General Chat

Public opinion is often more fearful than the law.

Sadly, there can never be true justice for the poor little chap.

Hi Elaine....In the first trial in 2008 the mother and boyfriend were charged with murder, to which they pleaded not guilty.

In the second trial all three were charged with causing or allowing the death of Peter. His mother pleaded guilty. The boyfriend was also charged and found guilty of the anal rape of a 2 year old girl.

As far as I am concerned I would have locked up all three and thrown away the key.

In a case like this their human rights don't bother me in the slightest.

I have just had a wee quick look at a few of the earlier posts on this thread.

It beggars belief, that 3 and 5 years sentences seem adequate, for the crimes that have been commited, against Baby Peter.

Dare I suggest, as a mother and grandmother, these parasites, should be put in a room, with similar souls to myself. Any mother and grandmother, would gladly agree, I am sure.

Gail x

I think this is very interesting and quite enlightening -

"The people responsible for the death of Baby Peter have been jailed. However, as BBC News reports, these prison terms were put at risk by internet hate campaigns.

Vigilante-style websites which are determined to name and shame the mother of Baby Peter and her boyfriend almost wrecked their second trial for the rape and neglect of a two-year-old child.

Their efforts to "out" the identities of the couple - who still cannot be named for legal reasons - could even have led to some of those responsible for Baby Peter's death receiving far lesser sentences than the ones they did.

It raises further questions on how justice can continue to operate in high-profile cases when judge's orders can be so easily broken by bloggers.

Reporting restrictions on the media after the Baby Peter trial prevented any information about his mother and boyfriend facing a second trial being made public.

Despite efforts by the mainstream media to challenge the orders, the press was placed in a position that to even mention the second trial could have resulted in a substantial fine or even imprisonment for contempt of court.

Identities of the defendants and the false names they had been given in court had leaked out on websites that specialised in demonising the Baby Peter three

The public could only be told that the couple's sentencing - and that of their lodger Jason Owen who was also found guilty of causing or allowing Peter's death but did not feature in the second trial - was being delayed for legal reasons.

Before the second trial even started, defence lawyers for the couple argued forcefully that any jury trying the mother and boyfriend would be prejudiced if they knew who was in the dock in front of them.

They said the defendants were perceived by the public in the same way as the Soham murderer and his girlfriend and that more than half a million people had already signed internet petitions demanding justice for Peter.

These internet campaigns made it impossible to hold a fair trial, they argued.

The judge, Stephen Kramer, disagreed and ordered a trial could go ahead provided the jury was not told the defendants were linked with Peter in any way.

And as a a failsafe measure, it was agreed the defendants should be given false names.

But despite these efforts and within days of the trial starting, the identities of the defendants and the false names they had been given in court had leaked out on websites that specialised in demonising the Baby Peter three.

Harsher sentence

Bloggers not only directed readers to where the trial was happening but gave details of what evidence was being heard.

The trial came to an abrupt halt and police were ordered to investigate the source of the information.

It was feared that the trial itself might have been compromised after barely starting.

Finally, it was decided it could continue, but only once the jury were given firm instructions not to do any research on the internet.

The plan worked.

After delivering its verdicts, the jury was told how the two defendants had been convicted or pleaded guilty to causing or allowing Peter's death. Not one reacted as if they knew.

As a result, the boyfriend of Peter's mother received a far greater sentence not only for causing the boy's death, which carried a 14-year maximum prison stretch, but also for the rape conviction which carried a potential life sentence.

Peter's mother was cleared of cruelty to the second child.

If the websites that were so determined to give away the second trial had led to its collapse, they would have been responsible for the earlier release of one of the very people they sought to vilify. "

Do they deserve the lifestyle they will have in prison - meals and accommodation provided, when there are homeless people and people in need. Years ago the sentences would have been much longer,

Why do many of these posts end on the topic of 'money' & 'cost'? It's a poor country that decides life & death matters merely on a financial basis.

Seconded - the cost of keeping a prisoner is extremely high - this money could be spent on better things
Liz

Im always amazed when people think that the Death penalty is some how a punishment in these sort of crimes,its a very easy way out and thats why I am so against it.

Dont worry these low lives will get all thats due to them and far more than any of us would want to know about,Im sure!

Well I hope this case doesnt slip from peoples minds when the *department* seem to be doing what they feel is the right thing to do at the time,!

I don't know the whole story about little Peter but it's the same story we hear over and over no matter where we live. I can't even begin to imagine what goes on in the minds of these people who hurt tiny defenceless children. My grandchildren live in a happy secure world knowing they are surrounded by people who love them so much. It hurts to know there are children out there who don't have this love in their lives. We are, unfortunately, a society who hurts our children.

Sue x

Today's paper states baby Peter's mother may be free in five years. Will she be banned from having more children?

If you are found guilty of cruelty to animals you can be banned from keeping them for life.

Where is the justice
Liz

Well I'm not certain that the inmates will get to them - noone has seen their pics or knows their names so to prisoners they will be just another con and will probably make up a different crime to explain their presence inside.
If they are identified then they will undoutably go into solitery - as did Ian Huntley

No, no, no, they should not be exterminated, etc.

And I am being serious. I look forward - and I mean this - to hearing what "justice" has been administered to these human specimens, by the inmates of their respective accommodation.

I have heard that prison guards have turned their heads at some such actions. I make no apologies for hoping the same goes for these "people".

Will be away from the computer for the rest of the evening. Take care, see you soon.
x

No doubt they will be kept in solitary confinement for their own safety - but no one seemed to care about the safety of baby Peter.

Hang them

Liz

I oppose the death penalty but in this case I would happily pull the lever myself

If a sentence is 5yrs, that is how long someone should be locked away! This early release thing should be abolished, or only available to non -abusive crimes

As for 12yrs + life = Minimum of 10yrs! How on earth do they work that one out.

I can say, that this time I am with the hang 'em and flog 'em brigade.......and 10 years minimum for raping a baby and having the hand in the killing of a child.......far too lenient....

sally

Well Im glad that theyve all been jailed,,,,,,,,hopefully the law will carry out the --------Indefinate Sentance--on her and the other one.....he will be held till when ever they feel hes no longer a danger........and she will not be able to go before a parol board for 5 years,but that is no indication she will be released after 5 years.and could be denided release when 5 years is up......

If she had got 5 years she would only have served 2/3rds,,,,,,and been released just after 2 years.

Justice will never be done for the failing of that child..


.how can it ?

You know what is really sad (apart from the original awful escapade of course, which was horrendous)?

In a couple of month's time, we shall hear of yet more awful abominations like this inflicted on children, with similar milk-sopp sentences being dished out to hopeless inadequate individuals who are no earthly use to anyone or anybody.