I doubt Peter sutcliffe will be a better member of society after 30 years either, but it doesn't mean that he shouldn't be there.
Steady on, you see that bit where I said you can only compare like with like? Are you comparing this girl to Sutcliffe? Do you think there is anything comparable in what they've each done?
Sutcliffe was banged up because he was deemed by the judge to be a menace to society, and that the rest of us would ALL be safer with him off the streets.
As she has walked away it just sends out signals that it's OK to leave your kids unsupervised in squalor
No she didn't. She was found guilty, and given a custodial sentence of 6 months. This has been suspended for two years which means that if she is brought back before the court again for anything she will not only be tried and given a sentence for that event (if she's found guilty) but this 6 months would automatically become active.
She therefore has good reason to stay out of trouble, and good reason to try and become a better mum, plus her family will have time to take stock, possibly re-aquaint themselves with her, go round to the Father and read his horoscope for him if he don't step up to the mark, and Social Services will have time to work with her and maybe try and get her help, and that could range from psychiatric to a simple more formal education.
Steady on, you see that bit where I said you can only compare like with like? Are you comparing this girl to Sutcliffe? Do you think there is anything comparable in what they've each done?
Sutcliffe was banged up because he was deemed by the judge to be a menace to society, and that the rest of us would ALL be safer with him off the streets.
Threep.
I'm not comparing her with anyone. I'm simply making the point that just because prison won't make her a better person is not an argument to keep her out.
As I said earlier, the problem we have is an underclass for whom work and social responsibility are anathema.
....... given a custodial sentence of 6 months. This has been suspended for two years which means that if she is brought back before the court again for anything she will not only be tried and given a sentence for that event (if she's found guilty) but this 6 months would automatically become active.
Threep.
and will probably run concurrent with the second sentence effectively meaning she got away with it!!!
From what I understand from the conditions in her 'home', she'd see prison as a holiday camp: clean, someone else to do the cooking and lots of her mates there to pass the time of day. If retribution is what you're after (and it seems it is, which is fair enough) she should be put under house arrest. A system of justice which involved the guilty being punished using the means they'd inflicted on their victims seems worth considering to me. I wouldn't admit this in public, but between you and me I'd have been all for Peter Sutcliffe being stabbed to death with a screwdriver. But you'd a pretty much infallible system of justice before you introduced that kind of retribution so, on balance, probably not a good idea.
Meanwhile, just for some light relief, here's some total perimeter defense integration related video
This those children have clearly needed help for some years.
Threep.
Exactly, that is what social services and other agencies are for, to identify parenting problems where children are at risk as they clearly were here and to do something about it. It's a strange thing, that the NSPCC never seem to be involved in these stories of neglect although they do some good adverts on the TV. However, she is an adult and must have known she was neglecting her children, but like you, I can't see what a gaol sentence would do but the fact of the matter is that she is guilty of a criminal act and she certainly should be under a supervision order but if she no longer has care of the children, a suspended sentence is like getting away with it.
What do you think should be done then Threep, we do not have a parenting college for crap mothers nor a residential home for delinquent mothers so should she go unpunished, should the social services be hung out to dry, should she lose her place in society by having her accomodation taken away. Should she have the kids back for another go with strings or are they just her passport to an easy life not having to work for a living and being given free housing by the taxpayers.
Her parents/grandparents were shocked but it is quite possible that they have given up on this little madam due to her way of life or her attitude to life. Now, they perhaps have to bear the burden. If she no longer has responsibility then take her out of the communty for six months. At the end of the day, it's the children that need a good and loving home but we don't really know if she has shown some remorse and wants to try again or if she is sat in her three bedroom house or round her boyfriend's thinking,"Got away with that one".
Ah sorry, she was the defence attorney, I see now. However, she is doing her job, distasteful as it may be and I doubt she chose this case as she was on a hiding to nothing but at least she managed to get a guilty plea out of her client rather than wasting taxpayers money with a crown court trial. I don't think that the defence lawyers are allowed to refuse a case where scalleywags have a court appointed legal team and where the client, is in receipt of legal aid.
Ah sorry, she was the defence attorney, I see now. However, she is doing her job, distasteful as it may be and I doubt she chose this case as she was on a hiding to nothing but at least she managed to get a guilty plea out of her client rather than wasting taxpayers money with a crown court trial. I don't think that the defence lawyers are allowed to refuse a case where scalleywags have a court appointed legal team and where the client, is in receipt of legal aid.
So why would she be viewing this with interest... Or more to the point why would user feel the need to mention it? Strange.
Logged
Male
