blonde poker forum

If he'd tried to steal 1m from the government he'd have got 10 years or more.

This scumbag deserves to be locked up for alot longer imo.

Can't think of many more cruel crimes.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-19318742

Hmmm...

If he had got away with it they would have been none the wiser too.

Think it's enough of a deterrent. Pretty stupid to think he could get away with it

Government wouldn't miss a million if a civil servant put a few extra zeros on a gyro would they?

Pretty sure this sort of thing goes on all the time with the smaller prizes.

I bought my first lottery tickets for ages for the Euromillions a couple of weeks ago - £20 across two tickets.

Each of them won £6 (sick brag) so I went to the shop to get the money. The guy scans them both then says £6 - and gives me the money. I get him to check them again and this time he comes up with the right number ('Sorry boss').

Now, it may have just been a random bad scan or something but I can just imagine the number of people who don't keep track of the smaller wins and trust the honesty of the shopkeeper to pay them out on all winning tickets.

Dunno, he's not stealing from the gov't.

You are almost certainly right.

Never considered it before.

I can think of more cruel crimes but still is disgusting behaviour. But if you were struggling in life and you were holding a 1million pound ticket in your hand, and with one lie you could have that fortune. Be a messed up situation to be in. Me personally i wouldnt dare of kept that ticket, but i do unfortunatley know a lot of people who would.

Sentencing is a tough game.

Would 5 years make him less likely to do it again than 2.5?

Does "If you do this, you will get 15 months in prison" act as a deterrent to others? Would 2.5 in prison do a better job?

Is he a danger to the public if released? tesco won't employ him again and he won't get the best reference for his next employer.

Yes yes we could chop his hand off and put him in some stocks but it is a delicate balance between making it worthwhile and financially sensible

Depends on the reason for the sentence.

Punishment: he deserves far more imo.

Deterrent: he deserves more. I would guess a huge proportion of the people in the country would risk 18 months in nick for a decent shot at a million.

Rehabilitation: tough one. Would need more information on his character etc

Protecting society: he deserves less.

Prison, as you rightly allude to, has next to nothing to do with rehab. Closest you get is a deterrent to the individual that might make them think twice.

This sort of criminal tends not to be treated too favourably in prison, although there are much worse crimes to get a kicking for. Burglars are one thing; actively swindling from old ladies might raise a few eyebrows, esp if it's in the news.

Category B prisons in some areas these days have a reputation for some pretty poor order. As one person told me, "there's a lot of kids trying to make a name for themselves". With the higher cat prisons, you have some really nasty people so the order is kept by the inmate hierarchy. If you want to keep your head down, it's almost easier in a Cat A than a Cat B.

In the current system, the chap will either come out unlikely to reoffend or the prospects of work will be so limited he'll learn how to do it better next time before he gets released!

Reoffending rates are so high atm.

Research suggests so many people commit crimes because they don't think they'll be caught. Even if they are caught, they don't think they'll be convicted. Even if they are convicted they don't think they'll go to prison.

That is the mentality you have to tackle. That's also where the game theory kicks in, rather than weighing up the sentence v the £1m reward. Same point but different emphasis.

I think people who don't check tickets deserve to be ripped of to be honest.

You can go in every bookie and you always have a customer who comes in and gets his Irish lottery ticket scanned and when they say "no good" he or she will throw it in the bin. It's silly.

asking someone to check your ticket or scan it in shop, just doesn't give you that gambling feeling.

30 months? Not sure if it's that hrash though really, it's fraud, just on a bigger scale. Isn't fraud 5 years?

This ....sorry but FFS there are plenty of crueler crimes with less of a punishment than this!

WTF? I don't know what sort of upbringing you had, but that is just wrong mate........

In most cases I'd agree with you but the little old lady playing the lottery every week is a bit much I think.

At first I thought the sentence was pretty harsh but thinking about it, seems about right.

I don't exactly buy the 'he'll have a tough time' fable though as a reason to make it a lesser sentence.

Someone that stupid is gunna have a tough time whatever they do

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-mid-wales-19318591

She gets half the time when IMO her crime is worse

Agreed a lot worse ......mr local hero

read this earlier, felt sick to the stomach.  15months a joke, out in half that no doubt.  Defense lawyer says she plans to rebuild the relationship with her kid afterwards..ffs, shouldn't be allowed anywhere near for the rest of her life....and banned from having kids - unworkable i know, but just saying.

20'000+ other cases a year like this in the UK alone - sometimes you just beggar belief with society

It will be interesting to see what this cock gets -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19323202 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19323202)

£150+m thought to be stolen, skipped bail for almost 12 years.

Re the mother, I see this again coming back to why you would put her in prison. If it's to stop her from doing it again to this child, the child can go into care.

If it's to stop her doing it to another child, well 8 months in prison serves no purpose, biologically.

If it's a deterrent, mothers who become alcoholics aren't going to change their minds because of this case.

If it's the protection of society, is getting her off alcohol a starting point? The loss of her child, a sobering her up and 8 unpleasant months away is a pretty hefty combination.

Your man in the OP seems to have made a conscious - albeit opportunistic - swindle of a vulnerable adult for monetary gain. Acts tend to be punished more heavily than omissions.

I'm aware how left wing and huggy all this sounds but we have 80,000+ people in prison and an increasingly high percentage will reoffend within 2 years of release. If the voice of the people is that prison is where these people should be and it needs to be a deterrent to others, it would be much cheaper just to shoot them on conviction.

Surely the only deterrent can be more severe punishment?

3 strikes and out would be OK by me.

Definitely don't agree with this.

Jail is the only option for such crimes, no?  What is the alternative?  Parenting lessons?  Stern talking too?  Kid taken away, and a slap on the wrist?

Too many times we read of a robber, mugger, shop lifter, going to  "drug-rehab" or "counciling sessions" after a 34th conviction...I can never understand why leniacy was given after the, lets say, 3rd time?!  clearly doesn't give a toss - jail them for a long time. Space an issue, build more, we are an island, we've plenty of room!  Cost of building houses such people vs cost to society keeping them on the streets....gotta be a close call?

She is obviously just stupid.

She shouldn't be allowed near her child ever again.

But I don't think she deserves a longer sentence at all.

Yet your op seems to state 30 months isn't enough for fraud against an old biddy.
What would be enough Keith?

Would any of your views be affected by knowing that it costs £30-60k (an average of about £40k) to keep one person in prison for one year?

Not every bad action has been calculated by a healthy mind.

He gets 30 months.

Someone who gets done for shoplifting 3 times gets life.

That's as far away from fair as can be.

Mention that the next time you're in the States!

Obv there may be some mitigating circumstances and these should be handled as such.
To be fair I do have an idea how much it costs to keep people locked and I also know generally how easy it can be in prison.

I don't feel the current justice system provides enough of a deterrant in it's current state. I don't know what to do to fix it but if I knew 3 crimes and I'm out of society for good I'm pretty sure I'd give up crime after the second time I was caught :)

The problem is is when does the 3 times shoplifter decide to stop trashing other peoples human rights? I dont think a slap on the wrist is good enough.

So if the guy who tried to rip off the couple was a million it'd be ok for him to have a lighter sentence?

He tried to steal money whereas this "stupid" mother could have killed her child

Sentencing is a joke in many cases.  If money's involved, forget that nobody was actually physically hurt in any way, suddenly it's a serious crime and a strong sentence is dished out. 

Mess with another human being physically though and meh...they'll get over it.  Once the offender agrees to plead guilty, it's no more than a slap on the wrist for them compared to the thief.

Priorities have gone all twisted with a while now.  Money has become more important than people.  So wrong on so many levels imo.

Far too many people are put in prison for petty crime in this country IMO.
For what purpose does it serve?
This guy is clearly a chancer and a stupid one at that.
Because the victim is a pensioner and vulnerable we want to see a stiff sentence.
A million fraud is a million fraud , no matter who the victim of it.
 People  will always try their luck if the only sentence is 12 months cushy time watching Jeremy Kyle and Xfactor in your nice little room. Cos that's all he will end up doing out of a 30 month sentence .

get him to wash shitty arses for a couple of years, digging holes, picking litter, scrubbing public toilets, yes lets have the chain gangs !
would probably cost just as much to manage but far more worthwhile and far more of a punishment for crimes such as this.

The guy set out to be callous.

Trying to steal life changing money from a defenceless old woman.

The woman was careless and ignorant. Unless it can be proved she was knowingly being cruel, I don't think punishing her does anything.

She should lose all rights to look after her child though.

The UK already has more people in prison per capita than any other country in Western Europe. You think that should be increased?

Who cares, if they deserve it, they deserve it........

Make your mind up. Or do you not think taking he child away is a punishment?

the fact it is a punishment is incidental.

You are taking the child away for it's own safety and welfare.

fair enough, but my bleeding heart liberal tendencies lead me to think that the mother is in need of help and support rather than a lifelong punishment.

The point is that why is the prison population so high? Could it be that namby pamby custodial sentences aren't deterrent enough? Maybe if people were more afraid of going to jail we would need less cells?

If its required yes. The other option albeit simplistic, to go soft on criminals or petty crimes just because we've no room?!

I'd play the long game, get tough, proper tough, and over time you see a dramatic drop in petty crime and so numbers would drop.

Theory anyway!

Why is that not fair? If that is the rule, and everyone knows that is the rule, then if you are stupid/criminal enough to commit the same crime 3 times (that we know about) then surely you deserve anything you get?

Because people sometimes commit crimes through necessity.

Ie they haven't eaten for 3 days because they are broke. They steal a scotch egg from Tescos.

Life imprisonment for that? mmmmmm

It wouldn't be life imprisonment for that though would it? It would be life imprisonment for that PLUS the two previous offences.

Repeat offending for what ever reason is wrong. There organisations that help people who are starving/homeless/on drugs/alcoholics/kleptomaniacs the list goes on.

BTW Tescos scotch eggs aren't mmmmmmm

Life Imprisonment for being stupid then?

Seems reasonable to me. If even life imprisonment isn't going to stop them doing the same crime 3 times, then nothing will - they will do it time and time again. How is that fair on the people they rob?

cant see why you'd give em life for a tesco scotch egg but surely you have to if it's a pasty or pork pie.
 they are of higher monetary value and they are far more filling, so yes lock em up !

to me the cruelest of crimes is the deception/intimidation crime..usually perpertrated on the old and frail...tarmac drive for example and then systematically intimidate and bully the life savings out of the victim usually to the tune of about 200K for  a 2K job..these are the lowest of the belly crawlers IMO and termination of their worthless lives is too good for them.....

 ^^
hard not to agree with this ....... but it's only money

disagree..the mental anguish they put the victim through is unreal..they are literally scared out of their mind

There has been an attempt in Brighton recently to tackle repeat offending, by realising that so many crimes are drug related and to stop the crime, you cut out the need for drugs.

The premise is simple: dealers go to prison; addicts get treatment. The treatment is abstinence-based, rather than sticking them on 50+mg of methadone a day.

The net result has been a saving of 67%. That is, the costs of putting people through treatment and support networks against locking them up for a bit on methadone and them reoffending.

Not every treatment works but you treat the cause of the crime rather than punishing the crime itself.

If someone burgled my house, stole from a close relative or assaulted me, I'd want ten minutes with a baseball bat and them chained upside down to the ceiling.

Doesn't mean that, once they are able to walk again, they won't rob someone else. Restorative justice (an eye for an eye) satisfies us but isn't designed to prevent recidivism: users know it's wrong to steal, but the addiction is more important to them at that moment.

Yes ok i see your point.

A pretty simple way to stop this kind of thing happening would be for National Lottery to upgrade their machines so that it had a portable hand held scanning gun (so you can observe the correct ticket being scanned) and for any winnings to be displayed either on the gun (that the shopkeeper can show the customer) or on a screen facing the customer (although this might be visible to other customers!).  Not rocket science is it!

Cruellest crimes? I'd have to say paedophiles who kidnap, rape torture and slowly murder little children are right up there.

Then there are the common or garden serial killers, mutilators, torturers, kidnappers etc.

Yeah, well obviously.

I was thinking of your common or garden criminal, not the mentally ill.

The justice system is ridic in my view.

Just look at the Ched Evans case, I still can't get my head around it.

Then you look at one I have just read on the Sky News app about two asain guys raping a 14 year old, if these people are found, they won't get much more than 5 year. It's so bad. You get some sort of long term and you are already at look at being out within half of it, you go and kill someone, you'll be out in three years. Sigh.

if something terrible happened to ur nearest and dearest would you let the justice system do its job or would you seek your own justice?? 

say ur child wife was murdered or raped or both something pretty bad?

I'm the softest pinko liberal you could imagine.

When my boy was about 18 months, we were playing happily together when the thought entered my mind that if a paedo touched Jake I would kill him with my bare hands.

Really shocked myself, but I honestly think I would.

i know why would a guy who had everything at his feet rape a drunk woman ?????
and yeah he should of gotten more for it

as for guys stranger raping anyone then they should be getting a minimium or 15 years

Has anyone ever actually been giving a life sentence for three counts of petty theft ?

Agree the justice system is a joke but think the sentencing here is about right.

A thread would be much more warranted for instances such as recently when a hit and run driver killed someone and the judge is moaning about the fact he can't give him a stronger sentence and he gets summit like 2 years, complete disgrace.

Google Leandro Andrade.  Not wuite three counts of petty theft but pretty ridic nevertheless

Looks like he was a decent man who deserves leniency. What a load of cock. His first two crimes (which he got caught for) were house burglary. Just because his last two (he got caught for) crimes were stealing videos doesn't make him a saint. He's a criminal who got caught and deserves what he gets.

50 years inside for house burglaries isnt what he deserves ffs if we locked people up for 50 years for crimes like that and worse then we might as well just turn london into a prison and employ the rest of the country to look after them

Lol, you just fixed the unemployment problem.

Do you really believe that the punishments for all crimes should be the same? That we should not distinguish between levels of transgression? One of the problems with giving disproportionate punishments is that it narrows or eliminates the gap between them and punishments for much more serious crimes. If a petty thief gets the same punishment as a murderer, what does he have to lose? You are encouraging him to do everything he can, including carrying out extreme violence, to avoid being captured, as his punishment won't get any worse.

Let's all give them a hug and send them on holiday. Why should we care about their human rights when they don't care about anybody else's. I know it's harsh but IMO it is justified. People don't have to commit crimes, people choose to commit them.

roughly 11 years ago.....
When Jade & Chloe where I think 2&1
My nephews took them to the shops to buy some sweets Luke and lee where about 9-10 years old.

Jade and Chloe could not decide what sweets they wanted and kept picking the up and putting them back

The shop keeper shouted at them (directed at the older two boys) "if you don't pick something I am going slap you and slap the baby's "

of course the four of them came home with Luke and lee in tears

I went straight to the shop and asked the guy if he threatened to slap my kids , I was shocked when he replied yes they kept touching my sweets!! WTF
So you threaten to slap them?
Yep

I got charged with racially aggrevated  assault !!!.....

For the record the racial part got dropped before court ( it was obvious it had nothing to do with race)
And when the magistrate asked the shop keeper if it was true ... Did you threaten to slap the two children he proudly said yes I did they where touching my sweets.

I got found not guilty.

When kids are involved yes I would seek my own justice!

You let a 1 year old and a two year old go to the shops? Just looking at the 5 kids here I don't think I would let my niece and nephew 9 & 7 take the 3 boys who are 4 & 5.

Presumably you didn't get charged for assault for asking questions?

My two where in a double push chair my nephews where 9&10 and the shop was 200 yards away!

No

Any elaboration :)

Just thought that maybe I would. Asked the wife if the kids could go to the shops and she said most definatly not. Have our streets become less safe in the last ten years or do we just think they have.

He got a slap jase !
My 9 year old son goes tithe shop on his own ....only just this summer holiday

no one said give them a hug no one mentioned human rights and no one mentioned a holiday

minttrav is right
if you locked up everyone for 50 years for minor things then what would stop them commiting murder to stop them getting caught for shop lifting if they are going to end up in jail for the rest of there life (or the best part of it)

Obv I was being sarcastic about hugging and holidays but people who commit multiple crimes should be treated accordingly. Where do you draw the line? As I said people choose to be criminals irrespective of what crime they choose to commit.

Most crimes have consequences to the victim no matter how big or small. In a utopian world there would be no crime but unfortunately we don't live in that world as such society should do whatever is necessary to make criminals stop what they do. The current justice system does not deter as much crime as it should. IMO 3 strikes and out would certainly help. In the long run it would mean less prison population because it might just deter some would be criminals.

As I say my opinion and nothing I've read has convinced me otherwise. I am open to other ideas though.

Have you ever driven over the speed limit?

If you have, then you committed a crime and according to you, are a criminal.

I guess you say it won't count as it is a victimless crime but I don't believe it is, just like throwing litter on the street isn't.

There has to be some kind of scale to the punishment.

Oh right. Nephew is in year 5 in September and just told me that this is the year that the kids can walk to school on their own too

If had been caught speeding and continued to speed then the is a likelihood I'd be banned for toting up points. In principal similar to the 3 strikes and out rule. If I did have points for speeding/motoring offences I'm pretty sure I'd drive within the law as I depend on my driving license. Hang on a minute that system would have worked for me. Interesting? ? ?

As someone has said previously we should tackle the reasons people commit crimes first and then lock the bastards up who continue.

So a shoplifter on his 3rd strike is caught by a security guard knowing he will get life behind bars has nothing to lose and kills the guard, same punishment after and he knows killing the guard gives him a chance of getting away, if I was the guard I know I would prefer no 3 strikes rule

That still doesn't make me think otherwise. Security guards know the risk they are taking under the current rules. If the 3 strikes rule was implemented security guards have a choice whether to carry on the service they provide.

So what do you think the best option would be?

He got 10 years.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19352531 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19352531)

His 28 yo wife is sticking by his millions side lol

ok guy on 2 strikes is robbing an empty house when suddenly an OAP comes back in and intrupts him blocking his escape now he know currently he will get a slap on wrists when police arrive but under the 3 strikes rule he gets life in prison or he could do the OAP in and has a chance of getting away if he does get caught he will get the same punishment as if he does nothing guess what innocent OAP gets bashed about as villian has nothing to lose

3 strikes is daft punishments should meet the crimes problem in this world is we havent found anywhere this happens all the time

You are a trier Ironside and God loves a trier but I'm still not convinced. I know 3 strikes isn't perfect and I'm sure there are some happy mediums (not fortunetellers) out there but criminals should think about the consequences of their actions be it speeding, robbery or murder. How we do that I don't know either but if people can't figure out for themselves that carrying out crimes is morally wrong then the state should scare them into thinking about it.

imo Ironsides points are perfectly valid. The 3 strikes system has been tried and has failed spectacularly in many US states.

The three strikes law that puts people in prison for life is astronomically expensive. Not only are there the costs of keeping them in prison, the state is now responsible for their medical care for life either because they are in prison for life or because they've been in prison for so long that they have no shot at being able to afford their own medical care later on in life.

If the public were asked to choose between spending £800,000 keeping someone locked up (£40k x 20 years) or spending a much smaller amount to keep these people on the streets but have them commit offences every now and then, I know what I'd choose and yes I've been a victim of burglary and of ABH.

Swiching to a three strikes system doesn't really change anything for the hardened criminals. They are just going to be in and out of jail anyway and it is widely accepted that the three strikes system is not an effective deterrent. All it does it widen the range of criminals that are behind bars for 20 years+ and it doesn't take much widening of that range of crimes to make the huge public expense a bad deal for the country.

Just shoot the bastards!!

(http://www.sherv.net/cm/emoticons/guns/big-machine-gun.gif) (http://www.sherv.net/shooting.gun-emoticon-464.html)

Or off with their  heads!!

(http://www.sherv.net/cm/emoticons/fighting/guillotine-smiley-emoticon.gif) (http://www.sherv.net/guillotine-emoticon-1758.html)

As I've said previously 3 strikes may not be the ideal situation but IMO nobody has said what is the better solution.

Cost does come into it but it shouldn't, just because something is expensive to do doesn't mean it's the wrong thing to do. I for one would rather be harder on criminals no matter what the financial cost otherwise we are just giving in and will live in a society where it's expected to get mugged, burgled, raped.

I too have been a victim of burglary but I can honestly say that if those 3 people who broke into my house were locked up for life or even killed I would laugh the laugh of a mad man whilst pissing on their graves. Harsh, definately but fuck them.

I did some work in prisons a while ago and the state could save a fortune if they got rid of any creature comforts they afford to the inmates. Fuck their human rights.

The current system is a better solution

The 3 strikes system doesn't work as a deterrence and it doesn't work as rehabilitation, the only thing it works at is punishment.

And as it is providing the same sort of punishment for lesser crimes the result is you have the escalation as has already been mentioned - i.e. it makes crime in the country worse.

How can a system which doesn't decrease the overall level of crime but will increase the severity of crime be a better way of doing things?

Sorry still not convinced. Nobody has stated an alternative method of deterrant which will make me change my mind.
You say the current system is better yet why do the majority of offenders re-offend?
Why does the severity of crime increase? Desparation maybe still not entirely convinced. I can see why you say it but not totally comvinced.
 
To be honest with you I'm still angry about my burglary and this is why I want to see these fuckers locked up.

The whole of the justice system in this country is not fit for purpose. Where suspected crims get arressted and subsequently let go because they keep saying no comment or even nothing at all. Just one example. How is that right?

I still think they should all be locked up.

A couple of things, you don't get rehabilited in prison, it just teaches you new tricks. Often its a cushy number for hardened criminals, so why put them away if A) it wont stop them in the future commiting further crimes? B) it costing us nearly 40k a year to have them locked up? Like most things unless you seek out the root of a problem and the reasons why someone is commiting crimes they wont stop. I know that sounds boring and unrealistic given it actually costs money to do this in the short term, long term the society as a whole will benifit finacially and in less crimes.

Who fancies being the Home Secretary then, announcing:

1. We're issuing guidance to sentencing judges to increase sentences to repeat offenders, so we will have to put 2p on income tax to build two new prisons; or

2.  We're making everyone serve their full term in prison, rather than releasing them at half time, so we'll need to build a new prison or two, so 2p again please; or

3. We're clamping down on drugs in prison, increasing medical treatment to get offenders off drugs, but we'll need staff increases to tackle the aggravated prisoners, and to police the flow of drugs into and around the wings...2p each please... or

4. We're sending convicted criminals with drug depencies to treatment centres rather than prison to get them off the reason they're committing crime, so prison numbers will drop by 50% in the next ten years, but this means we won't look like we're being tough on crime, even though in 5 years' time, we might actually be able to give you a tax benefit?

Orderly queue please

Who fancies being the policeman who has to visit the parents to explain that their child has been murdered/sexually assaulted by a repeat offender currently on probation having served only half of a previous conviction

I'll pay the extra 2p if it lessens the chances I become victim to someone who should still be locked up and losing something more valuable, be it money, possessions or family members

The rehabilitation centre thing has been tried often and failed.

FWIW, am not a fan of 3 strikes, however multiple sexual/murder offenders should get life being life sentences on second offence imo. Sexual/murder offenders against children should get life imo


Geo

You all probably know this but you do serve the entire sentence; just not all of it necessarily in prison.

If you are out after 5 of your 10 years, you do so on licence and are subject to recall. If you don't pay the TV licence, you're aggressive to the bin men or you're a bit rude to your probation officer, you can go back.

The treatment thing hasn't been tried in as extreme a form as I've suggested.

Michael Howard said 20 years ago, "prison works". It can, but not in its current form.

What do you think of the model they use in Sweden, where you get your sentence but don't go straight away (except in the worst cases). You basically get triaged like a hospital and called to serve your sentence when the State wants you to.

It should. Cost has to come into everything. There is a limited amount of money so everything is rationed. There is nothing so important that cost should not come into it.

You're examples for recall are just lol. I've seen many cases of people offending whilst on license and still not being sent back to complete their sentence.

Geo

Is this not just for young offenders to age 18?

Geo

I feel quite reactionary where convictions and prison are concerned.

People have cared about rehab for a long (ish) time and I guess most of us would think it doesn't really work, the deterrent factor doesn't appear to be too effective either.

If one simplifies and decides that the main goal for imprisonment is prevention then we don't have to worry too much about rights, privileges, rehab efforts etc. We accept that most will offend again so why be nice .. it doesn't really work.

In this scenario, prison get's quite cheap and so we can keep building more, and keep locking violent people up until there aren't any violent people left at liberty.

Be pretty happy to see a 3 strikes outlook introduced to sentencing for violent crime.

TBF I said can be recalled.

As it happens, I've seen in both work and studies such cases as I've suggested. There are always odd reasons for unusual cases. On the whole, you are right that a lot aren't recalled.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19365616

Maybe puts our justice system into context? 21 years for killing 77 people

Plus its only a mimimum of 10 years inside too.

But they can keep him in after the sentence is served if they think he's still a danger.

So the theoretical minimum is 10 years - but the theoretical maximum is still forever.

Having said that I've seen a lot of people have the view that their system is unusually lenient in general.

Norway has I believe the lowest Re-conviction rate in Europe...almost 3 times less than England..Lenient or simply focused on rehabilitation?

That is not to say I wouldn't have wanted to person who robbed me a few years ago locked up for good :)