Seven Year old that starved to death

[ArabHibee]

Just watched this on the news:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/8519862.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/8519862.stm)

:bitchy: What a terrible, terrible thing to happen.

The child's natural father was in court and gave an interview condemning the social work department and school for letting this happen. My question is, where was he?

[Beefster]

Just watched this on the news:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/8519862.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/8519862.stm)

:bitchy: What a terrible, terrible thing to happen.

The child's natural father was in court and gave an interview condemning the social work department and school for letting this happen. My question is, where was he?

Absolutely.

While Social Services obviously made serious errors, there's less and less personal responsibility around these days. Folk involved in stuff like this are always scratching about for someone else to blame. Anyone but themselves.

[Bookkeeper]

Absolutely.

While Social Services obviously made serious errors, there's less and less personal responsibility around these days. Folk involved in stuff like this are always scratching about for someone else to blame. Anyone but themselves.


:agree: Couldn't agree more.

[poolman]

Just watched this on the news:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/8519862.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/8519862.stm)

:bitchy: What a terrible, terrible thing to happen.

The child's natural father was in court and gave an interview condemning the social work department and school for letting this happen. My question is, where was he?


2st 9lb at 7 years old :bitchy:

How is this not murder

Throw away the ****in key :grr:

[Phil D. Rolls]

What goes through such a person's head?

[Tazio]

The terrifying thing here is that were two people involved.

Tragedies like this can happen when there is one parent with nobody else there to spot things happening. The person may have terrible mental problems that lead them to neglect or abuse their own child, or maybe just be an evil person. Though I tend to believe that killing your own child must involve a large amount of mental illness.

However in a situation like this there must have been discussions between the pair involved. I dread to think what they would have been. How can normal rational people sit around and talk about what was going on. And they must have.

A horrible tragedy involving an innocent.

[tony higgins]

2st 9lb at 7 years old :bitchy:

How is this not murder

Throw away the ****in key :grr:

Nearest Lampost.

[ArabHibee]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/8551118.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/8551118.stm)

7.5 years in the pokey for killing her child and abusing all the other kids. :bitchy:

[Pretty Boy]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/8551118.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/8551118.stm)

7.5 years in the pokey for killing her child and abusing all the other kids. :bitchy:

Unbelievable sentence really

Especially when you consider the canoe man John Darwen got 7 years for a fraud charge. Stealing £500 000 from an insurance comapny is now classed alongside killing a child then?

Typical of the British legal system, crimes against property and big business always attract tougher sentences than crimes against the person.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Unbelievable sentence really

Especially when you consider the canoe man John Darwen got 7 years for a fraud charge. Stealing £500 000 from an insurance comapny is now classed alongside killing a child then?

Typical of the British legal system, crimes against property and big business always attract tougher sentences than crimes against the person.
:agree:
The first function of the law is to protect property.

[Steve-O]

Angela Gordon, 35, was cleared last month of murdering Khyra Ishaq but admitted manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility.

She will be jailed for seven-and-a-half years and spend the rest on licence.

So, it's a FIFTEEN year sentence. Plus, in terms of it being manslaughter, and the diminished responsibility, it's actually a fairly long sentence on that basis.

Let's not let that get in the way of a good court bashing thread though!! :protest:

[Jonnyboy]

Just watched this on the news:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/8519862.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/8519862.stm)

:bitchy: What a terrible, terrible thing to happen.

The child's natural father was in court and gave an interview condemning the social work department and school for letting this happen. My question is, where was he?

A good question and I'm afraid I don't know the answer BUT we should surely not assume he stood by and let it all happen? For all we know he may have been prevented from seeing/visiting his child?

Regardless, the guilty parties have IMO gotten off lightly

[ArabHibee]

Angela Gordon, 35, was cleared last month of murdering Khyra Ishaq but admitted manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility.

She will be jailed for seven-and-a-half years and spend the rest on licence.

So, it's a FIFTEEN year sentence. Plus, in terms of it being manslaughter, and the diminished responsibility, it's actually a fairly long sentence on that basis.

Let's not let that get in the way of a good court bashing thread though!! :protest:

Why do you keep banging on about the length of the sentence? Yes, she got a 15 year sentence but only HALF of that will be spent in prison. She will be on licence for the other half. Woop-de-do. She will still have her freedom after 7.5 years for starving a child to death. Let's also note that her solicitor has played the 'diminished responsibility' card too. The British justice system is a joke.

[ArabHibee]

A good question and I'm afraid I don't know the answer BUT we should surely not assume he stood by and let it all happen? For all we know he may have been prevented from seeing/visiting his child?

Regardless, the guilty parties have IMO gotten off lightly

Jonny, I agree that the father may have not had access to the child but he was quite high profile being interviewed by the media about his thoughts on the case and sentences. Just wondered if anyone had read anything about him.

[Steve-O]

Why do you keep banging on about the length of the sentence? Yes, she got a 15 year sentence but only HALF of that will be spent in prison. She will be on licence for the other half. Woop-de-do. She will still have her freedom after 7.5 years for starving a child to death. Let's also note that her solicitor has played the 'diminished responsibility' card too. The British justice system is a joke.

Yes. If a solicitor says it's diminshed responsibility the Judge and Court just take them at their word and no other tests are done to prove this...it really is shocking what defence lawyers get away with :blah:

I 'bang on' about the length of sentences because some people on here do not seem to understand what a sentence is and seem to often think that a 'sentence' = 'time in prison'.

Would you rather this nutter was kept in for 15 years and then let out with no reintegration plan or supervision whatsoever?

What is a joke is people who have not a damn clue about anything trying to tell Judges and Courts that they are idiots who don't have a clue. Have a f-ing word with yourselves and think for once.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Yes. If a solicitor says it's diminshed responsibility the Judge and Court just take them at their word and no other tests are done to prove this...it really is shocking what defence lawyers get away with :blah:

I 'bang on' about the length of sentences because some people on here do not seem to understand what a sentence is and seem to often think that a 'sentence' = 'time in prison'.

Would you rather this nutter was kept in for 15 years and then let out with no reintegration plan or supervision whatsoever?

What is a joke is people who have not a damn clue about anything trying to tell Judges and Courts that they are idiots who don't have a clue. Have a f-ing word with yourselves and think for once.

What really frustrates me is that we all want to stop these things happening. Yet the people that are actually trying to fix it are the ones who keep getting it in the neck.

It's a bit like when Alex Millar pointed out that the teams that fans pick never get beaten - because they never play. If people are so concerned about these issues, they should get off their *rse and do something, rather than stating the bloody obvious when things go wrong.

All this hysteria does is scare people off from being social workers or police. It does nothing to fix the problems. I sometimes wonder how much the public care about issues when they are not prepared to think them through.

That is not a pop at people on this thread, who are taking the time to discuss and debate solutions. It's about the people who bump their gums when something bad happens, and completely forget about it the next day.

And the vermin in the press who stir up moral outrage, for financial gain.

[hibiedude]

the quote that summed this case up for me is ;

Following the end of the trial, it was revealed a judge in the High Court had concluded that "in all probability" Khyra would be alive if there had been "an adequate initial assessment by educational welfare services".

Someone has to be held accountable for this truly shocking case and not just the mother and her boyfriend.

[Phil D. Rolls]

the quote that summed this case up for me is ;

Following the end of the trial, it was revealed a judge in the High Court had concluded that "in all probability" Khyra would be alive if there had been "an adequate initial assessment by educational welfare services".

Someone has to be held accountable for this truly shocking case and not just the mother and her boyfriend.

Someone didn't do their job properly. We need to know why, and change ways of working to prevent it happening again.

We should shy away from the blame culture, as it just encourages people to withold information.

Mind you, I don't hold out much hope. A hospital in England held its hands up without being prompted about failings in their system. They couldn't give information due to confidentiality. Instead of highlighting the sensible approach that was taken, the BBC news chose to speculate on the nature of what had gone wrong.

Nobody sets out to make mistakes. It seems to me we are too hard on people that do.

[ArabHibee]

Yes. If a solicitor says it's diminshed responsibility the Judge and Court just take them at their word and no other tests are done to prove this...it really is shocking what defence lawyers get away with :blah:

I 'bang on' about the length of sentences because some people on here do not seem to understand what a sentence is and seem to often think that a 'sentence' = 'time in prison'.

Would you rather this nutter was kept in for 15 years and then let out with no reintegration plan or supervision whatsoever?

What is a joke is people who have not a damn clue about anything trying to tell Judges and Courts that they are idiots who don't have a clue. Have a f-ing word with yourselves and think for once.

:faf:

Anyway, I've thought about it for once and seeing as you seem to be the font of all knowledge about the British Justice system can you please tell me what supervision actually entails? Because I am really interested on how that impacts on someone's life once they are let out of jail. Because you give the impression that it's no walk in the park. And before you come back with another arsey comment, this is a serious question.

[Steve-O]

:faf:

Anyway, I've thought about it for once and seeing as you seem to be the font of all knowledge about the British Justice system can you please tell me what supervision actually entails? Because I am really interested on how that impacts on someone's life once they are let out of jail. Because you give the impression that it's no walk in the park. And before you come back with another arsey comment, this is a serious question.

Sorry, I'd had a few beers when I posted...time difference and all that :greengrin

Anyway, I can't give a 100% accurate answer on what supervision entails in the UK, but I assume it is relatively similar to the system over here based on what I have read.

People who are let out on Parole are given a set of conditions, specifically relevant for them. These tend to last until the sentence end date, although here they are allowed to set them for 6 months past the sentence end date.

Of course, for life sentences, the conditions are always there.

There are so many different conditions that it's hard to say in a post what they all are, however some examples may be...

To report to your probation officer every week/fortnight/month.

Not to possess or consume alcohol or drugs

Not to change address without written permission from the Probation Officer.

There can also be curfews, instructions to attend counselling, programmes etc etc etc.

Basically a condition can be anything, if the Parole Board think it will reduce the risk of reoffending.

And, as has been stated on this thread, you can be recalled to prison to serve the rest of your sentence if any of these conditions are breached. You do NOT have to have committed some heinous crime to be recalled.

[hibiedude]

:faf:

Anyway, I've thought about it for once and seeing as you seem to be the font of all knowledge about the British Justice system can you please tell me what supervision actually entails? Because I am really interested on how that impacts on someone's life once they are let out of jail. Because you give the impression that it's no walk in the park. And before you come back with another arsey comment, this is a serious question.

:top marks reply :greengrin

[ArabHibee]

Sorry, I'd had a few beers when I posted...time difference and all that :greengrin

Anyway, I can't give a 100% accurate answer on what supervision entails in the UK, but I assume it is relatively similar to the system over here based on what I have read.

People who are let out on Parole are given a set of conditions, specifically relevant for them. These tend to last until the sentence end date, although here they are allowed to set them for 6 months past the sentence end date.

Of course, for life sentences, the conditions are always there.

There are so many different conditions that it's hard to say in a post what they all are, however some examples may be...

To report to your probation officer every week/fortnight/month.

Not to possess or consume alcohol or drugs

Not to change address without written permission from the Probation Officer.

There can also be curfews, instructions to attend counselling, programmes etc etc etc.

Basically a condition can be anything, if the Parole Board think it will reduce the risk of reoffending.

And, as has been stated on this thread, you can be recalled to prison to serve the rest of your sentence if any of these conditions are breached. You do NOT have to have committed some heinous crime to be recalled.

Ok, so your idea of the conditions that these people would be under is similar to mine. So apart from these conditions they can pretty much lead a 'normal' life, go about their business, go to the cinema, shops, football matches, pub, clubs etc, etc, etc? Not much of a punishment in my opinion. Yes, I know that they have to be integrated back into society, but this should be at the end of their sentence. They should spend the whole of their sentence in prison. Again 7.5 years for starving a child to death? A total joke, very similar to the Bulger killing but that's a story for another thread.

[Steve-O]

Ok, so your idea of the conditions that these people would be under is similar to mine. So apart from these conditions they can pretty much lead a 'normal' life, go about their business, go to the cinema, shops, football matches, pub, clubs etc, etc, etc? Not much of a punishment in my opinion. Yes, I know that they have to be integrated back into society, but this should be at the end of their sentence. They should spend the whole of their sentence in prison. Again 7.5 years for starving a child to death? A total joke, very similar to the Bulger killing but that's a story for another thread.

If they spend their whole sentence in prison, then they would literally be turfed out of prison, straight into the community and under NO supervision? Clearly, this is not an ideal situation for a person who has spent a long time in prison, wouldn't you agree? If they are not on a sentence, then there is no legal obligation for anyone to be supervised.

Wouldn't you rather someone who had committed a fairly bad crime was reintegrated into society under supervision for a few months / years than for them to just walk straight out of jail without any supervision or an approved release plan regarding accomodation / employment / conditions etc etc?

You may think that life should mean life imprisonment, but if this was the case, jails would be overflowing with people who have no incentive whatsoever to (a) address their offending, (b) behave in prison, thereby putting staff and inmates at risk. Plus, if someone has committed a murder and knows they will be put away for life, what's to stop them killing the police officers who come to arrest them, for example? After all, they would have nothing more to lose.

I've already said that a condition can be not to drink alcohol etc so pubs and clubs are generally out unless someone who can go there without drinking. I would suggest that someone who has had a problem would not find this too easy. Then you have the fact that you are applying for jobs etc and having to disclose that you've spent a long time in prison. It's not as easy as people seem to think IMO.

You might find it useful to read this - http://www.paroleboard.govt.nz/about-us/frequently-asked-questions.html

It's not the UK Parole Board, however the principles of what is said there are the same in all countries with a system of Parole.

[ArabHibee]

If they spend their whole sentence in prison, then they would literally be turfed out of prison, straight into the community and under NO supervision? Clearly, this is not an ideal situation for a person who has spent a long time in prison, wouldn't you agree? If they are not on a sentence, then there is no legal obligation for anyone to be supervised.

Wouldn't you rather someone who had committed a fairly bad crime was reintegrated into society under supervision for a few months / years than for them to just walk straight out of jail without any supervision or an approved release plan regarding accomodation / employment / conditions etc etc?

You may think that life should mean life imprisonment, but if this was the case, jails would be overflowing with people who have no incentive whatsoever to (a) address their offending, (b) behave in prison, thereby putting staff and inmates at risk. Plus, if someone has committed a murder and knows they will be put away for life, what's to stop them killing the police officers who come to arrest them, for example? After all, they would have nothing more to lose.

I've already said that a condition can be not to drink alcohol etc so pubs and clubs are generally out unless someone who can go there without drinking. I would suggest that someone who has had a problem would not find this too easy. Then you have the fact that you are applying for jobs etc and having to disclose that you've spent a long time in prison. It's not as easy as people seem to think IMO.

You might find it useful to read this - http://www.paroleboard.govt.nz/about-us/frequently-asked-questions.html (http://www.paroleboard.govt.nz/about-us/frequently-asked-questions.html)

It's not the UK Parole Board, however the principles of what is said there are the same in all countries with a system of Parole.

I agree with the bit in bold, that was what I was trying to say in my last post but maybe not getting my point across. Let's take the case in question. I think that this woman should spend 15 years in jail (as this is her sentence), then be on supervision for so many years to integrate her back into society. So there should be a change to sentencing with an exact time spent in prision and another time given for supervision.

And with regard to the overflowing prison population, I would be happy to bring back the death sentence for murderers. Would save a lot of public money.

[Steve-O]

I agree with the bit in bold, that was what I was trying to say in my last post but maybe not getting my point across. Let's take the case in question. I think that this woman should spend 15 years in jail (as this is her sentence), then be on supervision for so many years to integrate her back into society. So there should be a change to sentencing with an exact time spent in prision and another time given for supervision.

And with regard to the overflowing prison population, I would be happy to bring back the death sentence for murderers. Would save a lot of public money.

Well, your first point isn't going to happen. A sentence INCLUDES supervision and does not just mean imprisonment. When a judge hands out a sentence, he is well aware that he is not handing down just a sentence of imprisonment.

This woman you speak of does not have a sentence of 15 years in jail. If the judge thought she deserved 15 years in jail, then he probably would've given her a 20-25 year sentence, or maybe even a life sentence. The Judge, who has access to many facts that neither you, I, or the BBC have access to, and has made his decision based on those. I'm happy with that to be honest.

I'd also be surprised if a Judge has said she will definitely serve 7.5 years. I would think it would be a minimum of 7.5 years, at which point she could apply for parole.

http://www.paroleboard.gov.uk/prisoners_and_families/a_quick_guide_to_the_parole_process/

Also, if you give exact prison terms, I go back to the point of prisoners having little incentive to behave or address their offending. If they are going to do 15 years no matter what they do, then why would they do anything?

Edit - the death sentence will not be returning anytime soon. I'm also not sure exactly how much money would be saved given the state of affairs we see in the US. What does save money is not keeping people in prison for longer than necessary and letting them out to actually make a positive contribution to the community.

[ArabHibee]

I've enjoyed discussing this with you Steve-O but we are never going to agree on the sentencing that is dished out by the British justice system. So we'll have to agree to disagree.