky-Pixie*:

But if they are still seen to be a public threat after their minimum sentences the parole board can keep them in jail. Can't they??

quote:

Originally posted by Bigdaddyostrich:

quote:

Originally posted by *Pesky-Pixie*:

But if they are still seen to be a public threat after their minimum sentences the parole board can keep them in jail. Can't they??

Yes

Well, it works the other way round, really - it's for the prisoners to satisfy the parole board that they no longer present a threat. Until they do so, inside they stay.

Forever, if need be.

quote:

Originally posted by *Pesky-Pixie*:

quote:

Noooo. He's set the bounds of what they can do.

But if they are still seen to be a public threat after their minimum sentences the parole board can keep them in jail. Can't they??

quote:

Originally posted by *Pesky-Pixie*:
That's what I thought....meaning the parole board could in effect sentence these people above and beyond what the judge was able?

quote:

Originally posted by Daniel J*:
As a prisoner outside of mental health incarceration, I think you ought to know how long your sentence is.

quote:

Originally posted by *Pesky-Pixie*:

quote:

Originally posted by Daniel J*:

quote:

Originally posted by *Pesky-Pixie*:
I hope the parole board now step in when the time comes and ensure more appropriate sentencing is enacted. It seems they have more power than the judge in this case.

Noooo. He's set the bounds of what they can do.

But if they are still seen to be a public threat after their minimum sentences the parole board can keep them in jail. Can't they??

quote:

Originally posted by longcat:

quote:

Originally posted by Kaytee:
Longcat & BDO

I understand that the judge had to act according to the law as it stands. However, as all three were responsible for that little boy's death, I wish that the niceties of who struck the final blow among many did not have to be taken into account and that all three could face the maximum punishment for such a heinous crime.

I agree. I think they are equally guilty of causing the death of this child and should have been charged as such.But the law says they can't be.

quote:

Originally posted by RENTON:
WHOAH - 6 o clock news just sed Mother only got 5 yrs

quote:

Originally posted by Daniel J*:

quote:

Originally posted by *Pesky-Pixie*:

quote:

Noooo. He's set the bounds of what they can do.

But if they are still seen to be a public threat after their minimum sentences the parole board can keep them in jail. Can't they??

Yes, because he's set indefinite sentences. They have a different remit to him though. They don't have more power.

That said, I need to go and look at what happened but I'm sure that indefinite sentencing was challenged some time ago and that they were judged unlawful. Last I heard, it was being looked at.

I sort of agree that indefinite sentences are a bit dubious. As a prisoner outside of mental health incarceration, I think you ought to know how long your sentence is.

quote:

Originally posted by *Pesky-Pixie*:
Ah thanks...I thought I'd read the whole thing wrong then. So it's all a bit of a grey area this indefinite sentencing thing.

quote:

Originally posted by Bigdaddyostrich:

quote:

Originally posted by *Pesky-Pixie*:
That's what I thought....meaning the parole board could in effect sentence these people above and beyond what the judge was able?

They can't add years to the sentence, but the decision whether or not to let them out after the minimum terms are up is up to the Board.

They too have to operate within the constraints of the law - any irrational or unreasonable decisions would themselves be susceptible to an appeal (prob. by way of a Judicial review)

quote:

Originally posted by Bigdaddyostrich:

quote:

Originally posted by HyacinthB:
That is something I cannot understand BDO. Why were they not convicted of manslaughter?

They were wholly responsible for that child's death.

They beat and abused him until his little broken body could take no more!!

To convict of manslaughter or murder would require the jury to be satisfied so they were sure (a) which injury proved fatal, and (b) which party was responsible for it.

Here, they clearly couldn't be sure which amongst these 3 pondlifes dealt the fatal blow, and thus couldn't convict.

Historically, cases like this would frequently result in no convictions at all, as the mother and the boyfriend would blame each other and the jury had to acquit both. It was to deal with that specific problem that Parliament brought in Section 5 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004, under which these 3 were convicted.

Had that law not been made, it's likely that they would have walked (albeit that the boyfriend would still have faced the rape conviction)

quote:

Originally posted by Bigdaddyostrich:

quote:

Originally posted by *Pesky-Pixie*:
Ah thanks...I thought I'd read the whole thing wrong then. So it's all a bit of a grey area this indefinite sentencing thing.

A lot are being challenged on the basis that the prisoners have to undergo certain courses before they can seek release. But the prisons are under resourced and there are insufficient course places for all the villains that need to go on them. Thus, the argument goes, they are being unlawfully detained for far longer than they need to be for want of provision of the courses.

Problem is, there's no votes in being nice to old lags.

quote:

Originally posted by Bigdaddyostrich:

quote:

Originally posted by Daniel J*:
As a prisoner outside of mental health incarceration, I think you ought to know how long your sentence is.

Nah

encourages 'em to pipe down. Behave in the showers.

quote:

Originally posted by Daniel J*:

quote:

Originally posted by Bigdaddyostrich:

quote:

Originally posted by Daniel J*:
As a prisoner outside of mental health incarceration, I think you ought to know how long your sentence is.

Nah

encourages 'em to pipe down. Behave in the showers.

That's what the 50% of full term before parole thingy is for. Strangely, the 50% bit is what is almost always reported in the news on the asusmption that convicts almost always get paroled at their first hearing. But perhaps they do! I ought to check.

I work with a company which makes, amongst other things, prison cell equipment. It's a complete unit: intercom, music speaker, and light switch with a robust, wipeable fascia. They're all locally controlled but with a remote override so that Bad Behaviour removes the privileges if necessary.

I often read on forums that prison is a soft option, almost a luxury really. Sky TV, ping pong, the works. Then I think of this unit, where someone gets the power of disabling my light switch or not depending on what I do or say.

quote:

Originally posted by electric6:

quote:

Originally posted by Bigdaddyostrich:
Particularly nice touch, I thought, was that the lodger (aged 37) was shacked up in that hellhole with his own kids and a 15 year old girlfriend...

Thanks for posting that link BDO, I understand the sentencing a bit better now.

God it was hard going reading it though

quote:

Originally posted by HyacinthB:

quote:

Originally posted by electric6:

quote:

Originally posted by Bigdaddyostrich:
Particularly nice touch, I thought, was that the lodger (aged 37) was shacked up in that hellhole with his own kids and a 15 year old girlfriend...

Thanks for posting that link BDO, I understand the sentencing a bit better now.

God it was hard going reading it though

As much as I would like to, I just cannot bring myself to read it.

Don't think I could bear reading about the atrocities inflicted on little Baby Peter.