I hate our justice system!

[shaithis]

Browsing over the Beeb and in the top 10 most popular stores now are:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/m...de/8562739.stm

Which reminds everyone that the James Bulger's killers only served 8 years....

and then there is this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/h...cs/8562434.stm

In which someone could end up spending 9.5 years in prison for selling battery hen eggs as free range...


Isn't it about time that peoples lives were made more important then money?

[TheAnimus]

err no. Its very easy to put an average price on the human life, and sorry, but its a lot less than the millions these guys defrauded.

[Ben Rogers]

If James Bulgers' killers were 10 when they did the act, then IMO they are old enough to know the difference between right and wrong and even though they were not adults they should definitely have served much longer to say the least and I'm quite sure they knew exactly what they were doing.

At the end of the day there can be an infinate amount of money for a human life if you take into account the life they would have had, family etc.

Money and human life have not got much correlation at all IMO.

I don't agree with selling eggs that arean't from free range hens tbh as they are enclosed with hardly any room to move but obviously people will buy them due to them being much cheaper than free-range but the sentence for that is very harsh IMO.

[shaithis]

err no. Its very easy to put an average price on the human life

I am sure the family of victims would not agree with you.....

[Ben Rogers]

I am sure the family of victims would not agree with you.....

Exactly, it's not like any amount of compensation will bring the guy back.

[Funkstar]

I am sure the family of victims would not agree with you.....

I'm sure that is so. That is why, when a family member of a victim is asked, they will always say the guilty party should have received a higher sentence. Regardless of the sentence imposed. This is normal human behaviour.

[TheAnimus]

I am sure the family of victims would not agree with you.....

What an excellent and well balanced point of view, without been emotive.

Lets look at someone like Enron then. I'll turn this about by expressing the financial loss in lifes, and hopefully demonstrait the notion that this should not be intransatitive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intransitivity)

How many people have committed suicide because of the loss of their pension funds?

How many people have been un-able to afford medical bills?

How many starved?

[megah0]

Well, NICE (National Institute for Clinical Excellence) values the average person to be worth about £40,000 which is about what they will approve for the use of life saving drugs/treatment.

There are exceptions obviously.

[TheAnimus]

Is that what they value the human life at, or how much they are willing to spend to save one each year.

the two are not the same.

[Saracen]

Browsing over the Beeb and in the top 10 most popular stores now are:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/m...de/8562739.stm

Which reminds everyone that the James Bulger's killers only served 8 years....

and then there is this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/h...cs/8562434.stm

In which someone could end up spending 9.5 years in prison for selling battery hen eggs as free range...


Isn't it about time that peoples lives were made more important then money?

Well, that's taking two rather unusual situations and drawing a rather unfair comparison.

Firstly, the bloke with the eggs will do three years, and presumably that means unless he steps seriously out of line he'll be out in about half that, so it's more like 18 months .... provided he pays back the amount ordered as confiscated. Only if he doesn't do so does he get the extra six and a half years.

Bearing in mind that he perpetrated a fraud on the buyers of his eggs, and ultimately the buying public, neither jail nor the financial penalty seem out of order to me, given that the fraud was over "tens of millions" of eggs. And the extra 6.5 years certainly gives him motivation to cough up the loot. Good thing too.

As for James Bulger's killers, that's more complex. It was certainly one of the most depraved acts I've ever heard of, partly because of the age of the victim, and partly because of the age of the offenders. But given that they were 10 when they did this, do we write them off for life if there's a possibility of not doing so? At that age, are you entirely responsible for your actions?

These are some fairly big questions and I, for one, don;t know the answers. One half of me wants to see the little beggars strung up for what they did to poor James (and his family), while the other half says "but they were kids themselves".

I suppose the biggest question is whether a leopard can change his spots or not. And it's worth bearing in mind that both his killers are on a lifetime license and are subject to instant recall to jail if they breach those license conditions .... the nature of which as far as I know, are not public. They will, however, be pretty stringent and even minor infractions could result in recall to prison.

It's also worth remembering that even though Venables is back inside, we don't yet know why, though there's plenty of speculation and rumour, and it's also worth remembering that Thompson isn't back .... so maybe rehabilitation worked with him.

And finally, in that final remark ....

Isn't it about time that peoples lives were made more important then money?

.... it's worth remembering that the Home Secretary at the time (Michael Howard) intervened to increase the sentence to a minimum of 15 years, only to have it overturned by the House of Lords, a principle subsequently reinforced by the European Court of Human Rights. And I haver to say I agree with the principle .... do we really want politicians second-guessing judges and deciding prison terms? Where might that end? Politicians, after all, have to face the electorate and are far more likely to be doing things for short-term political gain than any objective assessment based on actual evidence. even if I happen to agree with Howard on this one.

[megah0]

Is that what they value the human life at, or how much they are willing to spend to save one each year.

the two are not the same.

Thats about how much they will authorise for treating someone.

A course of Herceptin for example.

Thats not to say that they won't authorise that more than once over a period of time though.

[TheAnimus]

Thats about how much they will authorise for treating someone.

A course of Herceptin for example.

Thats not to say that they won't authorise that more than once over a period of time though.

Yeh thats a per illness price.

So to work out the NICE price of a life from that would be non trivial, we would have to know the effectiviness of the drug, the chance of other side effects (which could be expensive) etc.

But it really bugs the crap out of me when some stupid arse hippy complains about a price been put on a human life, take a stroll through the 3rd world, remember that wealth is shockingly disproportionately appointed in this world.

All those who are dieing right now for the want of 50pence a day. We can put a price on them, and we do when we ignore them.

[Ben Rogers]

The age of criminal responsibiliy is 10 isn't it? according to this anyway:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_infancy

[Rob_B]

The value of a life? Tricky one. I'm trying to sit on the fence here but..

If there was a lif-saving treatment for 'little Jimmy' that cost £100bn & it would be paid for by the public how many folk do you think would agree? Now, if it were my son I'd want the treatment but a stranger I could easily 'forget' (to make the same point as TheAnimus) ?...

There is no answer, it's impossible to calculate but if there is a law for certain crimes (ie fraud) then the sentence should be appropriate, the fact it can be compared to another totally different crime doesn't mean it should be.

We can only really offer 1 punishment - time, whether that be in jail or parole/community service etc so no matter how horrific or mundane the crime they are always going to be able to be compared with one another.

NB/ This isn't to say I do/don't agree with the sentences for the crimes in the OP. If I were Jamie's parents I'd want the boys strung up as I'd imagine the majority of parents would.

[Mossy]

Wow I ate an egg which wasnt free range the most I'd expect back was a box which was.

Saracen

"It's also worth remembering that even though Venables is back inside, we don't yet know why, though there's plenty of speculation and rumour, and it's also worth remembering that Thompson isn't back .... so maybe rehabilitation worked with him."

Don't count your Chickens before they hatch..

[Syllopsium]

Sentencing is about punishment, rehabilitation and very importantly : a deterrent. If the guy got off with a slap on the wrist people would be more inclined to pull a fast one, say in areas that could cause people more damage than possibly a slightly less tasty egg.

Personally I think Venables and Thompson probably got an appropriate sentence. If you believe in rehabilitation, you have to hope that some people will change.