Maxine Carr

But Mick your "sense of values" is no more subtle that always shouting "It's a disgrace" and calling for the criminal to be locked up forever. Apart from convicted murderer Tony Martin who should never have been locked up at all despite the fact that he actually did kill someone.

Carr committed a serious crime for which she recieved a not insignificant jail term. She is patently no danger to anyone but herself and, becuase of the amount and nature of the tabloid coverage, her life is effectively ruined forever. So whilst I feel great difficulty in mustering any sympathy for her I think she has suffered plenty for her crime.

Matthew

If the system needs an overhaul because the sentence passed under the circumstances was too soft, then so be it. What's more disturbing is the 'I hate her and she should rot in prision' mentality. There are lots of people I don't like, but I don't think a different law should apply to them. This is blood lust.

Harry

Mick,
Fortunatly, there is nothing wrong with my sense of values,a little more inward thinking on your part might help, or do you believe that you have never transgressed against society.She has served her debt for being stupid, ignorant or what ever people wish to label her, and that is all she has been in my opinion.
oldie.

quote:

---

Ok, on what basis? What unique properties of Carr's offence and her circumstances requires a longer sentence than normal for her crime?

---

The seriousness of the crime she lied about. She didn't lie for one or two days. she saw the public plees and chose to ignore them. She is not civilised and should be taught how to be.

After reading many of the posts, I really think most of you actually forget the purpose of punishment. Punishment is inflicted to discourage people from doing a crime.

I don't agree with Mick's view to lock her up for good, but 18 months is a joke.

Those factors were taken into consideration by the judge at sentencing and was why she got a 3 1/2 year jail sentence of which she served more than the maximum time (given they changed the rules specially to keep her in longer). One must also remember that, although we might think her foolish for doing so, she seems to have genuinely beleived for much if not all of the time that Huntley hadn't committed the crimes for which she was providing him an alibi.

The one case where the sentencing guidleines for perverting the course of justice provide for significatnly stiffer tariffs is where the offence involves the violent intimidation of witnesses. That strikes me as a rather better and more rational reason for a stiffer sentence than a claim that the defendant is "not civilised".

BTW I think I am right in saying that the maximum sentence for that offence is actually life imprisonment. I'm not sure if anyone has got that long or if so quite what they did to deserve it.

Matthew

quote:

---

The one case where the sentencing guidleines for perverting the course of justice provide for significatnly stiffer tariffs is where the offence involves the violent intimidation of witnesses. That strikes me as a rather better and more rational reason for a stiffer sentence than a claim that the defendant is "not civilised".

---

That maybe so, but it still doesn't alter the fact that I think she deserves more punishment.

quote:

---

BTW I think I am right in saying that the maximum sentence for that offence is actually life imprisonment. I'm not sure if anyone has got that long or if so quite what they did to deserve it.

---

They probably killed the witness.

Obviously it is way beneath me to start my own tabloid style poll but were I to ask the two following questions I wonder what most people's answer would be:

Who is the more dangerous neighbour to your children?:

A Someone who lied to the police repeatedly for whatever reason, served a jail sentence, showed remorse and was released.

B Someone who admits to having the odd tipple too many and driving a fast car over the speed limit.

Alex

quote:

---

Originally posted by count.d:
After reading many of the posts, I really think most of you actually forget the purpose of punishment. Punishment is inflicted to discourage people from doing a crime.

I don't agree with Mick's view to lock her up for good, but 18 months is a joke.

---

Really, count.d?

People get locked up for 25 years for murder, but that hasn't stopped others from committing murder. Likewise for rape and other similarly heinous crimes.

In my opinion our judicial system only works where the punishment fits the crime. Of course Carr lied to protect Huntley, and it's quite possible that she did this for no more reason that she could not believe he (her lover after all) was responsible for the murders.

When it was proved during the court case that no way could anyone other than Huntley have killed Holly and Jessica, instead of standing by him she changed her story. Now, it could have been a cynical ploy by her to reduce her sentence but, nevertheless, she did not kill the girls. You appear to prefer to treat her as if she did.

In any case, Maxine Carr has to live the consequences of what she has done for the rest of her life, forever looking over her shoulder for the next vigilante retribution attempt. It's a prison sentence all of its own and is probably worse for her than if she had actually stayed behind bars.

Regards,

JonR

Alex,

Have you lost track of what punishment is for?

An embezzler isn't dangerous, but they still need locking up.

Strange how you want to shoot motorists traveling the wrong way along your street, when the crimes affects you. Pretty selfish.

Count.d

I agree that statement may look very selfish but I was ineptly trying to explain what the real dangers to young children are.

Any driver could make a mistake and kill several innocents. These people should not be punished, their conscience will be ample punishment but all known statistics point to drivers having had a few too many or talking on mobiles or driving the wrong way down short stretches of one-way streets or exceeding the speed limit, or any combination of these, are the greatest risk to children.

How often do the punishments reflect the severity of these crimes?

Mick
Given your remarks here, I'm rather glad that you didn't go for that magistrates post as you are plainly poorly equipped for the role. In matters of law, there is no place for emotion and the notion that the sentencing guidelines should be applied or thrown out the window on a case by case business is ludicrous and wrong-headed. Of course it's a tragedy that 2 young girls were murdered, but to suggest that Carr's role merits locking her up until she dies exemplifies the kind of base hysteria that had pan-thumping primordial sludge marching through Paulsgrove, beating up and driving out a local paediatrician. You either respect the law or you throw the whole system out, it isn't a la carte and there's nothing to be gained by listening to tabloid cries for shorter or longer sentencing depending on who is or isn't the bogeyman of today. I nearly kicked the cat when I heard that that scum Van Hoogstraten wasn't going to rot in a cell, but there's no point in whinging about that and yet celebrating the system that has quashed the sentences of those I genuinely believed to be innocent.

As others have said, Carr had no prior criminal history, participated in no way in the murders and whilst her actions were of course criminal, for which she served her sentence, one can only guess at the terror she felt knowing that Huntley knew that she knew. Carr has been psychoanalysed and profiled to death and it obviously hasn't flagged her up as a deviant threat. Who can safely say that about everybody in their neighbourhood?

Tom's last post raises an interesting point in the matter of values.

It's also worth noting that she is now needing to be protected from society not the other way round.

That is because most people regard her crime as highly dangerous. She kept a child murderer free longer than necessary because she lied for him.

The comment about invading Iraq is just a diversionary tatic. The public are slowingly becoming fed up with soft sentencing.

I believe the Italian Government are introducing a law making it legal to shoot burglars. They at least bow to public opinion instead of that of some trendy liberal pinko who promotes the liberties of the criminal over the inocent victim.

As for the comments about being a Magistrate. I know several and believe me, they wish to God they had the power to dish out tougher sentences.

Regards

Mick

quote:

---

I believe the Italian Government are introducing a law making it legal to shoot burglars.

---

Given the nature of the head of the Italian government, I might suggest that this comment would serve as a warning.....



I propose a law to allow shooting of people who wire their speakers out of phase

Laurie S

Or for that matter, anyone who disagrees with me on any matter I care to name

[This message was edited by Laurie Saunders on Sat 15 May 2004 at 12:47.]

quote:

---

The comment about invading Iraq is just a diversionary tatic.

---

Pretty damned poignant if one is casting aspersions on the moral standards of others.

quote:

---

As for the comments about being a Magistrate. I know several and believe me, they wish to God they had the power to dish out tougher sentences.

---

I know a fair few myself but have spent considerably more time in the company of county and high court judges and whilst there has been the odd occasion where a desire for flexibilty on sentencing has been expressed, the overall feeling is that the tariffs are fair and that they are relieved to have the guidelines. Note that I say flexibility since although there are certainly cases where the sentence could be harsher, judges frequently have to hand down sentences which they feel, given the circumstances, are too onerous but they are bound to follow the rule. The bottom line is that if you have any respect for the system of law you must see that sentencing must be divorced from the emotion and hysteria surrounding the crime. Sure the sentencing for a specific offence should be increased where appropriate, but to do it on a case by case basis is plain daft.

There are of course exceptions, but by and large magistrates are drawn from a rather unpleasant pool of smug, coccooned, self-righteous, curtain twitching, sextagenarians with soft focus pictures of Maggie and Pinochet hanging over the mantelpiece; my point being that they generally an astonishingly poor barometer of public opinion.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tom Alves:
By adding to this thread all I appear to be doing is generating further Bad Karma, both to myself and for the others reading it.

---

Tom, quite the contrary imo. Your sensible posts here spread good karma I believe. Just hope some of it spills over to Mr.Parry and few more. They seem to be in desperate need...

You must be kidding...all Tom is doing is trying to prove what a nice guy he is.

Yes he is nice but plain bloody misguided.

Regards

Mick

I think that Tom has succeeded in proving that he's got considerably more than an ounce of sense and isn't trying to argue that rules should only apply whenever it suits him or his cause.

Mick. In my book Tom has already showed the forum that he is a "nice guy". Anyone spending some time in "the padded cell" following discussions like these and reading your posts will soon be aware that you have some not so nice opinions to put it mildly, imo of course but judging from the reactions you get many share this view.
Bjorne

I agree with the Alexes, Matthew, and the rest. Its now time to leave her alone.

I think Mick's standpoint about punishing severely those who have not only broken the law but have stood in the way of the judicial process is a deeply disturbing one for me.

If a loved one had confessed a serious crime to me and offered some kind of mitigating circumstances that, I'd be inclined to believe, then I'd be as guilty as Maxine Carr and would probably act in the way that she did.

Such a statement as, for example: "I swear I never meant to harm them, never mind kill them them, you've gotta believe me, I really love you etc..." is not going to have you rushing to call the police and subject them to possible investigation to their detriment unless you place your loyalty to the state/due process, the Establishment and our Hallowed Leader and Big Brother Anthony B. Liar above your own loved ones.

A balance needs, however, to be maintained between absolute loyalty to the state and its legal processes, and absolute loyalty to the closer Family which in turn serves to justify a Mafia mentality in which the interests our own kinship become secondary to the law of the land and the rest of society.

I'm beginning to think Mick as a child would have shopped his own grandmother though...



Regards,

Steve.

I remember a friend once saying of a girlfriend "If she had half a brain she would be dangerous."

My reply was "She's got a quarter of a brain and she's very dangerous."

Like Maxine Carr, she wasn't bright and did some really dumg things. Fortunately she didn't do anything illegal like Maxine Carr.

Maxine Carr obviously believed Huntley when he said he didn't commit the murders, until the court case.

Possibly she was in denial, she didn't want to believe the man she loved would do something so bad. She in her mind would have felt cheated by him and betrayed by him. She trusted him and he lied to her about something as serious as murder. She would have felt angry at being made to look stupid, for a crime she didn't commit. Huntley committed the murderers after all.

True, shes not bright and she will be in fear of her life and will have to live with the guilt and knowledge that she protected a Child murderer. Ask anyone who's done time and they'll tell you there is nothing so low as a child murder. Maxine Carr unwittingly protected one and that is why a lot of people dislike her.

She has served her time, albeit only 18 months of a 3 1/2 jail sentence.

But she is out and its going to cost us a lot of money for her protection. She needs protection herself from people, who would probably kill her if they had the chance.

I remember hearing somewhere about her committing benefit fraud. If thats true, shouldn't she been fined or do time for that crime?

And benefit fraud would probably put her in prison for a lot longer than her 18 months. Like that guy who was in for 5 years for fraud and shared a cell with a murderer who got two and a half.
Money is far more important than lives!

Michael Hubbard QC, for Carr, said the prosecution "beggared belief" and had the "hand of the Home Office all over it".

Mr Latham told Nottingham Crown Court that the deception offences had come to light as a result of the Soham murder investigation.

He said under normal circumstances Carr would have been charged in the spring of 2003, but lawyers were anxious not to do anything that would affect the outcome of the Soham trial which began in the autumn of 2003.


Judge for your self;
Independent News
The Guardian

Roy T

Its ironic that her Fraudulent behaviour went unnoticed, until she was investigated as part of the Soham Murder Case.

20 benefit fraud offences totalling nearly £4000 and lying to get a Teachers Assistant job is hardly the actions of an honest person.

Lying to provide an alibi for Ian huntley would have been second nature, bearing in mind the deception involved in committing the benefit frauds.

It does seem an injustice that she has not gone to prison for her dishonesty, whereas other people have.

One thing I do find odd, a three rehabilitation order for someone who is being given a new identity and Police protection.

How is she supposed too fulfil that Rehabilitation Order?

I agree with Matthew.

Paul