35 years now that's a sentence

[JonathanL]

why not the victims still dead either way im sure the 1 punch victims family will be as upset as the serial killers victims family

Because it's not just the outcome that should be considered. If that were the only thing you judged anyone's actions by then anyone who caused a death, however remotely, and even accidentally but with a small amount of negligence should get a whole life term.

 

I read of a case a while back where a driver ran into the back of a car parked at a crossing causing it to run over and kill the person on the crossing. Does the driver who hit the back of the stationary car deserve a whole life term? If so then you are saying that his conduct is essentially the same as that of Ian Brady or Peter Sutcliffe.

 

I also think you are wrong in your assumptions about the respective victims families. Personally, I think that the psychological trauma suffered by the family of a kidnapped child who was tortured to death over hours or days by a sexual sadist is probably imeasurably worse than that of a family who's relative is killed in something which could amount to not much more than extreme negligence or recklessness.

 

J.

[overandunder2012]

driving into the back of a car isnt a pub fight is it ? bar fights are a deliberate violent act and sometimes people die just like any other murder and to me an attacks an attack victims still dead, serial killers do it more often and plan it but deads dead, pub fighters should take their porridge they deserve it as much as any killer if they cause a death nothing changes however much they say i didnt mean it i was drunk or other lame excuses

Edited December 19, 2013 by overandunder2012

[Dekers]

In this day and age 35 years is a long sentence.

 

Surprised me!

[team tractor]

No, life is life. True that it is unusual to actually serve life but you are on life licence after release and can be recalled to prison.

 

Yes, people are usually out after 15 or so years but that is for a murder on the lower end of the scale for which you may never have even had an intention to kill.

 

You cannot simply treat all murderers the same unfortunately. If you did then you would have to give the same sentence to the guy who slapped someone in a fight who hit their head and died as you would to the serial killer who kidnapped children and sadistically tortured them before killing them. They are not the same and should not be treated as such.

 

J.

Someone I knew from school and my mates best mate at that was punched in the face only a year ago while out drinking with his wife.

The guy attacked his wife so he stepped in front and punched in the face which killed him . He's left a wife and 2 children behind .

The bloke got 30 months 😡

[Scully]

In this day and age 35 years is a long sentence.

 

Surprised me!

Surprised me also. It would be nice to think he would still be in prison in 35 years time. It isn't unknown for even convicted murderers to have been released early only to kill again. In these instances I sometimes wonder how those panels of specialists who sanction these releases must feel in such cases.

[Kes]

Because it's not just the outcome that should be considered. If that were the only thing you judged anyone's actions by then anyone who caused a death, however remotely, and even accidentally but with a small amount of negligence should get a whole life term.

 

I read of a case a while back where a driver ran into the back of a car parked at a crossing causing it to run over and kill the person on the crossing. Does the driver who hit the back of the stationary car deserve a whole life term? If so then you are saying that his conduct is essentially the same as that of Ian Brady or Peter Sutcliffe.

 

I also think you are wrong in your assumptions about the respective victims families. Personally, I think that the psychological trauma suffered by the family of a kidnapped child who was tortured to death over hours or days by a sexual sadist is probably imeasurably worse than that of a family who's relative is killed in something which could amount to not much more than extreme negligence or recklessness.

 

J.

I dont think trying to make comparative judgements is the point here. The man has been convicted of intended illegal and dangerous acts, repugnant and well beyond previous similar crimes and societal limits, As such commenting on what should be done to him I believe is valid. I also believe no good can come from having him or them around. There are crimes so awful and appalling we really should consider other ways of dealing with them. As a minimum society should benefit from all his possessions and all his earnings, with a degree of compensation to his victims. They serve no function add no value so ?

[88b]

In this day and age 35 years is a long sentence.

 

Surprised me!

Very true and I hope he doesn't get out early. I wonder just how much it will cost the tax payer ? I do wonder if the Chinese have it right just shoot him there and then , he's never going to be of any use to society.

[JonathanL]

what I,m suggesting is hang the three of them,

 

why should we put them up in the Hilton(prison) hotel and keep them, they are EVIL in what they did and I,m sorry if you disagree but there is no place in society for people like them so why should they be kept

I know exactly what you are saying and I have given a pretty comprehensive answer as to why we shouldn't do what you suggest.

 

J.

[castletyne]

What a name for a judge Mr Justice Royce

[Remimax]

only one cure for this monster ,pic yer caliber.

[neil3728]

Why are the other 2 women involved in the case not been named, There seems to be more women involved in these types of crimes at the moment and it's something I really struggle to understand.

 

All three should be put out to pasture. saves us a fortune in protecting them once they are in jail.

[Sir_Adam]

I think they are only 17

 

(null)

[kent]

I think he is damaged and cannot ever be fixed, best thing is keep him inside it is the best move. Torture, extreme cruelty and death are all very tempting but show us why we have courts, it would be hard not to do these things if it was your child non the less

[shaun4860]

What a name for a judge Mr Justice Royce

Are all judges not called Mr. Justice something or other?

 

[flynny]

I would like to hope that "BIG BUBBA" gets hold of him and makes him his bitch, but this is unlikely as he will be locked up with the rest of his breed and kept away from the mainstream cons,

 

I hope he tops himself and saves us all a lot of money,

 

Not nice to say I know, but I dont care

 

And before all the self righteous liberal PW members have a go blah blah blah, bout mental health etc

 

He does not deserve to breathe,

 

You dont touch little children, (or anyone to do deviant deeds)

 

 

Atb

 

Flynny

Edited December 19, 2013 by flynny

[JonathanL]

Why are the other 2 women involved in the case not been named, There seems to be more women involved in these types of crimes at the moment and it's something I really struggle to understand.

 

All three should be put out to pasture. saves us a fortune in protecting them once they are in jail.

 

Because to do so would identify the children involved. One of Bob Geldof's brainless offspring has already been threatened with prosecution for doing so.

 

J.

Edited December 19, 2013 by JonathanL

[castletyne]

Are all judges not called Mr. Justice something or other?

 

I think so it just sounds like the name some southern redneck judge in America would have

[JonathanL]

driving into the back of a car isnt a pub fight is it ? bar fights are a deliberate violent act and sometimes people die just like any other murder and to me an attacks an attack victims still dead, serial killers do it more often and plan it but deads dead, pub fighters should take their porridge they deserve it as much as any killer if they cause a death nothing changes however much they say i didnt mean it i was drunk or other lame excuses

 

The point I was making was that you cannot judge all crimes and ciminals the same solely by the end result of their actions. Nor am I saying that someone who kills in a pub fight should not go to jail.

 

Our system of justice is based heavily around the concept of the culpability and intent of the guilty party. Someone who accidentally kills someone in a minor fight is not the same sort of criminal as Peter Sutcliffe or Ian Brady. To say that they are is an insult to the victims and families of all concerned.

 

J.

[JonathanL]

Surprised me also. It would be nice to think he would still be in prison in 35 years time. It isn't unknown for even convicted murderers to have been released early only to kill again. In these instances I sometimes wonder how those panels of specialists who sanction these releases must feel in such cases.

 

The sentence he was given was 29 years locked up and 6 on licence. That suggests that he will indeed do at least 29 years. Not sure what the rules are for release before that but it appears unlikely.

 

In any event it's a very long sentence by anyones standards.

 

J.

[JonathanL]

I dont think trying to make comparative judgements is the point here. The man has been convicted of intended illegal and dangerous acts, repugnant and well beyond previous similar crimes and societal limits, As such commenting on what should be done to him I believe is valid. I also believe no good can come from having him or them around. There are crimes so awful and appalling we really should consider other ways of dealing with them. As a minimum society should benefit from all his possessions and all his earnings, with a degree of compensation to his victims. They serve no function add no value so ?

 

 

The particular point I was replying to was regarding murder though, not this case specifcially.

 

Of course you have to make comparative judgements. There is no other way to do it and we do it all the time anyway and you've even done it in the quote above. The simple fact of the matter is that a person who had no intent to kill yet is convicted of murder because he hit someone in quite a minor way is in a totally different league to the likes of Ian Brady. You cannot treat them the same because they are not the same.

 

To apply it to this case. The bloke who sleeps with a 15 year old a day before she is 16 is guilty of a similar offence and is a child sex offender, as is Watkins. To suggest that they should recieve the same sentence though is completely irrational.

 

J.

[JonathanL]

I think he is damaged and cannot ever be fixed, best thing is keep him inside it is the best move. Torture, extreme cruelty and death are all very tempting but show us why we have courts, it would be hard not to do these things if it was your child non the less

 

I don't really agree with that, to be honest. People don't do these sorts of things to criminals because the majority of people aren't psychotic monsters. Child abusers and murderers are released all the time but we don't hear of them constantly being subject to revenge beatings and killings.

 

J.

[oscarsdad]

Scum like this should be used for vivisection and other scientific tests then melted down to make glue. Shouldn't waste a single penny keeping them alive or feeding them - I don't believe it is barbaric or any of this lefty argument against the death penalty - this animal will always be a danger to children (and animals) and so why waste time an money on him?

 

I totally agree with JonathanL on the differences between murder - it's not the end result but all the intent before hand which should be determining the sentence and using that same logic since this animal planned and premeditated his actions he has absolutely no defence and so after being castrated with a lump hammer he should be executed.

Edited December 19, 2013 by oscarsdad

[JonathanL]

Scum like this should be used for vivisection and other scientific tests then melted down to make glue. Shouldn't waste a single penny keeping them alive or feeding them - I don't believe it is barbaric or any of this lefty argument against the death penalty - this animal will always be a danger to children (and animals) and so why waste time an money on him?

 

I totally agree with JonathanL on the differences between murder - it's not the end result but all the intent before hand which should be determining the sentence and using that same logic since this animal planned and premeditated his actions he has absolutely no defence and so after being castrated with a lump hammer he should be executed.

 

As previoulsy stated - because the rest of society isn't like him and has better moral values. Because we don't want to live in a society (at least I don't) which is a barbarous hell-hole lorded over by psychopaths like places such as Iran and Saudi.

 

It's the reason why we stopped executing people in public a couple of hundred years ago. I found Evo's comment above somewhat paradoxical; on the one hand he abhores scum like Watkins for what he has subjected children to yet, on the other, is quite happy to see him publicly excuted in view of...erm...children.

 

J.

Edited December 19, 2013 by JonathanL

[oscarsdad]

 

As previoulsy stated - because the rest of society isn't like him and has better moral values. Because we don't want to live in a society (at least I don't) which is a barbarous hell-hole lorded over by psychopaths like places such as Iran and Saudi.

 

It's the reason why we stopped executing people in public a couple of hundred years ago. I found Evo's comment above somewhat paradoxical; on the one hand he abhores scum like Watkins for what he has subjected children to yet, on the other, is quite happy to see him publicly excuted in view of...erm...children.

 

J.

 

I am not suggesting anything public - I certainly would be concerned about the impact that would have on younger viewers and even some adult viewers, it should be done behind closed doors but nevertheless, it should be done as as far as I am concerned he is sub-human - we put down dogs which are considered to be dangerous, often purely based on their breeding, in this case we have plenty of irrifutable evidence that this animal is without a doubt a danger to society so why treat him any better than a dangerous animal?

[JonathanL]

 

I am not suggesting anything public - I certainly would be concerned about the impact that would have on younger viewers and even some adult viewers, it should be done behind closed doors but nevertheless, it should be done as as far as I am concerned he is sub-human - we put down dogs which are considered to be dangerous, often purely based on their breeding, in this case we have plenty of irrifutable evidence that this animal is without a doubt a danger to society so why treat him any better than a dangerous animal?

 

To reiterate, yet again; because we do not live in a barbaorus ****-hole run by psychopaths like Iran.

 

How low do you want to drop the bar for capital punishment? You've already got it down to serious sex offenders so perhaps not so serious sex offenders before too long? Why not just revert back to the Bloody Code whereupon you could be hanged for stealing property worth more then 12 pence? Where do we draw the line?

 

The problem with comments like this is that they are very easy to say and write but people happily say them because they know that they will never need to prove what they say. The person who says they would quite happily torture a child abuser for months on end is, in reality, talking utter rubbish. They would do no such thing.

 

Watkins, as you say, is a danger to society and so has been removed from it and will stay incarcerated for a very long time. He will not have an easy time of it and is probably rather unlikely to leave prison alive given the length of his sentence.

 

J.