casdave, is it likely that Michael Mullen will be locked away for the rest of his life, considering he murdered a child in a particularily horrific way? Can the judge do as the Australian judge did, and see to it that no one is inclined to grant him parole? I hope so!
Yes I agree, your experience in the system is extremely valuable. Thank you for your insight.
I’m not casdave obviously, but I think a judge here can either set a tariff (eg no parole consideration for thirty years) or can recommend that the convicted person never be considered for parole. Anecdotally it appears to me that sentencing has got a lot tougher recently, but you’ll need someone with more of a clue to confirm that.
Don’t worry, Dave, there is a very tiny and shrinking subset of people remaining who appreciate actual first-hand experience and education, like you provide, over those who post like a running toilet. Or like a stopped-up toilet, which could be worse.
That’s because you don’t post like The Last Word on the subject; you’re too low-key. 
The uncle has been remanded in custody to appear later this month.
I have not read anything about funeral arrangements or the drive for flowers and
I think it is normal for grief counselling to be offered, whether it is accepted is up to the individual/s concerned
Ok, but isn’t there some weird feminist group that claims that something like 90% of women have been "raped’ where they define rape to include such things as sexual harrassment? And I think that factoid got cited around for a while too.
Lissa thank you for your unique perspective on issues like this.
The trial judge in this case could put Mullen away for the rest of his life, or set conditions that effectively mean the same thing.
He could recieve a whole life tariff, or set a minimum term before being eligable to apply for parole.
It’s the application for parole that is the key, the judge probably will not set the specific terms as this will be the task of the sentence planners, who examine each prisoner, and determine what their needs are if they are reasonably to be expected to reduce their risk of reoffending to an acceptable level.
These needs for some prisoners could amount to taking part in education and training, or in this case its almost certain to become part of the Sex Offender Treatment program - places on these course are limited since there is a high turnover of staff, the work is so demanding that the normal practice is for staff to work in SOTP for a limited time.
Since all programs are voluntary, though we do some heavy leaning, its highly possible that when a place becomes available, Mullins would turn it down, prisoners are short term thinkers and it isn’t unsual for them not to realise that come parole time some years down the line, they are stuck, and its only when the reality faces them that they want to go on these courses, however, we can’t just drop what we are doing and suddenly make a place available, so his parole bid fails, he waits another three or four years, and it goes arouns and around.
In reality, when his case is reviewed by parole boards, the reports from specialists may well decide that despite all his compliance with the system, Mullins still remains a high risk, and he still isn’t getting out.
The sentencing policy has changed fairly recently, sometime in 2005, where most offenders will serve exactly half the term set in court, but certain offenders come under the ‘indeterminate sentence’ rules.
It would be far better to call this conditional, or evaluated release, meet the conditions and you get out, fail and you don’t.
We do not know the background of this individual at all. We have, unfortunately, a number of far more dangerous and worse offenders in prison, this person is horrible enough, but sentencing has be be proportionate or there would not be any scale if every particularly unpleasant offender got the same prison term.
When this person is dealt with by the courts, then we will see things such as mental age, perhaps this person has recognised personality and mental disorders that have not been properly addressed despite plenty of warnings and requests for help, previous offending will be taken into account, in short, bad as this is, it is possible this person is not wholly responsible for his actions.
He could end up in a secure mental health unit for the rest of his life, we will have to wait for the trial.
Bumping this to get word out on this e-petition. It’s calling for all child killers to be given life sentences that mean life (People who sign should be British residents, ex-patriates or those serving in the British armed forces aboard).
Alternatively we could piss into the wind… it’ll have the same effect :rolleyes:
We have an elected government who publish a manifesto and are held to account over it… at the next elections, if a party offers life for all child-killers then we can vote for it if we wish.
Waste of bandwidth, to be honest. 
I removed the links; please do not use this forum to spur others to action, including petitions.
Ok, acknowledged. Really must not have been thinking, was only focused on the horror, and didn’t consider I might offend, much less break a rule. I am sorry, and I won’t do it again.