A longer sentence gives the option of keeping someone inside for the whole term of their sentence if necessary, I suppose. Early release isn't an automatic right, it depends on the crime and the behaviour of the prisoner. -- Ian
I actually feel quite sorry for Carr – her crime was really one of being a bit thick, too loyal, and frightened. Huntley has ruined her life probably as much as his victim's families - she is certainly not a threat to society in any way (in fact it's the reverse, I suspect she will find it hard to hide from rampaging Daily Mail readers) and she had already served a long time inside awaiting the court case. Tony.
I think so, yes. The idea being that, although an individual is 'freed' from prison early, the probation system allows them to be re-arrested and returned to prison to fulfill the rest of the remaining sentence if they do anything else wrong. One of the plus points of such a system I should imagine, is that the 'freed' prisoners, with part of a sentence still hanging over their heads, feel more pressure to integrate back into non-criminal society quickly and - from the home office's optimistic view - permanently, without the need for more costly stays in jail at the tax payers expense. Whether or not this sytem actually works is, of course, open to debate, especially considering how easy it is to turn a large number of the population into rabid dogs at the prospect of administering what they perceive to be justice. If, for example, I'd been sentenced to 10 years in prison for a single incident which I now regretted, and, despite all of my attempts at good behaviour and reform whilst serving my sentence, I served it fully without any early parole or acknowledgement of my attempts to reform, I'd probably be pretty miffed with the system and the society that supports it, and less likely to want to integrate when I got out. I, personally, see no reason why Maxine Carr should receive more severe treatment for her crimes than anyone else, regardless of the crime she was involved with. My thinking on it is that if there is a failing here, and I'm not saying that there is, then it is with the system of justice and not with those being punished by it. All IMHO, of course. By the way, off topic because the topic is just too depressing, is anyone else going to see A Perfect Circle soon? I'm going to the Nottingham show on Sunday and am well looking forward to it. Happy Friday! Goomer.
When I first read about the murders I was filled with pure hatred for Huntly/Carr , a bucket of petrol and a tossed zippo would be far too good for him. As the trial went on i started to feel just a little less hostile towards Carr, OK she probabbly had some good coaching from her legal team but i do think that her only real crime is being a stupidly gullable, lovestruck, liar. She seemed to come good in the end once she'd had time away from Huntly to reflect and finally seemed to see him for the sub human monster that he is. Her life is over , as has been already said she will be the victim and target of 'oppurtunity vigilantes' until she gets a head transplant. For Maxine Carr a long , lonely, always looking over her shoulder, life of hiding is all she can hope for. As far as Daily Mail readers and reading goes, my wife buys it every day and I read it too. She is in one of the 'caring' proffessions ( Registered Midwife) and is one of the most caring, sharing, happy go lucky , tree hugging, pinkos that i know and i love her dearly , mind you they do say that opposites attract.
I get the impression that she genuinely believed Huntley when he told her that he had nothing to do with the two girls disappearance, and that the police were 'out to get him'. The tape of her totally falling apart in an interview once she realised that he was actually responsible for their murder sounds believable to my ears. There is probably no punishment the state could throw at her that would make her feel any worse than knowing how stupid and gullible she had been. I actually think she deserves some compassion, she was fed a line by a manipulative and calculating clinical psychopath who had by all accounts been abusing her for years, and she bought it. Tony.
I couldn't agree more, but I can't understand why she took so much abuse from him when she was with him. In one of the documentaries one of her neighbours mentioned that Huntley used to beat her up. Despite this she was so loyal. I think she needs help not more punishment.
I'm not so sure that Carr didn't know that they were dead. A TV interview with her, before the bodies were discovered, had to be stopped twice because she kept on referring to the girls in the past tense, and she looked extremely uncomfortable during it.
Many women seem to stick around in situations of repeated domestic violence – I have absolutely no idea why. I can't remember the stats, but in the UK many women die every year as a result of staying in a house where serious violence against them has previously taken place. Women are weird things... Tony.
I remember that interview well – I couldn't work out whether she had 'done it' or whether she was a bit slow / frightened. As the case progressed I swung more to the latter perspective. I really don't think she is evil, I just suspect at the time she was very confused and frightened – I hate to think what Huntley was doing to her behind the scenes around that time… Tony.
REgards the past tense thing, she isn't incredibly bright, and the question from the media was put in the past tense, so she answered. Also, if 2 kids go missing for more than 3-4 days, chances are they are in the past tense. She didn't do anything wrong as such, she is no Myra Hindley, and I am surpised at the notion, Maxine Carr was away at the time, and didn't have a clue. Why is she seen as an accessory, she is not. Bad as a child murder is, its just as bad to kill someone like that because you are too thick and stupid, and believe the papers. That makes you as bad. More so, she lied for someone. If she knew the truth at the time, it would have been totally different. She stayed loyal, because 1. she loved him, oddly enough, 2, she probably also feared him. 3. she probably thought she could do no better in life.
Well, she's staying behind bars : http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-12989364,00.html And he's had his sentence reduced : http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-12989438,00.html How'd you like them apples ?
trial by media is now an accepted form of justice. what a ****ing pathetic world we live in. by this same token the immediate family of anyone who gets a bit of stick in the papers should be locked up as well unless of course you grass them up to the police. it's like living in nazi germany. still it's better than america at least. cheers julian
Agreed, the same rules should be applied to all criminals regardless of their notoriety. The power of the press, eh?
agreed - the refusal to grant her an early, of sorts, release saysmore about us than it does about her. Listen to the professionals and not politicians dabbling with the judicial process john
I despair for this country. She's guilty of being a bit dim and not much else. I think the 3 1/2 years is a joke, far too long for the crime. In the justice system as a whole far more emphasis is placed on the value of things than people which must be wrong. The press have accurately reflected public outrage in this case well certainly the pig ignorant, selfish, self serving, arrogant shitbag portion of the public who seem to be taking over this country. Britain has been very effectively "dumbed down" over the last 25 years, so is it any wonder these things occur. All you can do is educate yourself and yours and avoid getting involved at all costs. I'm off to Canada soon enough and thats me well out of it... The UK is a shithole IMHO....