Indeterminate jail term for killer driver?

So a hit-and-run killer, driving like a maniac, with 13 previous
convictions for driving while disqualified and four for dangerous
driving, is given an 'indeterminate sentence'? So how long will he
actually spend inside for his crime? How much is reduced for a guilty
plea?

"...Steel was initially sentenced to an indefinite term with a minimum
of 13-and-a-half years. The tariff was reduced for his guilty plea,
and cut by half again in accordance with Home Office guidelines..."

Is that then 13/4 = 3.25 years? How can such a dreadful crime carry
such a short sentence? Compare this to the animal rights protester who
was sentence to 11 years for blackmail.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz0RFHUgLZc

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

Doug gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

So a hit-and-run killer, driving like a maniac, with 13 previous
convictions for driving while disqualified and four for dangerous
driving, is given an 'indeterminate sentence'? So how long will he
actually spend inside for his crime?

Until he's deemed to be safe to release. But he won't even be assessed
for release until the minimum sentence has passed.

How can such a dreadful crime carry such a short sentence? Compare this
to the animal rights protester who was sentence to 11 years for
blackmail.

D'you mean the ones who were jailed for between four and eleven years,
Duhg? For a campaign of violence and vileness sustained across six years?

Anyway, 13.5 is a bigger number than 11, Duhg. Which does kinda shoot
your arguments about how drivers get away lightly down, doesn't it?

On 16 Sep, 07:20, Adrian wrote:
Doug gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

So a hit-and-run killer, driving like a maniac, with 13 previous
convictions for driving while disqualified and four for dangerous
driving, is given an 'indeterminate sentence'? So how long will he
actually spend inside for his crime?

Until he's deemed to be safe to release. But he won't even be assessed
for release until the minimum sentence has passed.

Which apparently is now a mere 3.25 years and is that actually the
minimum? What about good behaviour?

How can such a dreadful crime carry such a short sentence? Compare this
to the animal rights protester who was sentence to 11 years for
blackmail.

D'you mean the ones who were jailed for between four and eleven years,
Duhg? For a campaign of violence and vileness sustained across six years?

No Adrain, I mean the one sentenced to 11 years just for blackmail.

Anyway, 13.5 is a bigger number than 11, Duhg. Which does kinda shoot
your arguments about how drivers get away lightly down, doesn't it?

Don't try to be disingenuous again. In the text you have deleted the
killer driver gets 3.25 years only, much less than the 11 year
sentence for blackmail.

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
One man's democracy is another man's regime.

Doug gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

So a hit-and-run killer, driving like a maniac, with 13 previous
convictions for driving while disqualified and four for dangerous
driving, is given an 'indeterminate sentence'? So how long will he
actually spend inside for his crime?

Until he's deemed to be safe to release. But he won't even be assessed
for release until the minimum sentence has passed.

Which apparently is now a mere 3.25 years

No, the sentence is indeterminate, with a 13.5yr minimum.

and is that actually the minimum?

Yes.

What about good behaviour?

Doesn't come into it until after the minimum has passed.

How can such a dreadful crime carry such a short sentence? Compare
this to the animal rights protester who was sentence to 11 years for
blackmail.

D'you mean the ones who were jailed for between four and eleven years,
Duhg? For a campaign of violence and vileness sustained across six
years?

No Adrain, I mean the one sentenced to 11 years just for blackmail.

Which one? There's clearly been so many.

Anyway, 13.5 is a bigger number than 11, Duhg. Which does kinda shoot
your arguments about how drivers get away lightly down, doesn't it?

Don't try to be disingenuous again.

Pointing out that 13.5 is more than 11 is "disingenuous" now, is it?

In the text you have deleted the killer driver gets 3.25 years only

That's because he didn't. He got a 13.5yr minimum indeterminate sentence.

Yes, that's subject to some tariff reductions - I notice you got to that
3.25yr figure by guessing at the reduction for a guilty plea, though.

much less than the 11 year sentence for blackmail.

No, Duhg. 13.5 is still more than 11.

That 11yr sentence would also be subject to those same tariff reductions.
Always assuming he pleaded guilty, of course...?

On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 22:53:48 -0700 (PDT), Doug wrote:
So a hit-and-run killer, driving like a maniac, with 13 previous
convictions for driving while disqualified and four for dangerous
driving, is given an 'indeterminate sentence'? So how long will he
actually spend inside for his crime? How much is reduced for a guilty
plea?

"...Steel was initially sentenced to an indefinite term with a minimum
of 13-and-a-half years. The tariff was reduced for his guilty plea,
and cut by half again in accordance with Home Office guidelines..."

Is that then 13/4 = 3.25 years?

No. The maximum reduction is 33% if the guilty plea is offered at the
very earliest opportunity, 25% once the trial date has been set, and
10% if at the last moment. Without knowing at what point this person
pleaded guilty it is impossible to say what the minimum term is but it
is more than the figure you state. The lowest possible figure is
four and a half years.

Also with indeterminate prison sentencing they are only released when
they have done the appropriate courses and can convince the parole board
that they won't reoffend.

--
Andy Leighton =
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

On 16 Sep, 08:02, Adrian wrote:

That's because he didn't. He got a 13.5yr minimum indeterminate sentence.

Yes, that's subject to some tariff reductions - I notice you got to that
3.25yr figure by guessing at the reduction for a guilty plea, though.

much less than the 11 year sentence for blackmail.

No, Duhg. 13.5 is still more than 11.

That 11yr sentence would also be subject to those same tariff reductions.

AIUI, any sentence of less than 10 years is automatically cut in half
(the Home Office rules referred to in the article). Bizarre and
grossly dishonest and unjust, of course, but the rule is applicable to
all sentences, not just those for motoring offences.

According to http://www.brake.org.uk/news/uk-road...es/hit-and-run
he will be eligible for release after 5 years. I assume, therefore,
that his sentence was reduced by 25% to 10 y, and was then able to
benefit from the automatic halving.

Always assuming he pleaded guilty, of course...?

No, she didn't: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7837064.stm

Had she pleaded guilty, she could have got a 33% reduction, followed
by the automatic halving i.e. she would have served 3.7 years.

In other words, once again Mr Bollen twists the facts to fit his
twisted agenda.

On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 09:17:48 -0700 (PDT),
BrianW wrote:

Had she pleaded guilty, she could have got a 33% reduction, followed
by the automatic halving i.e. she would have served 3.7 years.

No - as I posted earlier it depends on when you plead guilty. If at
the earliest possible stage you may get a 33% reduction, if the trial
date has been set then 25%, if at the door of the court, or after the
trial has begun, then 10%.

--
Andy Leighton =
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

On 16 Sep, 19:14, Andy Leighton wrote:
On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 09:17:48 -0700 (PDT),
� � � � � � � �BrianW wrote:



Had she pleaded guilty, she could have got a 33% reduction, followed
by the automatic halving i.e. she would have served 3.7 years.

No - as I posted earlier it depends on when you plead guilty. �If at
the earliest possible stage you may get a 33% reduction, if the trial
date has been set then 25%, if at the door of the court, or after the
trial has begun, then 10%.

Yes - I should have said "she could have got up to a 33% reduction,
followed by the automatic halving i.e. she would have served as little
as 3.7 years".

On 16 Sep, 19:14, Andy Leighton wrote:
On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 09:17:48 -0700 (PDT),
* * * * * * * *BrianW wrote:



Had she pleaded guilty, she could have got a 33% reduction, followed
by the automatic halving i.e. she would have served 3.7 years.

No - as I posted earlier it depends on when you plead guilty. *If at
the earliest possible stage you may get a 33% reduction, if the trial
date has been set then 25%, if at the door of the court, or after the
trial has begun, then 10%.

This looks like State blackmail to me, to vindicate its punishment
system when the innocent are being hounded. How can you possibly
negotiate justice?

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
One man's democracy is another man's Police State.

Doug gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

No - as I posted earlier it depends on when you plead guilty. Â*If at
the earliest possible stage you may get a 33% reduction, if the trial
date has been set then 25%, if at the door of the court, or after the
trial has begun, then 10%.

This looks like State blackmail to me, to vindicate its punishment
system when the innocent are being hounded. How can you possibly
negotiate justice?

sigh
Trying to explain the concept of rehabilitation of offenders to you would
be like trying to explain the works of some of the great artists to a
warthog, wouldn't it?