I can't help feeling that the four so-called 21/7 bomb plotters have been, if not judged too harshly in court, then at least, sentenced too harshly. Each were given life sentences, with a minimum tariff of 40 years, after being found guilty of conspiracy to murder. According to "former soldier Arthur Burton-Garbett, 72, who gave chase at Oval Tube station after Mohammed failed to detonate his bomb...he [the judge] gave them not a day too long". I beg to differ because Mr Justice Fulford's summing up of the case was full of ifs and buts. And, it appears that Mr Justice Fulford was sentencing them for the 7/7 attacks because those defendants aren't alive to face justice. I disagree with the judge that "the failed attacks were clearly connected with the bombings that killed 52 people in London two weeks earlier". They were clearly separate incidents and should have been judged separately. It might be said that they are connected in that Al Qaeda and Muslims are involved. But, neither the organisation nor the religion were on trial. We fought the Germans in World War I and again in World War II, it wasn't one war but two separate wars. I think that the trial judge erred in law with these statements "What happened on July 7 in 2005 is of considerable relevance to this sentencing...The family and friends of the dead and the injured, the hundreds, indeed thousands, captured underground in terrifying circumstances - the smoke, the screams of the wounded and the dying - this each defendant knew". The reality is that they failed in their attempts. Lucky for us that they did.
Many years ago in less civilised times when prisoners were transported to Australia a life sentence tended to be 7-8 years, and even today in Sweden it tends to be 8 years on average. But, gradually the life sentence has gone up and up and up. The 40 years tariffs that these 21/7 bomb plotters have received are equivalent to 5 life sentences apiece. In this sense they are excessive. In terms of money I estimate that it will cost at least £4M per prisoner for the 40 years in custody. Some will argue that it is cheap at the price. They were failures, they did not succeed. I feel the sentence should reflect this. Perhaps, between 7-10 years maximum.
5 comments:
Interesting points, though to be honest I would rather not have them walking free to perhaps make another attempt.
Having said that a lot of the anti terrorism laws seem to be ill thought out and draconian, almost to the point of thought crime.
It also seems to me that now thinking or considering about carrying out an act of terror, carries much the same penalties as actually doing it. The Law is almost giving the person no real alternative but to go ahead with it anyway.
If I went out carrying a home made gun with the intent to kill someone and the gun failed to work, what would I be charged with?
1. Surely "Life" should mean life - i.e. for the rest of your natural life, not just the next eight years.
2. This sentencing sends out a very clear message to those who are right now conspiring to murder innocent people. I applaud that.
3. They may have been sentenced for the 7/7 attacks, but their attempts to blow up british citizens were retribution for atrocities carried out by and against people in other countries. What's sauce for the goose...
4. Conspiracy to murder is as bad as murder and should carry the same sentence. They should not receive more lenient sentences purely because they were too unlucky / inept to carry out their intentions.
5. Is Mr Justice Fulford one of the "F***ing Fulfords"? Now that would be worth making a documentary about.
Mousie: There is a general misconception that life should mean natural life. It goes back to the days when capital punishment was abolished, instead of being sentenced to death, the sentence was commuted to life. It was never intended that a prisoner should rot in prison until the day he or she died. Relatively recently, the sentence of natural life was introduced for those case where the prisoner was not to be paroled. A life sentence can be as little as 2 years.
The problem with the message you are trying to send out is to the people who are prepared to sacrifice their lives for their cause, as suicide bombers, therefore it will not act as any deterrent. And, its length becomes pointless.
Because they were sentenced for crimes they did not commit ie the 7/7 bombings, this is where it becomes unjust because each case is meant to be tried on its own merits. By analogy, it is like you giving a plaster to someone who has a brain tumour.
I don't agree that conspiracy to murder is as bad as actual murder if there is no loss of life.
I don't know if he is one of the Fucking Fulfords but his entry in wikipedia states that he is openly gay.
Nowadays life means the life of the batteries in yer Ipod.....
Ah yes, but I didn't say that a life sentence was intended to mean for life, I said it should mean that. For certain select types of crimes of course.
These people are prepared to sacrifice their lives for a cause, if it results in their martyrdom, because of their beliefs about what occurs in the afterlife. Surely life in prison doesn't come with the requisite virgin brides and such that I am led to believe these martyrs are entitled to? Although it could explain the rates of re-offending...
Giving a plaster to someone who has a brain tumour might be appropriate if that person has attended A&E simply because of a cut finger!
Had the good doctors had a couple of nurses working with them to fetch and carry things for them / tidy up after them / hold their hands etc, they might actually have been more successful. Just because they were incompetent doesn't make it ok.
A gay judge? Surely not?!
(Sorry jhl, I hope you don't think I'm being argumentative - you know I'm a huge fan of yours. It's just that it's not often I feel strongly enough about something to display my lack of education about current affairs to the world!)
Post a Comment