News13 mins ago
Now That Is What I Can A Sentence............
The Cleveland kidnapper has been sentenced for his crimes and the sentence looks appropriate
http:// news.na tionalp ost.com /2013/0 8/01/li ke-pris oners-o f-war-c levelan d-kidna p-victi ms-diar ies-rev eal-how -ariel- castro- torment ed-capt ives/
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by wolf63. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.It's a bit like the way they dug up Oliver Cromwell and hung him after he died.
Well that showed him didn't it!
BBC did an article on what the point of silly sentences was
http:// www.bbc .co.uk/ news/bl ogs-mag azine-m onitor- 2349528 4
Well that showed him didn't it!
BBC did an article on what the point of silly sentences was
http://
I don't think you can blame "human rights" for saying that he wouldn't have received such a sentence here, although I may be missing something, I'm not a lawyer. Wonder what NJ's opinion is.
Anyhow, this man appears to have been sentenced to life followed by over 900 consecutive other sentences totaling 1,000 years (though that figure is just symbolic). In the UK consecutive sentences are allowed, but discouraged, under a judgement from our own Court of Appeal. In turn this judgement is based on a UK act, that passed through the UK Parliament, based on consultations carried out in the UK. Given their timing it's possible that the Human Rights Act might sneak into there somewhere, but if so I've not seen any evidence for it.
As for "human rights" allowing him to be released in two weeks -- stuff and nonsense, and I think you know it bernie. One of the reasons that Ariel Castro will never be released is because he agreed to that condition, waiving his right to parole, to avoid a death sentence. Even a right to parole does not mean a right to release, and given the lack of remorse Castro has shown he'd almost certainly never be released in this country either.
Given that the life sentence itself is without parole, the extra 1,000 years on top is pure tokenism.
Anyhow, this man appears to have been sentenced to life followed by over 900 consecutive other sentences totaling 1,000 years (though that figure is just symbolic). In the UK consecutive sentences are allowed, but discouraged, under a judgement from our own Court of Appeal. In turn this judgement is based on a UK act, that passed through the UK Parliament, based on consultations carried out in the UK. Given their timing it's possible that the Human Rights Act might sneak into there somewhere, but if so I've not seen any evidence for it.
As for "human rights" allowing him to be released in two weeks -- stuff and nonsense, and I think you know it bernie. One of the reasons that Ariel Castro will never be released is because he agreed to that condition, waiving his right to parole, to avoid a death sentence. Even a right to parole does not mean a right to release, and given the lack of remorse Castro has shown he'd almost certainly never be released in this country either.
Given that the life sentence itself is without parole, the extra 1,000 years on top is pure tokenism.