Wednesday, 15 August 2012

Should Dangerousness Not Require That Even Some Harm Was Done?

PUBLISHED: 13:59, 15 August 2012 | UPDATED: 14:35, 15 August 2012

Appeal judges are forced to REDUCE jail sentence of 'dangerous' [sic] paedophile [sic] to just 18 months

"Judges have expressed 'great concern' after being forced [sic] to overturn the indefinite sentence imposed on a dangerous [sic] paedophile [sic] who will now serve just 18 months behind bars.

SC twice tried to convince a 15-year-old boy to perform a sex act online and shared sickening [sic] images of children with other perverts [offensive and inflammatory], London’s Appeal Court heard.

He was jailed indefinitely for public protection - which is almost identical to a life sentence [it was worse than one] - at Preston Crown Court in March, after computer equipment was seized by police from his home in Fleetwood, Lancashire."

1:50PM BST 15 Aug 2012

Judges express 'great concern' at shorter sentence for paedophile [sic]

"IPPs, brought in by David Blunkett in 2003, were abolished by the Coalition Government earlier this year. Critics said the tough sentences have been used far more than was planned, boosting the prison population, but were not understood by victims or the public.

It is claimed that only a tiny proportion of those given the sentences have been released so far, remaining in jail long after they would have done on normal sentences. A Ministry of Justice spokesman said: "Sentencing and appeal decisions are purely a matter for the courts as only they have the full facts of a case before them.

"We are replacing the widely criticised and complex IPP scheme with a new regime of tough, determinate sentences. This will see more dangerous criminals given life sentences, and others spending long periods in prison and being supervised for lengthy periods after their release.”"

No comments:

Post a Comment