Please....

Originally posted by @drewnogal
Without being involved somewhere in the whole process how could I ever have an objective view on it?

I see. So you cannot comment on the correctness of the sentence itself becuase you are not involved in the process, but you fiercely uphold the decision that he should go free anyway?

Originally posted by @drewnogal
Of course I do.

Why do you support their right to appeal and the outcome of it, when all through this thread you have vociferously defended the right of the perpetrator to go free once his sentence is served?

Originally posted by @divegeester
Why do you support their right to appeal and the outcome of it, when all through this thread you have vociferously defended the right of the perpetrator to go free once his sentence is served?

I can support both - and there are no outcomes yet.
The case in the OP will be heard on 6th April.
I’m not sure of the other.

Originally posted by @drewnogal
[b]I can support both -

But according to you no one should be kept in prison once they have served their time.

Originally posted by @divegeester
Well he resigned because of the disgrace accompanying his incompetence, so yes you were.

He was hardly an incompetent. A colleague of his reported that during his watch the Parole Board cleared the longstanding backlog: dealing with 25,000 cases and holding over 7,000 oral hearings in 2017 whilst at the same time keeping the rate of serious further offending at less than 1%. He also pushed for greater transparency and championed increased engagement with victims.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/feb/21/john-worboys-victims-win-human-rights-case-against-policeŶ

Originally posted by @divegeester
But according to you no one should be kept in prison once they have served their time.

The time decided by a judge. Correct.

Originally posted by @drewnogal
I can support both -

How is it that you cannot comment on the correctness of the sentence itself because you are not involved in the process, but you can strenuously uphold the decision that he should go free at the end of it?

Originally posted by @drewnogal
He was hardly an incompetent. A colleague of his reported that during his watch the Parole Board cleared the longstanding backlog: dealing with 25,000 cases and holding over 7,000 oral hearings in 2017 whilst at the same time keeping the rate of serious further offending at less than 1%. He also pushed for greater transparency and championed increased eng ...[text shortened]... w.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/feb/21/john-worboys-victims-win-human-rights-case-against-policeŶ

I think the comments about incompetence were about the case in question. Most people have a decent cv.

Originally posted by @drewnogal
The time decided by a judge. Correct.

And if the appeal is upheld will you acknowledge that that “judge’s” judgment was incorrect?

Originally posted by @drewnogal
Without being involved somewhere in the whole process how could I ever have an objective view on it?

Ok let’s accept that you haven’t read all the case notes, interviewed the parents, the witnesses, read the police files and undergone a course in criminal psychology....and irrespective of the debate surrounding the actual case in the OP; do you personally feel that the kidnapping, rape and murder of a child should carry a sentence of life imprisonment?

Originally posted by @divegeester
And if the appeal is upheld will you acknowledge that that “judge’s” judgment was incorrect?

I’d say that if a sentence is extended an appeals judge has made that
decision upon further information has come to light some years later.

I’d agree with that.

Originally posted by @drewnogal
I’d say that if a sentence is extended an appeals judge has made that decision upon further information has come to light some years later.

I’d agree with that.

I must suppose that with your seemingly immovable faith in the judiciary system and your strict dispassionate objectivity, that you have never come across,nor paid any credence to, cases of miscarriages of justice or where one judge has overturned the desicion of another based solely on review and not “further information”.