It is something lots of people find hard to accept that the one person who doesn't really matter in criminal law is the victim, or the victim's family. The state takes over the prosecuting of crimes, and the punishment/rehabilitation of the offender, and the views of others are not really considered. The fact that this position is right and proper is not going to be something you think about if your child is brutally murdered, but really criminals are owed a duty of care by the state. Only the judicial has the right to punish ciminals, and extra-judicial punishments should not be encouraged or anything done to make them easier. Mrs Fergus is understandably a tortured soul, but one thing the press seem to ignore is that she herself has never took the view that the murderers, who were children themselves at the time, should have rotted behind bars until they die - she considered that 18 years would have been proportionate and appropriate, therefore the two of them would still be inside now, and their release would be imminent. She accepted that they should be rehabilitated, but that the punishment element, the loss of liberty they experienced, should have been greater. Another infamous child killer was released in 1980, Mary Bell, who killed two children when she was aged 10 and 11. She has been successfully rehabilitated and there is no suggestion she has ever re-offended, but she did almost blow her cover of anonimity a few years ago, tired of living under a false identity. This seems to be a problem for Venables. Not surprising really, if someone asks him simple questions like "what did your dad do for a living?" or "what school did you go to?" - is he meant to instantly dream up a convincing lie and stick with it forever? Bell was not convicted of murder, but of manslaughter, the public felt slightly sorry for her, from a broken family, her father unknown, rumoured to be an armed robber, and her mother a prostitute. The two children who murdered Jamie also had problems, there mothers taking little interest in what they did or where they went, and a poor school attendance record. Perhaps we should pick up on signs like truancy earlier and put it right before another case like this inevitably happens again. As for the government's role - it is my view that the judiciary should make its own decisions free of interference from politicians. Politicians can make the laws, but the application of them should be independent. If a judge says someone goes to jail, gets released, or orders anonymity, so be it. A politician should be powerless to act to overturn orders made by courts. Only the most notorious of cases are politicised anyway.
Answers & Comments
Verified answer
simple:
"I don't know what the word proprietary means."
No-one can deny that is correct. Just an intelligent answer. :)
Proprietary In A Sentence
This Site Might Help You.
RE:
How would you use "proprietary" in a sentence ?
It is something lots of people find hard to accept that the one person who doesn't really matter in criminal law is the victim, or the victim's family. The state takes over the prosecuting of crimes, and the punishment/rehabilitation of the offender, and the views of others are not really considered. The fact that this position is right and proper is not going to be something you think about if your child is brutally murdered, but really criminals are owed a duty of care by the state. Only the judicial has the right to punish ciminals, and extra-judicial punishments should not be encouraged or anything done to make them easier. Mrs Fergus is understandably a tortured soul, but one thing the press seem to ignore is that she herself has never took the view that the murderers, who were children themselves at the time, should have rotted behind bars until they die - she considered that 18 years would have been proportionate and appropriate, therefore the two of them would still be inside now, and their release would be imminent. She accepted that they should be rehabilitated, but that the punishment element, the loss of liberty they experienced, should have been greater. Another infamous child killer was released in 1980, Mary Bell, who killed two children when she was aged 10 and 11. She has been successfully rehabilitated and there is no suggestion she has ever re-offended, but she did almost blow her cover of anonimity a few years ago, tired of living under a false identity. This seems to be a problem for Venables. Not surprising really, if someone asks him simple questions like "what did your dad do for a living?" or "what school did you go to?" - is he meant to instantly dream up a convincing lie and stick with it forever? Bell was not convicted of murder, but of manslaughter, the public felt slightly sorry for her, from a broken family, her father unknown, rumoured to be an armed robber, and her mother a prostitute. The two children who murdered Jamie also had problems, there mothers taking little interest in what they did or where they went, and a poor school attendance record. Perhaps we should pick up on signs like truancy earlier and put it right before another case like this inevitably happens again. As for the government's role - it is my view that the judiciary should make its own decisions free of interference from politicians. Politicians can make the laws, but the application of them should be independent. If a judge says someone goes to jail, gets released, or orders anonymity, so be it. A politician should be powerless to act to overturn orders made by courts. Only the most notorious of cases are politicised anyway.
For the best answers, search on this site https://shorturl.im/av7IQ
The British bestowed rights of self-government to the group, thus creating a proprietary colony.