Hannah Foster's parents selfish?
Hannah Foster's family said that killer Maninder Pal Singh Kohli's sentence of 24 years was a punishment that did not fit the crime and he should spend the rest of his life in jail.
"This man callously deprived Hannah of her primary human right - the right to life. This sentence gives him the right to a second chance at life, a second chance he never gave Hannah.
"To see Kohli's life valued in this way when he showed such utter disregard for Hannah's is hurtful beyond measure.
"The punishment should fit the crime. In this case, it most certainly did not".
Whilst I can understand the parents being angry firstly at Maninder Pal Singh Kohli's conduct, and secondly at the Criminal Justice System's level of punishment, the downside is it leads to clouded reasoning and this only leads them to suffer more if not by their own hands then at least by their own minds.
"There are four offences of abduction of women and girls punishable under the Sexual Offences Act 1956; three are punishable with two years' imprisonment, the fourth, which encompasses the taking away or detaining a woman of any age by force with the intent that she will marry or have unlawful intercourse with the accused or another, is punishable with 14 years' imprisonment". I can see no reason why the trial judge did not impose the maximum sentence possible just for this crime alone.
"Under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 ("the 2003 Act"), which came into force on May 1, 2004, rape in England and Wales was redefined from non-consensual vaginal or anal intercourse, and is now defined as non-consensual penile penetration of the vagina, anus or mouth. The forcing of a penis into a vagina by a female is criminalised, as it appears to be covered by section 4 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 - causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent. The maximum sentence of life imprisonment was maintained under the new Act". Again, I can see no reason why the trial judge did not impose the maximum sentence possible just for this crime alone. That would be Life plus 14 years.
Murder carries an automatic life sentence. It was possible to pass sentences of Life x 2, plus 14 years. Why the judge did not go for this option is beyond me.
Within the Life sentence is the power for the judge to set a minimum tariff to be served, in this case, 24 years. The Crown Prosecution Service can appeal against the leniency of the tariff. However, it should not be forgotten that this is just the minimum possible. Bearing in mind that I got a tariff of 15 years for manslaughter, and actually served 25 years before being released.
Whilst I have sympathy for the parents grief, I cannot sympathise with their view taken from the Old Testament of an eye for an eye, a life for a life. This only makes them angry, bitter and twisted. In effect, it makes them as bad as the offender mentality-wise. He did not care about our daughter's human right, we don't care about his. This is sad. Denying his human rights will not bring back their daughter. Isn't being selfish a sin?
A mixture of law, politics, autobiography and humour. Once described as "The Devilish Advocate" (Guardian), I do have the ability to provoke a response. Sometimes it comes from someone who uses a thought process, and sometimes from jerks usually associated with the knee.
7 comments:
this can only make us consider the rational for sentences. No sentence can assuage the pain, nor heal the harm, of such a crime. What, then, is the purpose of the sentence? Of course victims are focused on their own distress, but that should not dictate public policy.
Sin is "selfishness" ... the victim had the same right to life as the person who took it. Laws were designed for justice and increasing numbers of victims feel justice is not served according to the crime committed - 'justifiably' so.
'Life sentence' used to be for the duration of the prisoner's lifetime, in place of the 'death penalty'.
It's actually - - 'an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth' - that which you serve on others may be served in return - justice, not hatred.
what is "justice"? And the life sentence was never intended to mean whole-life. That this promise was part of the deal to abolish the death penalty is a myth. And whilst it may be comforting and easy to refer to a biblical doctrine, it isnt self-justifying. Does visiting equal harm on the criminal reduce the victims pain, or heal their wounds? So, again, what is justice?
Problem with the currrnet establishment is that the ordinary yokel like us would support DP any day if you could take justaway the Scums of EU from our back. It is not a public poilcy that support citizens rather envigorates the criminals .
xyloseee - glad you got out of bed to give us that facinating analysis, grapling with the moral, legal and political issues this case raises. But by accident, your comments reminded me of all the arguments for retrospective abortion...
Post a Comment