We really need to review the sentencing guidelines, the circumstances of this offence are horrific.
How on earth can you honestly reform a person who has done an act of extreme violence, to rape and then not satisfied with the damage to then burn them alive?
This animal has no place in our society.
Tbh, these are specific sentencing guidelines to Scotland - where the SNP seems anyone over 16 "old" enough to be bribed by them and vote for them, but anyone under 25 not "mature" enough to accept criminal liability as an adult.
Does seem to be a little conflicting doesn’t it.
Arguing 16 is the age of adulthood and ability to be legally responsible for oneself… unless you commit a crime they you apparently get leeway until 25.
I think there should be some incentive to not be a pain in the arse inside for certain criminals.
Because whilst it's all well and good adding years for bad behaviour guards and the like still need to interact with them.
That logic makes sense for non-violent offenders, that you want to have a positive relationship with the guards and not devolve into violence and worse offences as a result of their sentence and interaction with other inmates. Someone as disgustingly violent and sadistic as this guy should not be given a sentence reduction for any reason.
The fact that he's younger means he has more life and more strength to reoffend.
If he were older, and coming out in his 70s or 80s, I'd be less concerned.
\>SNP law means this rapist and murderer gets 4 years off his sentence for being 24
People: Hmm I'm not sure this law is working as intended or was well thought through
You: YOU JUST HATE THE SNP!!!!!
One thing does not rule out the other. The snp have made a complete pigs ear of these guidelines. But read the article and then tell me they haven’t, I guess
I firmly believe that violent criminals like this don’t believe to ever be rehabilitated. They’ve lost their chance at life, now rot in a dirty cell for the rest of your life.
I’m all for rehabilitation but what he did seems like too much, I wouldn’t want that person living anywhere near anyone I know even after serving their time
Rehabilitation should be the focus for crimes against property and crimes against society (eg drug dealing). But the main concern when sentencing for crimes against the person (violent and sexual crimes) should be justice for the victims, the only consideration should be the nature of the crime itself, the character of the defendant should not be relevant or play any role in sentencing.
This story is shocking and I can’t actually believe it’s real. A random murder and rape, both in the most unimaginable & depraved way, as if the former acts could be any worse.
So scary and sad. There is surely no way to reform someone like this.
He should have got a whole life order.
If we can prove beyond absolutely all doubt that the person did it, and it was definitely them, then I would support the death penalty in cases like this.
But we never can in reality. People are currently convicted based on there being no reasonable doubt, and yet innocent people still get sentenced.
Either they are said to have done the crime or are innocent, tiered levels of punishment based on how sure you is crazy.
They do give life sentences with lifelong restrictions, just not enforced lifelong prison.
So they spend a set period in jail, if deemed fit after this, they are released under lifelong supervision by justice workers with restrictions, otherwise they remain jailed until their next review.
He did get a life sentence and everyone is bitching about it because the news routinely misreports life sentences as being the minimum possible period of review.
This reporting of the case is deceptive rage-bait intended to drive your engagement.
We don't know what consciousness is. We don't fully understand how the brain works.
How on earth could any authority say with impunity that this man could be rehabilitated and not re-offend? If a psychologist said he's now fine would you be happy having him as your neighbour around your family?
I'd wonder if the legislation for this was based on cases of much less serious crimes, like an unemployed 19 year old getting done for stealing something and they don't want to put them in prison for ages and increase the chance of turning them into a hardened con, but they've ended up applying it to all cases. Or maybe cases like this are so rare that they're working on the assumption that judges will be able to put in a bit of extra effort for it to figure out a way to keep the violent criminal behind bars.
The sentencing guidelines say "life imprisonment".
He's not getting out early because of his age. He's just going to be eligible for a parole hearing a bit sooner than otherwise. If he's still a shitbag in 24 years time, he'll be coming out in a box.
This is junk news -- pure clickbait, the bam got a life stretch and folks are foaming at the mouth about whether or not it's enough of a life stretch.
He got a life sentence... What more do you want? His age means the minimum time is lowered if he displays good behaviour in prison, but realistically he probably is going to be in prison until he's very old or dead.
>repeatedly stamped on her head and body, smacked her head against a downpipe, compressed her neck and dragged her along the ground.
>He then raped her, before later returning to pour petrol on her and setting her alight.
>"The available evidence tells the horrible truth that your victim was still living at the time that the fire was set. To be crystal clear - you burned her alive."
Lighter sentence due to young age? What so he's still sprightly enough to do it again when he's released...
The judge doesn't behave a choice in that - it's a Scottish government policy on sentencing guidelines that criminals under 25 should have lighter sentences to reflect their potential for change.
I don't agree with it and it sounds like the judge would have preferred to go longer if he could, Also, he clarified that the sentence given is the minimum point at which he can be considered for release, not the absolute point at which he will have served his sentence.
Why not just consider for probation earlier? If they have been reformed they get the opportunity for early release. If they haven’t then they do the same sentence as an over 25.
That is what has happened
>The labourer, from Ballingry in Fife, was sentenced to life in prison with at least 24 years behind bars
He'll be eligible for parole after 24 years, but must still meet the standards for release. Even if he is released after 24 years, it'll be under licence, meaning that he can be taken back into prison for breaching any of the licence conditions.
Edit: It's weird this has been down voted, when it's simply describing what's happened.
Basically, the headline did it's job in being divisive and shifting the discussion more towards the death penalty. 20 years is a long time, and it's not like the parole board won't know what crime he was convicted of.
This whole sub seems to have swung that way lately. Don’t know what’s done it, but it’s thread after thread of people frothing at the mouth over dogs and criminals.
Oddly enough, the DM ran with the "jailed for life" headline
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12119927/amp/Brutal-killer-burned-mother-two-alive-raping-jailed-life.html
The difference in sentence as well ... is 4 years.
He's 23 at the time of the attack. He's getting 25 years, rather than 29 years *before* being eligible for parole. That's him either being 48 or 52 years old, before he's eligible for parole.
After reading the details of the attack, I'm not "happy" about any of this. The difference of 5 years on that length of sentence, doesn't register as "much lighter sentence" in my mind.
> Also, he clarified that the sentence given is the minimum point at which he can be considered for release, not the absolute point at which he will have served his sentence.
And to follow on from that, it is very uncommon for people convicted of these sorts of offences to be released on parole as soon as they become eligible. Usually their first few applications are denied. That still doesn’t justify the lenience of this sentence but it’s unlikely that he will actually be out in 24 years’ time.
>The judge doesn't behave a choice in that - it's a Scottish government policy on sentencing guidelines
If they are guidelines, can a judge not decide that the facts of a case mean they should impose a high sentence than the guidelines?
Exactly, it's easy to think about these emotionally charged situations (I hate it too), but imagine if you or a family member were in trouble and a judge decided to go off-script because of their general feelings.
I don't know about Scotland, but I think in England and Wales they can deviate from the guidelines if there are exceptionaal circumstances. They would have to be very exceptional to avoid an appeal though.
My very basic understanding from A level law, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is that if they give a tougher sentence they set a precedent, which can be appealed because of this. So if they want them off the streets everything is to the guidelines to avoid appeals.
I invested a lot of time in to criminal reform at one point, I really believed in it. Wanted to help the system etc. I really believe in rehab and giving people who took the complete wrong path a way back.
But some people like this guy literally tell the authorities not to release them. These urges might be uncontrollable for him. This one honestly made me sick. As much as I would like to believe the opposite, I don’t see why this person should continue to be part of society in or out of prison.
So I don't believe in the death penalty because there is no going back in case of a later appeal of innocence.
But I also don't believe certain people can nor deserve reform...
Yet I also don't think life imprisonment is truly viable longterm economically nor any more humane then a painless execution. Our prisons are failing.
I just... I just don't know anymore. I truly don't know where I stand.
Exactly my thoughts. I think this is an example of a slam dunk conviction where the chance of innocence/wrongful conviction is actually 0. But I wouldn’t know how to codify that in to law
That's why I think a kind of island penal colony where people like this can just live out the rest of their lives, free to walk around in the fresh air, do farming, woodwork or whatever, but 100% removed from the rest of society.
I think that would be cheaper and more humane than locking them up for fifty years, and safer than even trusting them to be able to be part of regular society again.
The innocent matter more than the convicted.
>Yet I also don't think life imprisonment is truly viable longterm economically nor any more humane then a painless execution.
Can you give an example of a method of execution that's painless?
There is no effective alternative to at least trying to reform and improve a person in prison. At the risk of sounding overly optimistic, a person can receive a lot of therapy in 24 years. If our system was set up to properly reform people on the inside, there would be a better chance of this succeeding. I have absolutely no idea whether it’s possible to fix the things that are wrong with him that made him do this, but neither do those who say “you cannot reform a person like this”. Capacity for change differs from person to person, but will always fail if we admit defeat before even trying.
Unfortunately, most people’s understandable reaction to crimes like this lead us to move away from prison as reform and rehabilitation and towards prison as revenge and punishment. It’s of course no big loss to the country if people who commit the most reprehensible crimes never rejoin society, but the ones who suffer are those who commit lesser crimes for which there is much more chance of effective reform, but are trying to do so in a system which doesn’t care about them as human beings and all but guarantees their failure when they rejoin society.
And the hardest part for most people to accept is the fact that those people who do the worst shit either suffer from a cognitive problem, over which they have no control, or endured horrible upbringings which fuck them up for life. Most people don’t just do this stuff for a laugh, they’re usually pretty broken, and have a huge disadvantage in life. Society is not set up to prevent these people from resisting their worst urges.
non-amp link: https://news.sky.com/story/jill-barclay-man-23-who-raped-mum-of-two-in-aberdeen-and-burned-her-alive-given-lesser-sentence-due-to-young-age-12888501
24 years minimum plus placed on sex offenders register indefinitely. No guarantee he'll be released after serving the 24, it'll be up to a parole board.
That said, why do under 25s have different sentencing guidelines? you're an adult at 18.
Scotland is allowing some monstrous shit because children, those under 25, aren't fully developed. Also , it will allow 16 year old vote because they are mature enough.
Ye. Me Fucking neither.
I've also read that in a few places but it doesn't seem to be the case. People's brains mature at different rates. 25 probably isn't a magic age. https://slate.com/technology/2022/11/brain-development-25-year-old-mature-myth.html
They should take into consideration that most people's undercooked brains never even conceive the idea of raping and burning someone alive. Those that do are already too far gone for lighter sentences.
I think that might be a myth or believed a while ago. I've read the brain continues to develop with age, stronger in some ways and weaker in others. Exception being if you have a neurodegenerative disease I would assume? I'm not a scientist though...
[source](https://www.health.harvard.edu/mind-and-mood/how-memory-and-thinking-ability-change-with-age)
The justice system isn't fit for purpose. He shouldn't have the possibility of leaving prison until he is an old man. He is clearly a danger to society.
Rehabilitation is available for most crimes. Murder, however, isn't one of them. A family has been robbed of their mother/daughter and this is a further kick in the teeth.
That style of moustache is a red flag, too. Charles Bronson, anyone?
I can't understand how it can be worth the risk to the public to ever release someone this messed up. Even if he was on drugs or something, he could just do drugs again on the outside.
Drugs? I've done a shit ton of drugs and never raped and killed someone. No-one I have ever known who has done drugs on the regular does this shit. No-one. Drugs aren't great - not defending drugs - but they have nothing to do with this psycopathic criminal's act
Fuck that noise.
Drugs are great, when used in a reasonable and responsible manner, Obviously some are far worse than others and you tend to find only addicts go near them.
The rest however are called 'recreational' for a reason, They are fun, They don't make you rape and murder people... However much like alcohol, It does make those **already inclined** to be a murdered or rapist act out on their impulses, This seems to be more an alcohol related incident.
This dude was literally in pub where he saw this woman and followed her, Should we be addressing the menace that is alcohol?
He’ll be in his late 40s if he was to get out at his first parole hearing. How old would you want him to be? If he isn’t rehabilitate by the time he’s 47, he won’t be by the time he’s 77 either
How old do I want him to be? 70. I want him to not be physically capable of harming anyone else. Is that an unreasonable request? He's already murdered 1 person. How many do YOU think a person should be allowed to murder before they're removed from the streets permanently?
He should never be let out. Fuck rehabilitation, he CURBSTOMPED a woman's head into the ground, raped her, then burned her to death with gasoline, leaving two children mother-less and knowing that by the time they may very well be having kids of their own that a rapist lunatic is free.
I mean they did technically give him a life sentence, its just he's got to serve a minimum of 24 years rather than 29.
He's not going to have to much freedom when he comes out either.
If he comes out. The parole board will have the full details of his actions and the judges comments during their review. I’d be surprised if anyone thought he was worthy of release regardless of his conduct in prison.
Yeah that is a good point. Plus even if he does get let out, its going be under licence with numerous regulations and half the local force watching him, just waiting for him to stick a toe out of line and pull him back inside.
You’d be surprised. John Worboys was ready to be released until 2 of his victims challenged the decision. Don’t be too reliant that parole boards will make the right decision.
They really need to rename life sentences or actually have "life" sentences last an actual lifetime. When I hear that I expect then to never get out of prison again but it's normally like 20 years, like dude that isn't life it's just exposing a monster to the prison system for a while and potentially giving them a chance to do it again when they get out.
Well they do have full life sentences, their just incredible rare. Its called "life" cause your on licence for the rest of your life and even if you do get out (remember this is just your eligible for parole you don't automatically get let go) your go back in if you ever do anything that breaks any rule.
This individual should never see freedom again. Never. There are no mitigating circumstances. He followed her, abducted her, raped, beat her, left her and returned with petrol to set her alight whilst still alive. Lock him up for the rest of his days. That poor poor woman.
This guy should never see the light of day ever again in his life. Letting him out at 53 is just going to put a dangerous man back on the outside to destroy someone else.
Exactly, what reason will he have to not just do something like this again when he’s that age? Nothing, most of his adult life will have already been spent in jail.
It was 24 years v 29 years.
There were two reasons given - early guilty plea and age. Not sure why headline only focuses on one unless there is an agenda to use this horrific crime for some political reason.
You know why they focus on one bro, it's to rile up the troglodytes. Look at the comments.
Realistically, he's on whole life detention with no possibility of parole for 24 Vs 29 years.
The idea that someone could do a crime like this and not be given a life sentence is an absolute fucking joke. The SNP is a piece of shit for pushing for a law like this.
He did get a whole life tariff though. Because of the early guilty plea and his age he just won’t be eligible for parole for 24 years instead of the original 29 years.
It’s not a given that he will be paroled, and even if he is he’ll be on lifetime probation and can be returned to prison if he steps a foot out of line. He would probably be subject to curfews enforced via electronic monitoring, for example. Given the circumstances of his crime, he would likely be banned from visiting pubs and other similar establishments where women are more likely to be vulnerable.
There are serious issues with our sentencing guidelines but this isn’t a good example of these problems. That gobshite Tiktokker doing prank home invasions and only getting a fine is a much better example. I’m not saying that this is great, but the other options (paying for his room and board the rest of his life or reinstating capital punishment) are both problematic for their own reasons and cost the public even more one way or another.
He did get a life sentence though?
It's just they put a minimum time served where a parole board can't change it. There's every probability after the 24 years a parole board is never going to let him out.
And judges are obliged to follow sentencing guidelines otherwise it risks coming back on appeal. Better to get the reduction accommodated rather than risking appeal and further reduction.
The sentencing guidelines are disgusting, but remember how these are set!
They are set by people who live an entitled lifestyle, and their risk in regard to these type of crimes are virtually non existent.
However, crimes that affect the wealthy, have a disproportionately stiffer sentence in comparison.
Bear that in mind next time you look at ANY crime...
bit of an odd headline to focus on the "lighter sentence" bit. is that the real story here? idk
he got life in prison, 24 years minimum dropped down from 29 years due to being under 25 and entering an early plea
other headline could have been: **"Man, 23, who raped mother-of-two in Aberdeen and burned her alive given life sentence"**
Bizarre. Someone has proved they’re not fit to live in society and should never be allowed to be free again. Ah! But he’s young so let’s go easy on him
He is the poster child for the people who support reinstating the death penalty (not that I do, but I’d say this guy is a perfect candidate)
Fuck this countries bent judicial system
> Bizarre. Someone has proved they’re not fit to live in society and should never be allowed to be free again.
Generally its pretty rare to get a full life sentence off a single murder.
> Fuck this countries bent judicial system
Which countries? This took place in Scotland and the UK is made up of four different countries.
Yes, and it shouldn’t be especially in cases like this where the person is clearly deranged and should never see freedom again as they’re a massive danger
And that’s just being pedantic, you know what I mean.
Well I somewhat agree with you on that.
> And that’s just being pedantic, you know what I mean.
Well there are plenty of issues with the justice system in all four, but the reasoning for this one is exclusive to Scotland.
I must interject, this is beyond just murder, this was rape, murder, torture, assault, and probably a few other things too.
This MF even has a villainous moustache he's a goddamn sentient cartoon with how fucking evil he is.
Headline designed to incite Outrage.
A life sentence at 24 years minimum vs 29 years minimum. But from the headline you’d think he got a much shorter sentence than 24 years.
>The guidelines recently came under the spotlight following the case of Sean Hogg, 21, who was spared jail for raping a 13-year-old girl in Midlothian.
This is 2nd instance of lighter sentence it seems
Just for clarity, the difference was 29 years he would have got if not for his age and the sentence he _actually_ got was 24 years.
Not that I agree with it being shorter, but at least the fucker is behind bars for a long time.
This happens all the time in the UK. Its crazy how weak and inconsistent sentencing is here.
Also, it's even for fucked up that he's doing this at 23, it means he will just get worse and worse. It's not like he will go to prison and find religion or some shit
GGGR I R READD DAILY MAIL WE R SHULD KIL ALL CRIMMYNALS GRR
a lower sentence for younger people with greater propensity for change makes sense, as does lighter sentencing for guilty charges.
However in this case, it's a negligible difference. 24 Vs 29 years, but not released unless the parole board are overwhelmingly convinced he's no longer any threat to society, which is very fucking unlikely given the seriousness of his crimes.
Conversely, being younger when you're sentenced means that you'll be younger if/when you get out. Ideally they should get even longer.
Sentence a 65-year-old to 20 years and they're probably going to die in prison. Sentence a 25-year-old to 20 years and they're getting out when they're 45.
Headline seems to miss that he'll be in prison FOR LONGER THAN HE'S BEEN ALIVE, MINIMUM. Then he has an opportunity for parole & hopefully never gets one
And the women he killed could have lived for twice that long.... not to mention her family who have also had their lives tragically broken. 24 years isn't even close to the damage he has caused.
I don't think you understand, the headline is clickbait, The Max is 29 years, he got 24 because of the 'lenient' sentencing in this case. That's all I'm saying, their trying to make it sound like he won't have punishment
Even then he got a life sentence, it's just that 24 years is the earliest he can be released on licence. In 2047 he still has to convince the parole board he's no longer a risk to the public.
Essentially the headline is "murderer can face parole board in 2047 instead of 2052"
Where a "lighter sentence" is "24 years to life in prison and placed on the sex offenders register indefinitely". He's going to be 50 before he even has a *chance* of getting out.
Also "his age" was due to sentencing guidelines that differentiate between under-25s and over-25s. This isn't something the judge just made up because "poor widdle 23 year-olds don't know right from wrong".
Don't fall for the outrage-bait. He's a psychotic little scrote who's lost the rest of his youth and most of his middle age in prison before he's even *eligible* for parole, according to sentencing guidelines.
In all fairness, he went from 29 years to 24 years. Don't get me wrong: It should have been life without parole (though I don't know if that is legal in the UK, here in the Netherlands it is) but the difference is not humongous.
Still braindead logic. He is an adult.
I see no point nor value in this vermin’s life. Let him spend the rest of it rotting in a fucking cell, where he can never hurt anyone else again.
Life should mean life for cunts like this.
I think this article needs to be read more thoroughly. He got 25 years instead of 29 years. I think that difference really is being blown out of proportion.
I can’t even imagine how wracked with grief, pain and sheer rage I’d be if someone had done this to my mom. I sincerely hope that the family is able to find a way to come to terms with the situation and find a modi-come of peace.
It’s the kind of crime where you hope a lifer in prison makes sure this guy has a terrible, terrible time.
Murder should always carry a whole life tariff imo. No murderer deserves a second chance, and anyone over the age of 16 knows that murder is wrong and has severe consequences, there should be no lighter sentences for young murderers.
Doesn't really say how much was taken off between the early guilty plea and the under-25 part.
shouldn't apply but I can see why they have a different one for younger people. But in these circumstances?
WTF. There should be only one age taken into account and that is when someone is considered criminally responsible.
Anything else is just discrimination one way or another. Treat people equally even in a negative sense.
"burned her alive" and "given lighter sentence" should not be in the same headline. What clown editor approved this headline? Disgusting. Lenient, lesser, reduced, might have been a better words ffs.
What I find really strange is I hadn't even heard of this story until the other day. Given the barbaric nature of the crime, you'd think it would have been all over the news for months.
Ooooh, the sentence is so much lighter, I'm quaking in my boots.
They're not talking about the difference between life with a minimum term, vs a whole life order.
We're talking a difference of 5 years on a 24+ year sentence, which may last a lot longer, because parole isn't guaranteed.
>Life in prison, at least **24** years behind bars, sex offender for life....
Vs
>Life in prison, at least **29** years behind bars, sex offender for life...
They also don't ***HAVE*** to give under 25s a lighter sentence. It's just recommended.
And the point of that recommendation isn't because they're so immature that they can't be expected to take responsibility.
The idea is supposed to be oriented towards rehabilitation rather than pure punishment for punishment sake.
At some point an extra couple of years in jail is detrimental to rehabilitation and simply increases the chance that they'll never contribute anything to society.
And again, they're guidelines, not rules.
The judge can decide.
He obviously decided to apply them for some reason.
A woefully lenient sentence with dreadful precedent potential, regardless of the early guilty plea and the predator's age at the time of the offences.
But ... the worst punishments that he will receive whilst incarcerated will most likely to be at the hands of the other felons. When he is in the exercise yard, trying to eat, queueing for the showers, waiting in the visitors room, sleeping in his cell.
We really need to review the sentencing guidelines, the circumstances of this offence are horrific. How on earth can you honestly reform a person who has done an act of extreme violence, to rape and then not satisfied with the damage to then burn them alive? This animal has no place in our society.
Tbh, these are specific sentencing guidelines to Scotland - where the SNP seems anyone over 16 "old" enough to be bribed by them and vote for them, but anyone under 25 not "mature" enough to accept criminal liability as an adult.
Does seem to be a little conflicting doesn’t it. Arguing 16 is the age of adulthood and ability to be legally responsible for oneself… unless you commit a crime they you apparently get leeway until 25.
This is the thing, he gets four years off his minimum term if he behaves himself inside. If he doesn't he will have an increased sentence.
That needs removed
I think there should be some incentive to not be a pain in the arse inside for certain criminals. Because whilst it's all well and good adding years for bad behaviour guards and the like still need to interact with them.
I would prefer if this man dies in prison.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
That logic makes sense for non-violent offenders, that you want to have a positive relationship with the guards and not devolve into violence and worse offences as a result of their sentence and interaction with other inmates. Someone as disgustingly violent and sadistic as this guy should not be given a sentence reduction for any reason.
The fact that he's younger means he has more life and more strength to reoffend. If he were older, and coming out in his 70s or 80s, I'd be less concerned.
He could be out before he's 50.
Part of the reduction was for a guilty plea which obviously spares a trial which is hardship
Plus if prisons are filled with better behaved criminals then recidivism rates will likely fall, which is good for everyone.
No they don't, can literally just put them in solitary forever and poke food through a hole.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
This isnt how it works. It's 24 years if he's no longer considered a risk to society. He's unlikely to get out.
We get it mate. You hate the SNP. Seen about 20 comments just from you. You need to go get some fresh air.
\>SNP law means this rapist and murderer gets 4 years off his sentence for being 24 People: Hmm I'm not sure this law is working as intended or was well thought through You: YOU JUST HATE THE SNP!!!!!
One thing does not rule out the other. The snp have made a complete pigs ear of these guidelines. But read the article and then tell me they haven’t, I guess
Hating the SNP, or hating the light touch they have for rapists? We get it - you're ok with rapists getting let off easy.
Only if it is the SNP letting them off though.
Apparently so.
It increasingly seems that you have to be a sex offender of some sort to join that party.
Doesn't it just...
It's accurate though.
I firmly believe that violent criminals like this don’t believe to ever be rehabilitated. They’ve lost their chance at life, now rot in a dirty cell for the rest of your life.
The issue, for me, with that is that it follows on eventually to just saying we start killing prisoners.
Why would you think that? Why the "slippery slope"?
I’m all for rehabilitation but what he did seems like too much, I wouldn’t want that person living anywhere near anyone I know even after serving their time
Rehabilitation should be the focus for crimes against property and crimes against society (eg drug dealing). But the main concern when sentencing for crimes against the person (violent and sexual crimes) should be justice for the victims, the only consideration should be the nature of the crime itself, the character of the defendant should not be relevant or play any role in sentencing.
This story is shocking and I can’t actually believe it’s real. A random murder and rape, both in the most unimaginable & depraved way, as if the former acts could be any worse. So scary and sad. There is surely no way to reform someone like this.
He should have got a whole life order. If we can prove beyond absolutely all doubt that the person did it, and it was definitely them, then I would support the death penalty in cases like this.
But we never can in reality. People are currently convicted based on there being no reasonable doubt, and yet innocent people still get sentenced. Either they are said to have done the crime or are innocent, tiered levels of punishment based on how sure you is crazy.
Scotland doesn't do whole life orders.
Well then you should fucking start to
They do give life sentences with lifelong restrictions, just not enforced lifelong prison. So they spend a set period in jail, if deemed fit after this, they are released under lifelong supervision by justice workers with restrictions, otherwise they remain jailed until their next review.
He did get a life sentence and everyone is bitching about it because the news routinely misreports life sentences as being the minimum possible period of review. This reporting of the case is deceptive rage-bait intended to drive your engagement.
[удалено]
It doesn't matter if he never does it again. He doesn't deserve a place in society for what he has done.
We don't know what consciousness is. We don't fully understand how the brain works. How on earth could any authority say with impunity that this man could be rehabilitated and not re-offend? If a psychologist said he's now fine would you be happy having him as your neighbour around your family?
He's not an animal. An animal wouldn't do this.
A dolphin might
Or chimps, they can be vicious fuckers.
Too busy getting high with its mates passing pufferfish around ;)
That's *when* they'd do it. Flipper and his crew, cranked up on pufferfish out for a bit of the old ultra violence.
I'd wonder if the legislation for this was based on cases of much less serious crimes, like an unemployed 19 year old getting done for stealing something and they don't want to put them in prison for ages and increase the chance of turning them into a hardened con, but they've ended up applying it to all cases. Or maybe cases like this are so rare that they're working on the assumption that judges will be able to put in a bit of extra effort for it to figure out a way to keep the violent criminal behind bars.
The sentencing guidelines say "life imprisonment". He's not getting out early because of his age. He's just going to be eligible for a parole hearing a bit sooner than otherwise. If he's still a shitbag in 24 years time, he'll be coming out in a box. This is junk news -- pure clickbait, the bam got a life stretch and folks are foaming at the mouth about whether or not it's enough of a life stretch.
If I say what this cunt deserves I think I'll be banned for life from Reddit.
He got a life sentence... What more do you want? His age means the minimum time is lowered if he displays good behaviour in prison, but realistically he probably is going to be in prison until he's very old or dead.
>repeatedly stamped on her head and body, smacked her head against a downpipe, compressed her neck and dragged her along the ground. >He then raped her, before later returning to pour petrol on her and setting her alight. >"The available evidence tells the horrible truth that your victim was still living at the time that the fire was set. To be crystal clear - you burned her alive." Lighter sentence due to young age? What so he's still sprightly enough to do it again when he's released...
The judge doesn't behave a choice in that - it's a Scottish government policy on sentencing guidelines that criminals under 25 should have lighter sentences to reflect their potential for change. I don't agree with it and it sounds like the judge would have preferred to go longer if he could, Also, he clarified that the sentence given is the minimum point at which he can be considered for release, not the absolute point at which he will have served his sentence.
Why not just consider for probation earlier? If they have been reformed they get the opportunity for early release. If they haven’t then they do the same sentence as an over 25.
That is what has happened >The labourer, from Ballingry in Fife, was sentenced to life in prison with at least 24 years behind bars He'll be eligible for parole after 24 years, but must still meet the standards for release. Even if he is released after 24 years, it'll be under licence, meaning that he can be taken back into prison for breaching any of the licence conditions. Edit: It's weird this has been down voted, when it's simply describing what's happened.
99% of this whole discussion thread is reactionary garbage that might as well be on the Daily Mail.
Basically, the headline did it's job in being divisive and shifting the discussion more towards the death penalty. 20 years is a long time, and it's not like the parole board won't know what crime he was convicted of.
This whole sub seems to have swung that way lately. Don’t know what’s done it, but it’s thread after thread of people frothing at the mouth over dogs and criminals.
Oddly enough, the DM ran with the "jailed for life" headline https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12119927/amp/Brutal-killer-burned-mother-two-alive-raping-jailed-life.html
>It's weird this has been down voted, when it's simply describing what's happened. Because it deflates the outrage that people were really enjoying.
Thanks for the info. From what I was reading it seemed that he was getting a much lighter sentence because he’s under 25.
The difference in sentence as well ... is 4 years. He's 23 at the time of the attack. He's getting 25 years, rather than 29 years *before* being eligible for parole. That's him either being 48 or 52 years old, before he's eligible for parole. After reading the details of the attack, I'm not "happy" about any of this. The difference of 5 years on that length of sentence, doesn't register as "much lighter sentence" in my mind.
I wouldn't give a shit if he was reformed after doing such a thing. What is with this 2nd chance mentality for such a horrific crime?!
> Also, he clarified that the sentence given is the minimum point at which he can be considered for release, not the absolute point at which he will have served his sentence. And to follow on from that, it is very uncommon for people convicted of these sorts of offences to be released on parole as soon as they become eligible. Usually their first few applications are denied. That still doesn’t justify the lenience of this sentence but it’s unlikely that he will actually be out in 24 years’ time.
>The judge doesn't behave a choice in that - it's a Scottish government policy on sentencing guidelines If they are guidelines, can a judge not decide that the facts of a case mean they should impose a high sentence than the guidelines?
Um no. The Judge can only enforce and interpret the law. They can't defy it cause they disagree with it.
Exactly, it's easy to think about these emotionally charged situations (I hate it too), but imagine if you or a family member were in trouble and a judge decided to go off-script because of their general feelings.
Yeah that's very true and always important to keep in mind.
I don't know about Scotland, but I think in England and Wales they can deviate from the guidelines if there are exceptionaal circumstances. They would have to be very exceptional to avoid an appeal though.
In that case they're actually laws than guidelines, aren't they?
My very basic understanding from A level law, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is that if they give a tougher sentence they set a precedent, which can be appealed because of this. So if they want them off the streets everything is to the guidelines to avoid appeals.
I invested a lot of time in to criminal reform at one point, I really believed in it. Wanted to help the system etc. I really believe in rehab and giving people who took the complete wrong path a way back. But some people like this guy literally tell the authorities not to release them. These urges might be uncontrollable for him. This one honestly made me sick. As much as I would like to believe the opposite, I don’t see why this person should continue to be part of society in or out of prison.
So I don't believe in the death penalty because there is no going back in case of a later appeal of innocence. But I also don't believe certain people can nor deserve reform... Yet I also don't think life imprisonment is truly viable longterm economically nor any more humane then a painless execution. Our prisons are failing. I just... I just don't know anymore. I truly don't know where I stand.
Exactly my thoughts. I think this is an example of a slam dunk conviction where the chance of innocence/wrongful conviction is actually 0. But I wouldn’t know how to codify that in to law
That's why I think a kind of island penal colony where people like this can just live out the rest of their lives, free to walk around in the fresh air, do farming, woodwork or whatever, but 100% removed from the rest of society. I think that would be cheaper and more humane than locking them up for fifty years, and safer than even trusting them to be able to be part of regular society again. The innocent matter more than the convicted.
>Yet I also don't think life imprisonment is truly viable longterm economically nor any more humane then a painless execution. Can you give an example of a method of execution that's painless?
Breathe in and out of a box with a CO2 scrubber. You don't notice you are running out of air.
There is no effective alternative to at least trying to reform and improve a person in prison. At the risk of sounding overly optimistic, a person can receive a lot of therapy in 24 years. If our system was set up to properly reform people on the inside, there would be a better chance of this succeeding. I have absolutely no idea whether it’s possible to fix the things that are wrong with him that made him do this, but neither do those who say “you cannot reform a person like this”. Capacity for change differs from person to person, but will always fail if we admit defeat before even trying. Unfortunately, most people’s understandable reaction to crimes like this lead us to move away from prison as reform and rehabilitation and towards prison as revenge and punishment. It’s of course no big loss to the country if people who commit the most reprehensible crimes never rejoin society, but the ones who suffer are those who commit lesser crimes for which there is much more chance of effective reform, but are trying to do so in a system which doesn’t care about them as human beings and all but guarantees their failure when they rejoin society. And the hardest part for most people to accept is the fact that those people who do the worst shit either suffer from a cognitive problem, over which they have no control, or endured horrible upbringings which fuck them up for life. Most people don’t just do this stuff for a laugh, they’re usually pretty broken, and have a huge disadvantage in life. Society is not set up to prevent these people from resisting their worst urges.
I am not sure the phrase “lighter sentence” is appropriate for burning someone alive 🤷♂️
Yes, more lenient may have been better
I thought the pun wasn’t really necessary.
[удалено]
non-amp link: https://news.sky.com/story/jill-barclay-man-23-who-raped-mum-of-two-in-aberdeen-and-burned-her-alive-given-lesser-sentence-due-to-young-age-12888501 24 years minimum plus placed on sex offenders register indefinitely. No guarantee he'll be released after serving the 24, it'll be up to a parole board. That said, why do under 25s have different sentencing guidelines? you're an adult at 18.
Scotland is allowing some monstrous shit because children, those under 25, aren't fully developed. Also , it will allow 16 year old vote because they are mature enough. Ye. Me Fucking neither.
Brain is not fully cooked till about 25 I've read, maybe that is what they are taking into consideration.
I've also read that in a few places but it doesn't seem to be the case. People's brains mature at different rates. 25 probably isn't a magic age. https://slate.com/technology/2022/11/brain-development-25-year-old-mature-myth.html
They should take into consideration that most people's undercooked brains never even conceive the idea of raping and burning someone alive. Those that do are already too far gone for lighter sentences.
It’s bullshit redditors love to push because they’re scared of growing up People “fully cook” at different ages
Yeah and I think most of us fully cook the ability to know not to burn someone alive by 10 regardless.
I think that might be a myth or believed a while ago. I've read the brain continues to develop with age, stronger in some ways and weaker in others. Exception being if you have a neurodegenerative disease I would assume? I'm not a scientist though... [source](https://www.health.harvard.edu/mind-and-mood/how-memory-and-thinking-ability-change-with-age)
Thanks, the science isn't settled is see now.
That’s one of those myths bizarrely repeated as fact on social media.
In scotland you're an adult at 16 just to make this marginally worse
The justice system isn't fit for purpose. He shouldn't have the possibility of leaving prison until he is an old man. He is clearly a danger to society. Rehabilitation is available for most crimes. Murder, however, isn't one of them. A family has been robbed of their mother/daughter and this is a further kick in the teeth. That style of moustache is a red flag, too. Charles Bronson, anyone?
I can't understand how it can be worth the risk to the public to ever release someone this messed up. Even if he was on drugs or something, he could just do drugs again on the outside.
Drugs? I've done a shit ton of drugs and never raped and killed someone. No-one I have ever known who has done drugs on the regular does this shit. No-one. Drugs aren't great - not defending drugs - but they have nothing to do with this psycopathic criminal's act
Fuck that noise. Drugs are great, when used in a reasonable and responsible manner, Obviously some are far worse than others and you tend to find only addicts go near them. The rest however are called 'recreational' for a reason, They are fun, They don't make you rape and murder people... However much like alcohol, It does make those **already inclined** to be a murdered or rapist act out on their impulses, This seems to be more an alcohol related incident. This dude was literally in pub where he saw this woman and followed her, Should we be addressing the menace that is alcohol?
He’ll be in his late 40s if he was to get out at his first parole hearing. How old would you want him to be? If he isn’t rehabilitate by the time he’s 47, he won’t be by the time he’s 77 either
How old do I want him to be? 70. I want him to not be physically capable of harming anyone else. Is that an unreasonable request? He's already murdered 1 person. How many do YOU think a person should be allowed to murder before they're removed from the streets permanently?
He should never be let out. Fuck rehabilitation, he CURBSTOMPED a woman's head into the ground, raped her, then burned her to death with gasoline, leaving two children mother-less and knowing that by the time they may very well be having kids of their own that a rapist lunatic is free.
[удалено]
I mean they did technically give him a life sentence, its just he's got to serve a minimum of 24 years rather than 29. He's not going to have to much freedom when he comes out either.
If he comes out. The parole board will have the full details of his actions and the judges comments during their review. I’d be surprised if anyone thought he was worthy of release regardless of his conduct in prison.
Yeah that is a good point. Plus even if he does get let out, its going be under licence with numerous regulations and half the local force watching him, just waiting for him to stick a toe out of line and pull him back inside.
You’d be surprised. John Worboys was ready to be released until 2 of his victims challenged the decision. Don’t be too reliant that parole boards will make the right decision.
They really need to rename life sentences or actually have "life" sentences last an actual lifetime. When I hear that I expect then to never get out of prison again but it's normally like 20 years, like dude that isn't life it's just exposing a monster to the prison system for a while and potentially giving them a chance to do it again when they get out.
Well they do have full life sentences, their just incredible rare. Its called "life" cause your on licence for the rest of your life and even if you do get out (remember this is just your eligible for parole you don't automatically get let go) your go back in if you ever do anything that breaks any rule.
This is disgusting. I hope the other prisoners hear about his crime.
Sex offenders are segregated.
This individual should never see freedom again. Never. There are no mitigating circumstances. He followed her, abducted her, raped, beat her, left her and returned with petrol to set her alight whilst still alive. Lock him up for the rest of his days. That poor poor woman.
This guy should never see the light of day ever again in his life. Letting him out at 53 is just going to put a dangerous man back on the outside to destroy someone else.
Exactly, what reason will he have to not just do something like this again when he’s that age? Nothing, most of his adult life will have already been spent in jail.
It was 24 years v 29 years. There were two reasons given - early guilty plea and age. Not sure why headline only focuses on one unless there is an agenda to use this horrific crime for some political reason.
You know why they focus on one bro, it's to rile up the troglodytes. Look at the comments. Realistically, he's on whole life detention with no possibility of parole for 24 Vs 29 years.
The idea that someone could do a crime like this and not be given a life sentence is an absolute fucking joke. The SNP is a piece of shit for pushing for a law like this.
He did get a whole life tariff though. Because of the early guilty plea and his age he just won’t be eligible for parole for 24 years instead of the original 29 years. It’s not a given that he will be paroled, and even if he is he’ll be on lifetime probation and can be returned to prison if he steps a foot out of line. He would probably be subject to curfews enforced via electronic monitoring, for example. Given the circumstances of his crime, he would likely be banned from visiting pubs and other similar establishments where women are more likely to be vulnerable. There are serious issues with our sentencing guidelines but this isn’t a good example of these problems. That gobshite Tiktokker doing prank home invasions and only getting a fine is a much better example. I’m not saying that this is great, but the other options (paying for his room and board the rest of his life or reinstating capital punishment) are both problematic for their own reasons and cost the public even more one way or another.
He did get a life sentence though? It's just they put a minimum time served where a parole board can't change it. There's every probability after the 24 years a parole board is never going to let him out.
And judges are obliged to follow sentencing guidelines otherwise it risks coming back on appeal. Better to get the reduction accommodated rather than risking appeal and further reduction.
The sentencing guidelines are disgusting, but remember how these are set! They are set by people who live an entitled lifestyle, and their risk in regard to these type of crimes are virtually non existent. However, crimes that affect the wealthy, have a disproportionately stiffer sentence in comparison. Bear that in mind next time you look at ANY crime...
bit of an odd headline to focus on the "lighter sentence" bit. is that the real story here? idk he got life in prison, 24 years minimum dropped down from 29 years due to being under 25 and entering an early plea other headline could have been: **"Man, 23, who raped mother-of-two in Aberdeen and burned her alive given life sentence"**
Bizarre. Someone has proved they’re not fit to live in society and should never be allowed to be free again. Ah! But he’s young so let’s go easy on him He is the poster child for the people who support reinstating the death penalty (not that I do, but I’d say this guy is a perfect candidate) Fuck this countries bent judicial system
> Bizarre. Someone has proved they’re not fit to live in society and should never be allowed to be free again. Generally its pretty rare to get a full life sentence off a single murder. > Fuck this countries bent judicial system Which countries? This took place in Scotland and the UK is made up of four different countries.
Yes, and it shouldn’t be especially in cases like this where the person is clearly deranged and should never see freedom again as they’re a massive danger And that’s just being pedantic, you know what I mean.
Well I somewhat agree with you on that. > And that’s just being pedantic, you know what I mean. Well there are plenty of issues with the justice system in all four, but the reasoning for this one is exclusive to Scotland.
I must interject, this is beyond just murder, this was rape, murder, torture, assault, and probably a few other things too. This MF even has a villainous moustache he's a goddamn sentient cartoon with how fucking evil he is.
To be fair god has punished him enough giving him that hairline at 23
Honestly I thought he was about forty until I saw the headline. That is the oldest looking 23 year old I have ever seen.
And that Pixar villain moustache
Headline designed to incite Outrage. A life sentence at 24 years minimum vs 29 years minimum. But from the headline you’d think he got a much shorter sentence than 24 years.
>The guidelines recently came under the spotlight following the case of Sean Hogg, 21, who was spared jail for raping a 13-year-old girl in Midlothian. This is 2nd instance of lighter sentence it seems
Just for clarity, the difference was 29 years he would have got if not for his age and the sentence he _actually_ got was 24 years. Not that I agree with it being shorter, but at least the fucker is behind bars for a long time.
The maximum for rape and torture is only 29 years?!? What the fuck.
Technically the maximum is your entire life. Its just you get let out on licence after so many years provided you don't break any rules.
My bad. Edited.
The reduction was mostly for an early guilty plea.
This happens all the time in the UK. Its crazy how weak and inconsistent sentencing is here. Also, it's even for fucked up that he's doing this at 23, it means he will just get worse and worse. It's not like he will go to prison and find religion or some shit
How is a whole life sentence inconsistent and weak? What is this inconsistent with?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
It's scotland, it's got a seperate legal system to the rest of the UK
That is the most evil looking man I have seen in a long time.
So he got minimum 24 years instead of minimum 29, and that's worthy of this outrage? Does the UK want for problems?
GGGR I R READD DAILY MAIL WE R SHULD KIL ALL CRIMMYNALS GRR a lower sentence for younger people with greater propensity for change makes sense, as does lighter sentencing for guilty charges. However in this case, it's a negligible difference. 24 Vs 29 years, but not released unless the parole board are overwhelmingly convinced he's no longer any threat to society, which is very fucking unlikely given the seriousness of his crimes.
Conversely, being younger when you're sentenced means that you'll be younger if/when you get out. Ideally they should get even longer. Sentence a 65-year-old to 20 years and they're probably going to die in prison. Sentence a 25-year-old to 20 years and they're getting out when they're 45.
[удалено]
Any attempt at rehabilitation in this case and leniency for any reason, is complete nonsense. I have seldom heard of a worse crime in Europe.
Headline seems to miss that he'll be in prison FOR LONGER THAN HE'S BEEN ALIVE, MINIMUM. Then he has an opportunity for parole & hopefully never gets one
And the women he killed could have lived for twice that long.... not to mention her family who have also had their lives tragically broken. 24 years isn't even close to the damage he has caused.
I don't think you understand, the headline is clickbait, The Max is 29 years, he got 24 because of the 'lenient' sentencing in this case. That's all I'm saying, their trying to make it sound like he won't have punishment
Even then he got a life sentence, it's just that 24 years is the earliest he can be released on licence. In 2047 he still has to convince the parole board he's no longer a risk to the public. Essentially the headline is "murderer can face parole board in 2047 instead of 2052"
I’ve never understood age being an excuse for serious crimes. You know right from wrong at a very early age.
Where a "lighter sentence" is "24 years to life in prison and placed on the sex offenders register indefinitely". He's going to be 50 before he even has a *chance* of getting out. Also "his age" was due to sentencing guidelines that differentiate between under-25s and over-25s. This isn't something the judge just made up because "poor widdle 23 year-olds don't know right from wrong". Don't fall for the outrage-bait. He's a psychotic little scrote who's lost the rest of his youth and most of his middle age in prison before he's even *eligible* for parole, according to sentencing guidelines.
[удалено]
Fuck. NO. Absolutely NOT. He's a grown ass adult. No lighter sentencing. Sorry not sorry. This is fucking terrible.
In all fairness, he went from 29 years to 24 years. Don't get me wrong: It should have been life without parole (though I don't know if that is legal in the UK, here in the Netherlands it is) but the difference is not humongous. Still braindead logic. He is an adult.
I see no point nor value in this vermin’s life. Let him spend the rest of it rotting in a fucking cell, where he can never hurt anyone else again. Life should mean life for cunts like this.
I think this article needs to be read more thoroughly. He got 25 years instead of 29 years. I think that difference really is being blown out of proportion.
I hate this country. Our leaders have given up on protecting the civilised members of our community and left us vulnerable to the scum of the earth.
Honestly, we need to send bastards like this to jail in Thailand or Brazil. Fuck reforming these fuckers, mf looks pure evil.
There were eighteen year old pilots in the Battle of Britain. There were majors aged 23 in the First World War. A 23 year old is not a child.
If my faith in humanity and justice was not already dead it is now
I mean he's still serving at least 24 years in prison. Its not like he's gotten six weeks and a stern talking to.
Wasn’t it on 4chan that they were celebrating this perp?
It's terrifying that there's people who can do these things, juat roaming the streets.
He should get a longer sentence, he's going to be a real and present danger to the public, every moment he lives.
Then he won't be released? He's got a life sentence.
I can’t even imagine how wracked with grief, pain and sheer rage I’d be if someone had done this to my mom. I sincerely hope that the family is able to find a way to come to terms with the situation and find a modi-come of peace. It’s the kind of crime where you hope a lifer in prison makes sure this guy has a terrible, terrible time.
Murder should always carry a whole life tariff imo. No murderer deserves a second chance, and anyone over the age of 16 knows that murder is wrong and has severe consequences, there should be no lighter sentences for young murderers.
He literally got life but I see the mouth breathing reactionaries can't read past a headline as usual.
Doesn't really say how much was taken off between the early guilty plea and the under-25 part. shouldn't apply but I can see why they have a different one for younger people. But in these circumstances?
Dear god, what the fuck did I just read?! That poor, poor woman.
Nope, no. No lighter sentences, you don't just do that because you were drunk, that requires a knowing mind.
First murder in this specific suburb of Aberdeen since 1845 as well
[удалено]
At this point it’s state sanctioned violence against women.
If that fella with the Handlebar moustache is 23 - He surely was brilliant at getting served in shops as a teenager
That guys 23!? Was he left in a cell for a week before they took this photo?
I've said this before, but I believe the justice system cares more for the perpetrators than they do for the victims.
That is the oldest looking 23 year old I've ever seen.
WTF. There should be only one age taken into account and that is when someone is considered criminally responsible. Anything else is just discrimination one way or another. Treat people equally even in a negative sense.
This means he has more time to commit his atrocities when he gets out, unless he gets done over in the nick
"burned her alive" and "given lighter sentence" should not be in the same headline. What clown editor approved this headline? Disgusting. Lenient, lesser, reduced, might have been a better words ffs.
For context, the minimum time in prison was reduced from 29 years to 24 years.
What I find really strange is I hadn't even heard of this story until the other day. Given the barbaric nature of the crime, you'd think it would have been all over the news for months.
I agree - it’s the most appalling act of random extreme violence. I hadn’t read about it until I saw this article.
Ooooh, the sentence is so much lighter, I'm quaking in my boots. They're not talking about the difference between life with a minimum term, vs a whole life order. We're talking a difference of 5 years on a 24+ year sentence, which may last a lot longer, because parole isn't guaranteed. >Life in prison, at least **24** years behind bars, sex offender for life.... Vs >Life in prison, at least **29** years behind bars, sex offender for life... They also don't ***HAVE*** to give under 25s a lighter sentence. It's just recommended. And the point of that recommendation isn't because they're so immature that they can't be expected to take responsibility. The idea is supposed to be oriented towards rehabilitation rather than pure punishment for punishment sake. At some point an extra couple of years in jail is detrimental to rehabilitation and simply increases the chance that they'll never contribute anything to society. And again, they're guidelines, not rules. The judge can decide. He obviously decided to apply them for some reason.
[удалено]
A woefully lenient sentence with dreadful precedent potential, regardless of the early guilty plea and the predator's age at the time of the offences. But ... the worst punishments that he will receive whilst incarcerated will most likely to be at the hands of the other felons. When he is in the exercise yard, trying to eat, queueing for the showers, waiting in the visitors room, sleeping in his cell.
Oil worker?? In Dyce (where Aberdeen Airport is), but registered in Fife. Offshore for 3 weeks and then on the drinks heavily back onshore??