Notice to new members intending to register - from January 9th 2012

uk599905 · #1 01-04-2012, 10:28 AM

Well, probably like many people here in the UK I'm relieved that at least 2 of this gang have been found guilty. But, I have a horrible feeling that there is going to be a bit of a backlash against youth sentencing due to them "only" getting 15 and 14 years.

I feel the sentence was right. They may be in their 30's now, but they were juveniles when they committed the crime. It's still a "Life" sentence even with the highly unlikely chance they get paroled at first chance.

As someone with a huge interest in Juvenile sentencing, especially Juvenile LWOP in Michigan or the US, then I see what has happened today as a very positive thing, something I'm immensely proud of, that as a country we don't "throw away the key" for young people, that everyone has the chance to change and become useful members of society. Frankly, those two convicted today I hold out very little hope for, firstly they'd have to become members of the human race, then maybe they can try and become decent people... it'll be a long journey for them.

I just really hope the sentences aren't used as an excuse to bring in ever more punitive punishments for juveniles convicted of murder ...

So.. what's your view on it?

JJS811 · #2 01-04-2012, 12:23 PM

The thing is, a life sentence in the UK is anywhere between 12-15 years, rarely any more. There is a small group of people who have a whole of life tariff but it is very rare. Juvenile sentencing is and must be different to adults. I don't agree with LWOP apart from very rare cases where there simply is no other viable option for public safety.

I just hope the Lawrence family, can no find some kind of peace.

Stoneite · #3 01-04-2012, 02:12 PM

Well, I certainly agree with your comments on LWOP - I too am proud that in this country we allow for the possibility of change, apart, as JJ says, from the tiny number who simply cannot be released. But in this case I wouldn't be too bothered if the key got lost. These juveniles were 16 and 17 at the time and well capable of understanding what they were doing, so why should they have the benefit of being treated as children.

But ... there's a nagging voice reminding me that I write to a man who was only just 18 when he allegedly committed the crime which sent him to death row. If I would argue that he is no longer the same person and would not be a danger to society if he were released, then it's hypocritical of me to deny them the same possibility. The difference is, he has changed but I don't think they will.

I know there has to be a cut-off point between being a juvenile and being an adult and it's just their good luck that they were on the right side. I hope they appreciate that.

uk599905 · #4 01-04-2012, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stoneite

Well, I certainly agree with your comments on LWOP - I too am proud that in this country we allow for the possibility of change, apart, as JJ says, from the tiny number who simply cannot be released. But in this case I wouldn't be too bothered if the key got lost. These juveniles were 16 and 17 at the time and well capable of understanding what they were doing, so why should they have the benefit of being treated as children.

But ... there's a nagging voice reminding me that I write to a man who was only just 18 when he allegedly committed the crime which sent him to death row. If I would argue that he is no longer the same person and would not be a danger to society if he were released, then it's hypocritical of me to deny them the same possibility. The difference is, he has changed but I don't think they will.

I know there has to be a cut-off point between being a juvenile and being an adult and it's just their good luck that they were on the right side. I hope they appreciate that.

Hmmm. I agree with all of what you say there, including that there are some who should get a Whole Life Tariff in the exceptional circumstances it is warranted.
There's one thing I would say about what you've written and the word "disagree" is too strong to use, I don't disagree at all... but I can't think of the exact word I'd use...
Here's my point.. they should be sentenced as juveniles because that's when the crime was committed. It is as simple as that. Yes, the difference between 17 years 364 days is and 18 years 0 days is totally arbitrary.. but the line is drawn that that is the point of adulthood. It's the least worst system we have.
That they were sentenced as juveniles and given an appropriate sentence for the age they were is one thing. Another is they got more than the minimum due, to reflect their lack of remorse, their evasion and the nature of the crime. ALSO ... and I think this is crucial in the coming days, when others will be arguing for a change in the law to make our laws more "American", is that 15 or 14 years per defendant is the minimum before they can apply for parole. As a society we accept that people change and develop. It's not a given and it is, like you say; "unlikely they will" ... so it is almost certain they'll serve long over their minimum term.

So, I don't disagree... is clarification what I'm trying to search for? I dunno. Denying parole, especially to juveniles, denies hope for change and I guess many of us here know, like you do, how much people can change.

JJS811 · #5 01-04-2012, 04:40 PM

I think to deny a wo/man hope is the way to create more violence inside, what's the point behaving, they have nothing to loose? Some will go out of their way to kill in states where there is a DP simply to get out of all of the horrors of prison sooner. I don't believe there are many who are completely beyond redemption, there are some, it would be foolhardy to think other wise.

There does have to be a line and a clear cut one between juvenile and adult. We only have to look around to see young children sent to prison for the rest of their lives. For me, this is simply intolerable. To suggest someone of 13, 14, 15 is not capable of change is a crime in it's self. Yes, Stephen's killers were 'lucky' they fell into the juvenile category, but lets be honest here, they have the same sentence that is handed down as a life sentence in the UK. Life here is between 12 - 15 years typically, so in that respect they have been sentences as adults. My concern is how long will they serve? They must be punished, and feel as if they have been, so letting them out in 2-3 years will not solve that issue. They do need to be kept from society for a decent amount of time.

uk599905 · #6 01-04-2012, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JJS811

My concern is how long will they serve? They must be punished, and feel as if they have been, so letting them out in 2-3 years will not solve that issue. They do need to be kept from society for a decent amount of time.

This is the thing I'm talking about... their minimum term is 15+ and 14+ years respectively. They can't serve ANY less than that... they will be serve 100% of their minimum term. THEN.. and only then, can they apply for parole and that's firstly a long drawn out process, secondly, they can be denied. So they'll likely serve a lot longer than their minimum.
There are no sentence reductions, or good-time etc on minimum terms.

At a guess, if they'd have been convicted as adults, they'd have been given between 25 and 30 years minimum, before parole eligible. Twice the sentence.

JJS811 · #7 01-04-2012, 05:10 PM

The problem with that, if they appeal and ask and get a sentence reduction. As juveniles, I fear they would win their case. Then what would they serve? It's going to be a hot topic for a while I am guessing. Also, although I haven't read anything in the press, was joint enterprise part of the case/sentencing? If it was will they argue that? Still a fair bit to see before this is finally brought to a conclusion.

I would love to agree with you that had they been adults they would have got 25-30 years, but I can't. Then good behaviour etc, they could be free quicker than any of use hope.

Quote:

Originally Posted by uk599905

This is the thing I'm talking about... their minimum term is 15+ and 14+ years respectively. They can't serve ANY less than that... they will be serve 100% of their minimum term. THEN.. and only then, can they apply for parole and that's firstly a long drawn out process, secondly, they can be denied. So they'll likely serve a lot longer than their minimum.
There are no sentence reductions, or good-time etc on minimum terms.

At a guess, if they'd have been convicted as adults, they'd have been given between 25 and 30 years minimum, before parole eligible. Twice the sentence.

uk599905 · #8 01-05-2012, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JJS811

The problem with that, if they appeal and ask and get a sentence reduction. As juveniles, I fear they would win their case. Then what would they serve? It's going to be a hot topic for a while I am guessing. Also, although I haven't read anything in the press, was joint enterprise part of the case/sentencing? If it was will they argue that? Still a fair bit to see before this is finally brought to a conclusion.

I would love to agree with you that had they been adults they would have got 25-30 years, but I can't. Then good behaviour etc, they could be free quicker than any of use hope.

In my first post I mentioned in the last line that I hoped it wouldn't bring in stricter sentencing for juveniles.
On the news today there was a report that, contrary to what you fear JJS, their case has been referred to the Attorney General for a sentence increase... as it may have been seen as too lenient. He has 28 days to decide if it should be reviewed.
But even if he doesn't decide to review it.. the bare fact is they can't possibly serve ANY less than their minimum term... unless they win an appeal... which is hugely unlikely given how long and hard it has been to convict them.
BUT... let's say they DO get a sentence reduction, the minimum term for a juvenile convicted of murder... and this term has to be served even before they can ask for parole, is 12 years. Even after 12 years, they aren't automatically released.. they have to prove they're not a threat to society.
And when they are released, they're out on life-licence. Not "free"... any tiny infraction of the law, real, perceived, or even non-existant can land them back in prison. That life licence lasts for the rest of their life... until they die.

JJS811 · #9 01-06-2012, 04:59 AM

Sorry I have just got back to you, my internet was down yesterday. I think the storms may have been responsible.

Back to the thread. Yes, I saw on the news that it had been referred to the AG. I doubt he will increase, but it has been known so perhaps, I will be wrong. I would have been ok(ish) with the sentence as it is now, had I not known these men came out of court first time round looking like the cat that got the cream, when they were acquitted. That made me really feel so damn angry. Stephen Lawrence was cold in his grave and they swagger off.

I also have huge anger toward the Met. They would have been quite happy to allow Stephen's killers go free because he was black. We all know about institutional racism, I am so pleased Stephen's case got this onto the agenda. I don't doubt for a single second racism is still rife, but at least it isn't hidden now.

I genuinely hope what you have said below is correct. To be honest I have more understanding of US law than my own. My fear is, we see so many people released after serving minuscule amounts of time, even on longer sentences. However, as I say, hope springs eternal, these men will serve a length of time that is appropriate, and not just a token. I think Stephen deserves that at least.

Quote:

Originally Posted by uk599905

In my first post I mentioned in the last line that I hoped it wouldn't bring in stricter sentencing for juveniles.
On the news today there was a report that, contrary to what you fear JJS, their case has been referred to the Attorney General for a sentence increase... as it may have been seen as too lenient. He has 28 days to decide if it should be reviewed.
But even if he doesn't decide to review it.. the bare fact is they can't possibly serve ANY less than their minimum term... unless they win an appeal... which is hugely unlikely given how long and hard it has been to convict them.
BUT... let's say they DO get a sentence reduction, the minimum term for a juvenile convicted of murder... and this term has to be served even before they can ask for parole, is 12 years. Even after 12 years, they aren't automatically released.. they have to prove they're not a threat to society.
And when they are released, they're out on life-licence. Not "free"... any tiny infraction of the law, real, perceived, or even non-existant can land them back in prison. That life licence lasts for the rest of their life... until they die.

Stoneite · #10 01-05-2012, 01:00 PM

Thanks for the clarification and update on the sentencing, I missed the news today and hadn't heard that. I do agree with you about the cut-off point between juvenile and adult, there has to be a clear line drawn which then has to be stuck to.

It will be interesting to see what the AG does.

JJS811 · #11 01-09-2012, 09:15 AM

Good post UK and food for thought. I believe all victims are innocent, no one deserves to be murdered, but some are more innocent than others.

Lurkeer · #12 01-09-2012, 10:02 AM

In my opinion the judges hands were tied and the sentence has to fit the crime and the crime was committed by juvies... I also wanted to add for interest in Japan a lot of teenage gangs 'rush' to kill someone before they are 18 because they 'want to see what its like' and will rarely get more than 5 years!!!

uk599905 · #13 01-09-2012, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lurkeer

In my opinion the judges hands were tied and the sentence has to fit the crime and the crime was committed by juvies... I also wanted to add for interest in Japan a lot of teenage gangs 'rush' to kill someone before they are 18 because they 'want to see what its like' and will rarely get more than 5 years!!!

Hmmm. I agree and disagree. The hands of the judge were tied in some respects, in that he had to sentence them as juveniles, and the minimum term is 12 years. But the judge can (and often does) impose a larger minimum term, within reason, based on the crime and many other factors. Whole Life Tariffs, that is what those of us who know about US law understand as LWOP, cannot be imposed on those under 21. No matter what. Except under mental health grounds. That is exceptional and will be a HMP Broadmoor job.
But if the sentence is unduly harsh.. it is likely to be overturned at appeal.
All of the above is based on minimum terms... a lot longer is often the norm.

I'm presuming you have some knowledge of the Japanese system Lurkeer.. nice to see you here. Care to enlighten?

Lurkeer · #14 01-09-2012, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by uk599905

Hmmm. I agree and disagree. The hands of the judge were tied in some respects, in that he had to sentence them as juveniles, and the minimum term is 12 years. But the judge can (and often does) impose a larger minimum term, within reason, based on the crime and many other factors. Whole Life Tariffs, that is what those of us who know about US law understand as LWOP, cannot be imposed on those under 21. No matter what. Except under mental health grounds. That is exceptional and will be a HMP Broadmoor job.
But if the sentence is unduly harsh.. it is likely to be overturned at appeal.
All of the above is based on minimum terms... a lot longer is often the norm.

I'm presuming you have some knowledge of the Japanese system Lurkeer.. nice to see you here. Care to enlighten?

Lol I'm a crime buff who watches a lot of tv lol I am also obsessed with Japan, oddly enough crime within the youth in Japan is because their society is so strict (its not uncommon for schooling to last 12 hours) so they eventually snap...

Might be interesting to explore the reasons for youth crimes (like thompson and venables) here in the UK as well as the USA...

LWOP is definately needed for some criminals here (might I add that I'm from NI so the crime here is different to the rest of the uk with paramillitaries and such whereby killers think they are still fighting a 'cause')