Maxine Carr

The point being didsussed is what should happen to Carr.

I agree that she poses no threat to anyone. Her crime was to mislead the police during an investigation of an horrific crime.
The delay in apprehending her boyfriend may, and I use the word may, could have resulted in another murder, one never knows.

A very long prison sentence is appropriate to serve as a warning to others in future cases involving murder of children that lying to the police will not be tolerated. The 18 months or whatever she received was a joke.

Rightly or wrongly ( I think wrongly) her life outside is going to be in danger of attack or even murder. We have to pay for her protection which is ludicrous. The common sense alternative is to lock her up until she dies, that way other girl friends will think twice about lying to the police.

The life of inocent children has to be balanced against the welfare of a liar and the children come first.

Regards

Mick

The police survellience Carr will recieve will be as much to keep her from being killed by a baying mob as to prevent her from breaking the law. She has been told by the police to wear a bulletproof vest.

One more for Alex's list of facts: she has not only served the absolutely maximum amount of her sentence allowed by the law but Blunkett changed the laws so that she sould serve a bit longer. She has served as long as anyone can for the offences she committed.

Matthew

Yes,Ms.Carr comitted a crime, she lied,how many of us would have done the same thing in the same circumstances, I suspect most of us if the truth be known. We have no understanding of what it must be like to have someone that you love be accused of such a crime, the first emotion must be to disbeleve all that you hear, and the second must be to protect those that you feel are wrongly accused, and that is all she is guilty of and hands up all of you that would not do the same thing. Yes I would be happy to have Ms. Carr living next door to me, she has served her time and the "authorities" have already shown that they are out to get her for anything they can just to appease the great unwashed Mail and Sun readers .Let her now try to make a new start to her life! such as it will be, for the rest of her time she will be looking over her shoulder wondering who is behind her. I would be more concerned with the people who openly bragg on this forum of doing 140 mph plus on public roads without concern for other road users safety.The old proverb comes to mind of :- He who is without sin cast the first stone, etc.
oldie.

I hope this won't end up just being a vehicle for Mick & Matthew to clash. (with all due respect etc guys - I enjoy them immensely).

I applaude Alex's view, but I admit to being uncomfortable about it should she be in my neck of the woods. She is not guilty of murder, but for covering for a man she loved (?). Weakness, stupididy, bit thick maybe - but she is probably* safe. I'm not sure she reacted appropriately and am still wary about whether she really understands the enormity of the crime Huntley carried out. She seems to be on another planet mentally.
It's the "probably")* that is the problem. What is an acceptable risk? There is no acceptable risk - so how do we keep tags on her? And here we go again on another subject.
Essentially I would like to agree with Alex, but ask me in a different frame of mind and I could go the other way.

"She has served as long as anyone can for the offences she committed".....MR

And that is an obsenity. She is rightly being vilified because she lied and delayed the arrest of a child murderer and anyone who feels that her sentence was adequate needs to address their sense of values.

Regards

Mick

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.

quote:

---

They probably killed the witness

---

Presumably the sentence would then be murder, rather than perverting the course of justice?

ag

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.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mick Parry:
"She has served as long as anyone can for the offences she committed".....MR

anyone who feels that her sentence was adequate needs to address their sense of values.

---

This from a man who saw no wrong in carpet bombing Iraq with the possible loss of 50,000 innocent lives, just as long as "we" got control of the oil.

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.

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

I have deleted this post as I have remembered that I will not change anyones views on this subject. 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. I will not to contribute further, nor comment on the morality of others. My apologies for any hard feelings caused.

Tom

[This message was edited by Tom Alves on Sat 15 May 2004 at 13:09.]

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