…on mad judges
, I think:
A rapist has had his sentence cut after he told judges he could no longer have sex, it was revealed today.
Kevin Stephen had his minimum tariff slashed in the Court of Appeal after insisting a groin injury he suffered in 2007 made it too painful for him to become aroused.
Do you think the use of the words ‘cut’ and ‘slashed’ in that article betrays the writer’s opinion on what he should
In a move that stunned campaigners, Stephen's term was reduced from six years to five.
This was despite his lawyers using the same argument about the injury, sustained in a road accident, at his original sentencing earlier this year.
Mr Justice Wyn Williams said: 'He has done good work with children, helped the police and is older and more mature.'
Aren’t those things all factors for parole, rather than something that should have any bearing on his original sentence?
Time to bring back the gelding shears.
Thanks a lot for sharing this.
Post a Comment