Murderers who refuse to reveal where bodies are buried to be denied parole under new law
Well, yes, see the point.
Marie McCourt has begged murderer Ian Simms to tell her the whereabouts of her daughter’s remains ever since the insurance clerk vanished on her way home from work in 1988.
But the pub landlord, who was convicted by a jury on overwhelming DNA evidence of the 22-year-old’s abduction and murder and is still in jail, has always maintained his innocence.
But what if he is actually innocent?
Actually, not that it makes that much difference. Insisting that you are actually innocent does delay release upon licence….
To answer the question, life means life only for the truly innocent.
And therein lies the anomaly with our system. The court has convicted, so he is deemed guilty according to the law and treated as such. Even if he is innocent. And failing to show contrition for a crime not committed means you stay banged up, because you have not shown remorse for that crime you didn’t commit. It’s circular logic and no one seems to care whether he might be telling the truth and the real killer is still at large.
It’s a shit system. Just not as shit as the rest.
“It’s a shit system. Just not as shit as the rest”
No the best system would be for there to be fixed sentences with no parole, end of story. You get a 20 year sentence, you do 20 years. If the crime is so heinous that the convicted should never come out then a life sentence should mean life, you die in prison. No time off for ‘good behaviour’ or saying all the right things to gullible middle class Parole Board twats. Then the only moral issue is that of those wrongly convicted, which other than trying to make the prosecution and appeal system as fair as possible we can do little more about.
The whole ‘life sentence’ thing is a fraud on the public.
Almost all custodial sentences are a fraud on the public.
Especially tough if you actually were innocent, and you were fitted up by coppers just to get their arrest & conviction rates up. This doesn’t happen to just ‘murderers’, but also to any crime you care to mention. In the (rather trivial) case that rankles with me most from a very long time ago, driving a vehicle with inadequate brakes the morning after it came back from the repair shop where the brakes were fixed – but then the two coppers supported each other’s stories.
“It is better to remain silent and appear foolish than to speak up and remove all doubt.”
There’s nothing in it for the perp. Revealing the location of the body is an admission of guilt.
‘Murderers who refuse to reveal where bodies are buried to be denied parole under new law’
So those who ADMIT THEY HAVE MURDERED will be eligible for parole.
Wut? You can’t be paroled unless you prove you are a murderer?
That, Mr Cock, is the flip-side of my proposition.
Can a more esquisite metric be imagined for our self-imposed destruction?
Maybe if I knew what esquisite meant.