April 22
2006
What justice?
» Posted on April 22, 2006 11:33 AM » Category: Crime and punishment

Here's a typical story of how our so-called criminal justice system doesn't even come close to imposting justice on criminals:

A WIDOW who was repeatedly raped and beaten during a “pitiless” attack by two teenage burglars spoke yesterday of her determination to rebuild her life.

The woman, aged 65, was alone at home when the 19-year-old men — high on alcohol and drugs — forced a window and embarked on a frenzied attack. Armed with a knife and screwdriver, they bound and gagged their victim, forced her on to a bed and raped her several times.

She was “crippled with terror” and suffered “horrendous” blows to the face before her young attackers fled with jewellery, cash and a mobile phone.

...Judge Peter Fox, the Recorder of Middlesbrough, told them that their actions ranked “among the worst cases ever committed on Teesside”.

The two were each jailed for 'life'. Not of course that life means anything of the sort. Have a guess what the judge recommended as a minimum sentence these two animals should serve. 20 years? Thirty?

They were told that they would serve a minimum of six years in prison before becoming eligible for parole.

Keep their traps shut, behave themselves and look remorseful, and they can look forward to being out in 2190 days.

Until life really starts meaning life for monsters such as Humphrey and Beazley, justice will remain a sick joke.


MessageSpace
Comments

The thing is, if life means life for two teenagers who didn't kill anybody, what deterrent would there have been against them actually doing so?

The point can also be made that 6 years is the minimum they will serve and they wont necessarily do so. However, it wouldn't suprise me at all if they were indeed out before. 6 years doing hard time breaking rocks however would be a good sentence. 6 years of playing pool, watching dvds and playing sports isn't.

Stated by: hippiepooter on April 22, 2006 9:41 PM

You guys need a British version of Rudy Giuliani to come in and change the entire culture of tolerance to crime.

I read Theodore Dalrymple's piece recently in City Journal and found it both depressing and fairly incomprehensible. I don't understand why this whole culture of tolerance to crime has been allowed to take hold and rule the outcome in egregious crimes, such as the one you described? Is it just political correctness so deep the elite can't see through it anymore? A kind of political masochism?

And meanwhile, toilets in some British jails are being rebuilt to face away from Mecca, as that is an insult to some prisoners.

The juxtaposition of facts like this is all rather astounding.

Stated by: alcibiades on April 23, 2006 12:04 AM

Dr Dalrymple is writing not about the UK but about France, a nearby but separate country with quite specific problems.

I suspect that, sadly, even depite Mr Giuliani's good influence, women are sometimes raped and brutalised in New York.

And is the toilets/Mecca thing really true? I haven't read about it over here.

Stated by: static squid on April 23, 2006 12:37 AM

Whoops, sorry, I gave the wrong Dalrymple link. This one is right. It's a story quite similar in ramifications to the one that Stephen reported.

Here is the BBC reporting on the toilet story

Stated by: alcibiades on April 23, 2006 12:50 AM

alcibiades and others - the entire NuLabour project is about breaking down civilised norms. It is called Gramscianism. You break down societal norms that have been built up over centuries and destablise society to your own advantage.

This is a deliberate programme. The last thing that would be allowed in Britain today is someone of Mr Guiliani's vigour and clarity of vision. The politically correct Ian Blair is what is thrown contemptuously at the dire London crime scene.

Stated by: Verity on April 23, 2006 6:09 PM

Thanks Verity. Gramscianism is a new one for me.

And who appoints Sir Ian Blair? Is it Tony Blair? Or the mayor of London? Doesn't Tony Blair have a say in the growing crime epidemic in the UK?

If so, it's hard to reconcile that Tony Blair with this one, in the interview with Con Coughlin, speaking about the effect of 9/11 on him where he understands the dangers of appearing weak before the enemy.

Stated by: alcibiades on April 24, 2006 5:19 AM

Sorry alcibiades

Viewed through an inevitable war on terror prism, the USA has a completely warped view of Our Dear Leader.

The problem is that he does not view criminals as the enemy.

Stated by: Serf on April 24, 2006 11:33 AM

Umm, he views criminals as the enemy sufficiently that liberal columnists consider him only mildly preferable to Hitler. A lot of people are at fault in perpetuating Britain's liberal criminal justice system, but I don't think Blair can be named as one of them.

Stated by: jdc on April 24, 2006 4:29 PM

alcibiades - Serf has stated it correctly.

The entire British cabinet are former student activists, former presidents of the Student Union (that would be roughly equivalent to being an activist in the SDU), former/current Trotskyites and Marxists all melded together in toxic Gramscianism. Tony Blair and his wife were keen members, as a married couple, of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. This government has, over the last nine years, unpicked the social fabric of Britain that took 1400 years to weave. They've taken an axe to the pillars of our Constitution. They have weakened our Bill of Rights.

They have made London the terrorist capital of Europe and possibly the world. With modern surveillance, information-sharing and training, this does not happen by accident. The whole point is the Gramscian the destabilisation of society. Why would they want to do this?

Why would anyone want to be a communist or a Nazi or a Branch Dravidian? Who knows?

Stated by: Verity on April 24, 2006 6:03 PM
Post a comment

    


    •