Dobson and Norris - How long will they actually serve?

They got life sentences - it will be, IIRC, 14 and 15 years before they will be eligible for parole. Given the nature of the crime and the public mood, it is likely that they will spend a very long time behind bars-  20 to 25 years minimum. Maybe even life.

Talking of the Mail, I bet Dacre is feeling like a dog with two dicks at the moment, given the praise heaped on him and his paper by the Lawrences and other sections of the media...

According to what I have read they are penalised according to the law prevailing at the time of the offences, ie when they comitted the crimes they were juveniles and sentencing reflects that with regard to the maximum term.

I see no reason for them to be handled differently, they should serve the sentence that the law dictates and they should be eligible for parole according to the same rules as other offenders. I believe that when the Bulger killers had interference from the Home Secretary with regard to sentence duration the law was subsequently changed to prevent political interference in future.

Their crime was iconic (for reasons not all due to the actual offence itself) but not unique. All such offenders deserve due punishment, but not exceptional treatment because of the notoriety of the case.

I hope that others who were involved can be tried, but I fear the evidence is lacking.

Bruce

I agree with Bruce.

I would add that, if society wants to change the rules eg senencing to be based on age at conviction rather that age at time of offence, then fine, follow due proces and go ahead. But it applies to all.

I am unclear, as is the OP, as to what governs the actual term served, as opposed to the sentence passed.

Will they actually serve 15 years and 14 years minimum. Will these terms be extended if there is no remorse and behaviour-change by the end of the term. Will the  term be reduced and parole given for good behaviour - ie could they be released after say, 7 years ?

Finally, I understand that the Prison Service has a duty of care to all prisoners. If these two are asaulted whilst in the care of the Prison Service, it will be the tax-payer (ie you and me) who will foot the inevitable bill for compensation.

Cheers

Don

Sentences have been referred to the Attorney General office for review, referee said they were too short.

Can someone with some knowledge of the system answer a question?

It appears clear that both could provide more evidence perhaps leading to the conviction of one or all of the others involved in the killing. Are the authorities allowed to offer any reduction of sentence or other 'inducements'? My head tells me not (as does my moral compass) but I'd like to know how it works.

Bruce

Parole:

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Cr...ngtoprison/DG_196209

Don't think so.

You seem to be a sad and sick individual...

I think we are both right.

Two wrongs do not make a right ...

Rod

I don't accept that an individual, guilty of a crime of any level, loses their right to personal protection (and with it freedom from physical or sexual assault) by being committed to prison.

If we assume that certain individuals in prison, judged by some arbitary court of public opinion, can have these rights suspended then what we are suggesting is simple barbaraism. It is a short step from that to a society that allows prisoners to tear each other apart, experiments upon them, starves them or deposits them on penal colonies to rot. Prisoners are still human beings, and deserve basic human rights to food, health care, a safe environment etc.

The Law still covers acts in prison. If a prisoner is assualted then the perpetrator can and should be prosecuted. I find it repellent for somebody to actually hope for another human to be sexually assaulted, especially with the assumption that somehow this would be acceptable because they are in prison. Would you have said that if they were walking the streets? I doubt it, yet the fact of their incarceration should not change things.

If for their personal protection these two need to be held in solitary cells without contact with other prisoners, then so be it, and their experience will be all the worse for it.

Prison is punishment. It is never sufficient 'recompense' for a lost life (what possibly could be), but it is what we have. I don't think we should ask for sexual assault to be added to the sentence.

Bruce

^ this

i begain this thread to ask a basic question as to how long they would actually serve or would the sentence be diluted in someway as sentences often, and in my opion wrongly, are. It appears to have produced a lot of emotion which I can understand. I too feel anger at these debased indivuals but if we treat them as they chose to treat others then we all end up in the 'gutter' together. We endeavour to be a civilised society and prison should include the correct apportionment of punishment, correction and where necessary education. The most important thing for me is that they are kept in a place where they cannot threaten the lives of the rest of the law abiding society for as long as is required.

in general I think the idea of early release for good behaviour/remorse etc is a good thing. I also think that the idea of extended term is good if there is any sign of possible repeat offence.

however, in this particular case, i think a review of the initial sentence is also justified (assuming that is within the spirit of the current system, which I think it is)

but the primary question remains unclear, is the 15 years an absolute minimum or could it be reduced ? anybody ? Derry, you seem to be knowledgable on these things?

Cheers

Don

My brother in law was at college at the time of the murder and had a totally different POV. Lawrence was allegedly a small time drug dealer who was peddling to kids in the area. One of the accused murderers' sister had allegedly been raped by Lawrence and the murder was retribution for that.

Could be lies but I remember my brother in law having no sympathy at the time and that that was totally out of character for him.

'Retribution' by a being stabbed to death? What is this, the Middle Ages? Sicily*?

Bruce

(*who has been watching The Godfather movies all over Xmas)

If johnyboy's bil is correct it could explain the police reluctance to act with vigour  and if it is true then it could really cause a cat pigeon interface issue if it became really public

i don't know why I'm even bothering to answer this crass blend of hearsay and internet drivel, but just to nip this one in the bud, here goes.

You can't libel a dead man, so write whatever you want. Perhaps we could all do the same about you, throw in an 'allegedly' or two, and that'd be ok as well.

Stephen Lawrence's friend, Duwayne Brooks was charged with attempted rape (this is undoubtedly the source of your brother-in-law's story) though the charge was subsequently dropped due to a lack of evidence. For what it's worth, Brooks is now a LIb Dem councillor in Lewisham.

Stephen was a good kid, brutally murdered. Here's Mr Justice Treacy, the judge in the recent case, while sentencing Norris and Dobson:

"A totally innocent 18-year-old youth on the threshold of a promising life was brutally cut down in the street in front of eyewitnesses by a racist, thuggish gang. You were both members of that gang. I have no doubt at all that you fully subscribed to its views and attitudes,"

"The crime was committed for no other reason than racial hatred … at least one of your group was armed with a lethal knife that night. I am sure you were aware of that."

"The evidence does not prove, so that I could be sure, that either of you had a knife, but the person who used it did so with your knowledge and approval."

"There was a degree of general premeditation; it was a racist crime driven by hatred; it involved a gang of like-minded attackers; a lethal weapon was employed and known in advance to be carried; the victim was completely blameless and helpless."

Sorry to let the facts get in the way of a good story.

I think its a bit simplistic to try to "nip this one in the bud"

The outcome of many (but not all) murder trials is arrived at because the evidence presented to a judge and 12 Jurors, demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty. The evidence and the mindset of the judge and jury are not always absolutes. This has been the situation in the Stephen Lawrence case and it still is. Based on the limited news coverage, I am personnally satisfied that the judge and jury have come to the right descision with a verdict of guilty. But never-the-less, the proof is not absolute. Overwhelming ? perhaps, but absolute ? No.

There are past examples that adequately illustrate the fallibility of "beyond reasonable doubt"

Chief Chirpa clearly states that in the case of Duwayne Brooks, he walked free of a charge of attempted rape because there was a lack of evidence. I am not clear whether this lack amounted to "absolutely no evidence" or "insufficient evidence". However, a failure to find evidence or failure to convict is no proof of innocence, although legal innocence has to be presumed.

My principal point is that in many, many cases, guilt or innocence is based on probability rather than absolutes and we should remember this when making judgements.

As for being a Lib Dem councillor in Lewisham (or any polititian anywhere), I am completey at a loss as to why this might be relevent?

Cheers

Don

Innocent until proven guilty. Absent evidence, insufficient evidence, evidence inadequate to prosecute, failed prosecution; still innocent.

'No smoke without fire' does not hold here. If not proven guilty, then innocent, not probably but definitely.

The same applies to the multitude of crimes real, imagined and alleged that are being attributed to the convicted pair (and their associates).

Bruce

I am not a lawyer as they say. However the minimum term is exactly that. They must serve 15 and 14 years respectively before parole can be granted. Parole is granted on the basis that they are not likely to commit similar crimes. Given that they have not been convicted of similar (if any?) crime in the past 18 years one might assume they have already passed that test?