Craig Sweeney
So the minimum possible time inside is five years. Given that he's a repeat offender anyway, one might reasonable imagine that whoever is in charge of determining whether he poses a "significant risk" will take a rather skeptical view. The judge seems to be of similar view. Nevertheless, I have some sympathy with the view that five years is kind of short for kidnap and rape, even in the face of positively angelic behaviour for the duration. So how was that number reached?
The arithmetic seems a bit off there. However assuming that the reporting is basically right, and the journalist involved merely too innumerate to notice the discrepancy, isn't the government ultimately attacking its own sentencing policy here?
no subject
I think that if you trust the parole system to work, then it would not be unreasonable to allow prisoners to apply for parole at any time; in which case setting a time before which they can't is merely reducing inefficiency in the system ...
So, anyone want to bet on the chances that the offender was themselves a victim of sexual assault as a child?
no subject
no subject