Login Register


“Prison sentences are becoming a sick joke.

How is it justified, that paedophilles are recieving 2 year sentences, theives are recieving 16 months, and murderers are recieving 4 years, (which in todays terms means 4 weeks and let off for good behaviour) ?!

Has the world gone mad??

If you take a life - you serve a life. If you molest children, in my opinion, you should still serve a life. If you steal, it is bad and you should be punished - but it is not a crime worthy of a sentence similar to that of a sexual predator.”

By izzysara Posted: December 15, 2011


27 replies

Start the discussion

max 4000 characters
  • qunfud  |  December 15 2011, 3:12PM

    H'mm. Am I going to take the advice of someone who can't even spell paedophile?

  • Morrissey9  |  December 15 2011, 3:31PM

    What murderers have received 4 years and been released in 4 weeks?? I was under the impression that sentences have actually been increasing for crimes (especially sexual crimes) over recent years despite the tabloid scaremongering, I'd be interested in seeing some actual studies and reports which dispute this. The key anyway is detection rates, paedophiles were often not prosecuted in the past due to lack of evidence, that has changed massively.

  • A_Mushroom  |  December 15 2011, 7:53PM

    In a democracy a judiciary with sentencing guidelines is appointed. In other social arrangements people take the law into their own hands. Wanting to impose a solution based on your opinion puts you firmly into the Daily Mail camp.

  • izzysara  |  December 15 2011, 8:03PM

    @ A Mushroom: No wonder our society is such a sorry state. I'm very surprised that people don't see that murderers and rapists etc affect people for the rest of their/their families' lives. So no, a couple of years in prison is not justice. I can only hope that your opinions would console you at a time when some body you know is affected by a paedophile, or a murderer - although I would hope that never happens. @Morrissey9: I in turn, would like to see evidence of increased sentences for crimes. I find it bemusing that a man in a position of trust, has recently been found guilty of child grooming, and sentenced to two years in prison.. and around the same time, a teenager has been found guilty of theft during the riots, and given 16 months in prison. Both crimes are bad - on totally seperate scales, yet the sentences are very similar. @qunfud: It doesn't take long for a cyber bully to emerge these days. Try to think before you comment, because the next person that you patronise online for a typo, might well be dyslexic.

  • Tiny_Steve  |  December 15 2011, 9:09PM

    Perhaps if you didn't believe without question the "facts" and "statistics" about law and justice you read about in the Daily Express the world would seem less like it had gone mad?

  • izzysara  |  December 15 2011, 10:24PM

    @Tiny_Steve: I don't read the Daily Express. This is from the broadcasted news, which I don't believe is as opinionated as those newspapers, is it? I am not obtuse, I understand that circumstances in certain cases do have an impact on the length of prison sentences. It is just MY opinion that a lot of prison sentences aren't appropriate. I think that the system needs to be a lot stricter with it's guidelines. If you don't at least see that, well I'm just glad you're not in politics.

  • Obviously  |  December 16 2011, 6:01AM

    It would surely help to get your facts straight before ranting. Can you provide one example of a murderer serving four years in prison (other perhaps than those who die in prison or are released early because of imminent death)? For example, murderers who carry a knife to the scene of the crime now face a minimum sentence before being considered for release of 25 years. The minimum for murder with a firearm is 30 years. Having said that, I am equally exasperated by many of the sentences for less serious crimes that I read about on this site nearly every day.

  • izzysara  |  December 16 2011, 9:41AM

    Okay. Here's one: http://tinyurl.com/7co8vvv Here's another: http://tinyurl.com/82xu6t5

  • izzysara  |  December 16 2011, 9:42AM

    4th March 1995, an eight-year-old girl (unnamed for legal reasons) was abducted and sexually assaulted in Langley Green. Roy Whiting was arrested a few weeks later after a man who knew Whiting came forward after hearing that the abductor's car had been a red Ford Sierra, which matched the description of the car that Whiting had just sold. June 1995,, Whiting admitted to the charges of abduction and indecent assault, and was sentenced to four years in prison. November 1997, Whiting was released from prison having served 2 years and 5 months of his 4 year sentence, and was one of the first people in Britain to go on the sex offenders' register. Once released, Whiting moved 25 miles away from his previous home in Crawley to Littlehampton on the West Sussex coast,

  • izzysara  |  December 16 2011, 9:44AM

    I wasn't just talking about murder, I was talking about severe crimes in general. And actually, my cousin's partner was sadly killed in a hit and run incident, which I believe is as bad as manslaughter, and served only 8 months for "failing to report an incident" and for leaving the scene. The victim was only 17 years old at the time.

  • joning  |  December 16 2011, 10:26AM

    You've just complete debunked your original (and extremely spurious) posting. Roy Whiting was sentenced to 4 years not 2 for sexual assault, and was sentenced for LIFE for murder not 4 years. Also he is still in prison so he wasn't released after 4 weeks. 4 weeks, are you serious? As sad as your heart-breaking experience is, it wasn't murder and your belief, which is probably one shared by many that it is as bad as manslaughter, is not actual law so not sure what point it is you're trying to make.

  • joning  |  December 16 2011, 10:33AM

    I had written a longer comment but this stupid website has lost it. I'll summarise: This is an ill-informed, spurious 'article' written by someone who clearly does not know what they are talking about on a subject they have not researched beyond Wikipedia (comment Friday, December 16 2011, 9:42AM- copy and pasted directly) and who by using that one Wikipedia example has completely contradicted everything the original article/rant states. Whilst your story at the end there is tragic, your belief, in fact probably shared by many myself included, on what the offence should be is not law and to be honest has no relevance to this article. The sentence wasn't the problem was it, it was the offence they were charged for.

  • Morrissey9  |  December 16 2011, 10:33AM

    One of those examples is American, and is a 10 year sentence (suspended for 6) after someone died during a drunken punch-up. The other example is of Roy Whiting who has been given a minimum 50 year term after committing murder. He will never be released. I am sorry about your Cousin's partner and your feelings on hit and run, but in the legal terms it has and probably will never be seen on the same terms as pre-meditated murder or even manslaughter. It depends on each case of course, all court cases will go into slightly more depth than the summary provided by a tabloid newspaper.

  • izzysara  |  December 16 2011, 10:37AM

    I'm not quite sure why people are so a)confused and b)personal about my opinion on sentencing/served. My opinion, whether people agree or not, is that punishment seems to be lax when it comes to all sorts of crimes. The guidelines appear made up as they go along, and I'm not sure why it is that sentences for things like theft, are nearly as bad as sentences that are for sexual assault etc. How long did Whiting serve?? And obviously, 4 weeks was an exaggeration. So, if a hit and run isn't manslaughter, what is it? Having said that- I imagine if a celebrity committed a serious offence, 4 weeks wouldn't seem such an unusual sentence...

  • Commenter42  |  December 16 2011, 10:45AM

    I'd be interested to know when the last person to serve 4 weeks for murder was sentenced? It couldn't possibly be a statistic made up to fit a spurious argument, could it?

  • izzysara  |  December 16 2011, 10:51AM

    @Morrissey: That makes sense, yes, I agree with you. It is just frustrating as a victim of crime myself that a lot of people seem to go basically unpunished. I do suppose that tabloid papers etc will often make it seem worse than it is. I have always thought that manslaughter (in basic terms) meant that you had killed somebody by chance/circumstance/ in a non-premeditated situation. I couldn't understand why the man who killed this young boy, for at 17, that's all he was, had only had to serve 8 months in prison. Never the less, from my understanding now that the recession is upon us, the system is under pressure to turn out prisoners as soon as possible, because they just can't hold them all.

  • Morrissey9  |  December 16 2011, 11:02AM

    I don't know about the particular case you are talking about, but to be manslaughter presumably they would look into whether it was a pure accident and if the driver not stopping specifically caused the death by delaying treatment. Reality and law is always more complex than someone died therefore someone must serve life in prison as a result.

  • joning  |  December 16 2011, 1:02PM

    It is you who appears to confuse opinion with actual facts and pints of law, no-one else I'm afraid. The CPS obviously felt manslaughter was not committed otherwise that charge would have been brought. You are merely stating your opinion and questioning why it is wrong. The courts decide not you. The original posting says paedophiles only get sentenced for 2 years and use Whiting as an example. He was sentenced for 4 years and served just over two years, bad example.

  • joning  |  December 16 2011, 1:02PM

    **points of law

  • John_Name  |  December 16 2011, 1:57PM

    @izzysara 'i' before 'e' except after 'c'. Thus: 'believe' - 'i' before 'e'. 'receive' - except after 'c'.

  • Obviously  |  December 16 2011, 3:18PM

    For what it's worth, in my opinion this case wins the local 'lenient sentence of the year' award... http://tinyurl.com/bpkf9ez

  • A_Mushroom  |  December 16 2011, 11:28PM

    @izzysara I am not condoning the actions of criminals nor the defending the sentences handed out. What I am saying is that the bases of a civilised society is a respect for law AND for the legal justice system. You can have your opinion, it's no more valid than mine, but on this matter mine is based on a belief in punishment not revenge. And, yes, I hope that neither I nor anyone else is a victim of crime, and I can't say how I'd feel if I were - but I'd hope I wouldn't verge towards revenge, otherwise that makes me no better than the criminal.

  • Grannybrice  |  December 27 2011, 3:53PM

    Here in South Carolina, sentencing is much, much harsher than in the UK (we have the death penalty). I work in a maxumum secuity prison housing a broad spectrum of offenders, from drunk drivers serving 10 years, to sexual predators serving 30 years, to convicted murderers serving up to 999 years. Shootings are rife in this state. Clearly, the harsh sentences are no deterrent, so what's the answer?

  • jceegas  |  December 29 2011, 3:16PM

    i see a fly tipper get a longer sentence than a ***** maybe judges veiw flytipping as more serious look at glitter for instance ........... sick

  • Commenter42  |  December 29 2011, 4:03PM

    Can you give examples of flytippers getting longer sentances?

  • kahloplath  |  December 31 2011, 10:34AM

    It costs £1000 a week to keep a young offender inside. It costs up to £9000 a year to pay for a university education - it's not just sentencing policy which is all wrong.

  • Supersnakes  |  December 31 2011, 6:22PM

    General prison population is approximately £800 per week. Until we bridge the gap between white and blue collar workers, there will always be those who want what they cant have. Education starts at a very young age and some of the criminals I have experience of in prison are so rubbish at thieving they get caught regularly. These men are failed by their parents, the education system and end up criminals. This amount, obviously, is pale compared too the megabucks stolen by white collar criminals.

  • JamesKid  |  January 03 2012, 5:39PM

    I agree with Izzysara. Punishment in the UK does not fit the crime. Furthermore, if I experienced a severe crime against me or my family, involving the UK justice system to obtain redress would be a matter of consideration rather than an automatic response. We need to define whether or not we're looking to rehabilitate an individual or not. For murders, violent rapes or acts of mass violence we should not. We should simply concede that the individual is beyond assistance and incarcerate them for the rest of their lives at as cheap a cost as possible. I don't agree with the death penalty, but I do agree with insisting that prisoners pay their way and won't flinch at using an empty stomach as motivation. For those that have not committed such serious crimes, we should look to rehabilitate them in the traditional means through education, encouragement and ongoing support. Working for the good of the community is a part of this. Our current system fails by offering endless carrots and tiny little sticks. This has led to a state inflicted misery on hundreds of thousands of people. I agree that after being raised in moral squalor, some people know no different to a life of crime and I fully support these peoples rehabilitation into the wider society. No cost should be spared in this measure on the condition of the understanding that serious crimes result permanent incarceration and that the greater part of the results depend on the virtues of the individual rather than the failings of the 'system' With that in mind, we must all recognise that a cycle of squalor has been encouraged by the government in it's long term refusal to do anything in the face of moral decline than offer ever more carrots. I don't think anyone seriously thinks that every single detestable criminal in our jails is entirely benefit raised, but the evidence linking poverty, parenthood, fatherhood, aspiration, the mothers education and crime are stark to read. The state therefore has three roles to play in crime. 1, permanent exclusion of those guilty of the most disgusting of crimes 2, support to those guilty of lesser crimes with mind to point #1 if the open hand is refused. 3, Ceasing to nurture the continued growth of the long term state funded element of society.

View all Comments


Something about your area!