He looks a bit sketchy.
this post was submitted on 23 Jan 2025
30 points (96.9% liked)
United Kingdom
4199 readers
123 users here now
General community for news/discussion in the UK.
Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.
Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
all 34 comments
sorted by:
hot
top
controversial
new
old
Stan Reiz KC, mitigating, told the court Rudakubana had appeared to have been a "normal child" until he reached 13.
Mr Reiz said: "There is no psychiatric evidence before the court that could suggest that a mental disorder contributed to the defendant's actions.
"However, he did make a transition from a normal, well-disciplined child to someone who was capable of committing acts of such shocking and senseless violence."
The description of what happened is horrifying and I'd just like to know what happened to him that turned him into someone capable of that.
More important than that is the catalogue of failings in social services, PREVENT, police and ultimately, the family.
Do you guys on here think this is an acceptable sentence, or do you think Britain should have the death penalty for cases like this?
I think it's acceptable. I'm actually surprised it's this long to be honest. Personally I'm absolutely against the death penalty, I'm glad we don't have it here.
I'm not sure why you're getting downvoted for your question...
I guess I'm being downvoted due to just mentioning the death penalty. The only reason I asked is because callers on LBC (radio) were mentioning the death penalty so I wondered what people on Lemmy would think.
No, I don't think the death penalty is acceptable. It's pretty well-researched why it doesn't work very well.
And yes, I do think this sentence, at a minimum, is acceptable. Not even necessarily as a punishment (although that's part of it), but because a small amount of people simply have to be kept separate from the public because they will never be safe to be around. This man is one of them.
52 years, so he'll be 70 when eligible for release. aint gonna be much of a threat then, if he even makes it that far, being a child murdered in prison and all.
He'll get to see if cyberpunk becomes a reality or not. coz he'll be in prison until at least 2077.
I dunno, even a 70 year old can do some damage. Particularly to someone vulnerable, and if they use a weapon.
Which is exactly what he did. He stabbed young kids.
I think a 70 year old psychopath brandishing a knife is still a danger to society. I hope he gets thoroughly assessed to see if he's fit for release when the time comes.
yeah sure, 2077 is just the first date he will be eligible for release.
I strongly suspect he will die in prison though.
What a fucking waste of a 13 year old (or whatever age it was we went), turning into this. What a waste of those poor kids. Fuck everything to do with this, but especially those taking political opportunity off it.
Yeah and theres no guarantee that he's released then either
I doubt he will make it to 70 years old, being in prison for murdering children and all.
I hope he has a few horrible years of solitary . Before anything happens to him though.
I hope he is cured of his moral braindeath soon and then actually feels the appropriate level of guilt for his actions, and is prevented from ending his own life over it.
I mean imagine if you woke up one day, realised and remembered every second of how you murdered 3 little girls, stabbing at them like some sort of crazed rabid dog, and that you realised you knew what you were doing and did it on purpose. Could you live with yourself after that? how much would that guilt burn your soul to cinders? How horrifically impossible would it be to deal with that?
Imagine that feeling for just a second, if you can.
That's how I want him to feel, forever and ever with no possibility of escape.
I feel that would be a punishment far worse than death, but I'm not sure he will ever feel that, sadly.
No. The death penalty is no deterrent and we've seen on numerous occasions how flawed the justice system is, so we can rarely be 100% sure we have the right person (unlike in this case which is unequivocal). I also hope that they can undergo some kind of rehabilitation, perhaps not to the point that they realise the horrific nature of their crimes and have to spend their years with that knowledge eating away at them.
Dude's 18 now so this means he'll be in prison until he's 70. At least.
And no, absolutely no death penalty until the justice system can be proven to be completely flawless and incapable of convicting an innocent. And even then I'd say no.
absolutely no death penalty until the justice system can be proven to be completely flawless and incapable of convicting an innocent.
yeah but you'll never need to look past this statement, because it will never be so.
they day somebody produces a 'perfect' judicial system is the day justice actually dies. Only place that has ever been 'achieved' is places like north korea.
I'd just like to add an argument against the death penalty. The common argument is that we sometimes get it wrong so we can't have it because you can't reverse the sentence, and that is a strong enough argument. However, if one day we have a justice system that can be 100.000% certain of guilt (or society at large is persuaded of this, even if it isn't true...) then I still don't believe we should have the death penalty, because it's not possible to be 100% certain that there is no chance of rehabilitation. I'm someone who has had a family member horrifically and senselessly murdered, and I still believe revenge achieves exactly nothing. It just adds bodies to the pile and increases suffering. It won't bring back your loved ones, or, crucially, reduce your suffering one iota to see the guilty suffer or die.
The question really is: why the hell would any civilised society, whose citizens believe themselves to have mastered their animalistic nature, want the death penalty?
I want to add my tuppence worth as well. Even if one day we have a justice system that can be 100.000% certain of guilt AND 100% certain that there is no chance of rehabilitation, I think we should still not have the death penalty, because I don't think spending the energy and time killing individuals in cold blood is a healthy way for a society to behave. This Rudakubana guy may be some kind of monster, but that doesn't mean that acting monstrously towards him is somehow acceptable.
It's acceptable. There are too many problems with the death penalty to ever justify it. I'm expecting this person to have a tough time in prison due to what they did, so in some ways this could be worse for them, if retribution rather than rehabilitation is your preference. So long as they are away from society it is a good result.
If you support the re-introducing the death penalty, then you must accept that at some point in the future, somebody will be executed for a crime that they are innocent of.
It is inevitable and rules it out for me.
Yeah that makes sense. But on the other hand, jailing people for life costs money and there's the slim chance they can escape. But I suppose if you have good security then a full life sentence would be an effective deterrent, so maybe you wouldn't have to pay for very many people to have such long sentences, so it might not cost so much.
You may be surprised just how much death row costs. Part of being 'absolutely sure' is not executing until all possibilities of appeal and such are exhausted, and well, if your scheduled to be killed most people will do whatever they can to delay it for as long as possible, or even better get it overturned. Some end up on death row for decades.
Some data here: https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/costs/summary-of-states-death-penalty
Yes this is acceptable. His whole life imprisoned. He deserves solitary, and waterboarding.
I'm American -- I don't know if you just want British takes -- but I don't think that there's a massive functional difference between a (non-parole, don't know if that's the case here) life sentence and a death sentence. Both mean that, absent some kind of pardon, the person isn't going to be interacting with society. Maybe in a situation where someone's managed to be repeatedly dangerous in a prison with the highest levels of security, a death penalty means that they can't manage to kill someone in prison. I think that either probably acts as about the strongest deterrent that you can get out of the justice system; I'm a little skeptical that someone's going to say "I will do this crime if I'm only facing life, but not if death". That being said, I've no particular objection to the death penalty, either, don't agree with people who have tremendous objection to it. I don't think that it provides a great deal of extra utility over life-with-no-parole, though.
investigates
I'm assuming that he will eventually become eligible for parole, as it looks like he's 18:
The 18-year-old refused to come into the courtroom as he was sentenced at Liverpool Crown Court, having been removed from the dock earlier due to disruptive behaviour – which included demands to see a paramedic and shouts of "I feel ill".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_imprisonment_in_England_and_Wales
In England and Wales, life imprisonment is a sentence that lasts until the death of the prisoner, although in most cases the prisoner will be eligible for parole after a minimum term ("tariff") set by the judge. In exceptional cases a judge may impose a "whole life order", meaning that the offender is never considered for parole, although they may still be released on compassionate grounds at the discretion of the home secretary. Whole life orders are usually imposed for aggravated murder, and can only be imposed where the offender was at least 21 years old at the time of the offence being committed.
EDIT: Oh, yeah, I guess the title implied a possibility of parole with "...minimum 52 years"
He's 18 and is in for murdering children.
He is going to get absolutely eaten alive.
I mean, the guy that killed is own daughter (RIP Sara Sharif) was sent to prison, it took 2 weeks for him to get slashed up by another prisoner. They will be queuing up to get to this guy.