networkn:

 

I think your reasoning behind why people do it is inaccurate.

 

Most people want things to be fair. Without a law degree and exposure to the all the information, it's probably that people are going to conclude that someone who killed 3 people and tried to kill another in cold blood as a preplanned event, after notifying a newspaper, shouldn't be out after only 20 years (and therefore unfair). I'd even go so far as to suggest some WITH a law degree and all the information may draw the same conclusion.

 

Your assertion that those of us without the qualifications understanding shouldn't be entitled to a view or opinion, nor to question the validity of a decision, or be allowed to express said opinions, falls short of the values of the community.

 

Let's test out your hypothesis, shall we? And note that I truly give you a lot of credit for not descending to the level of a few uncivilised people who have called for the extra-judicial killing of this guy. But does the following sound like a concern for fairness/justice to you? Bear in mind that this country actually outlawed the death penalty.

Bullet between the eye balls would of saved the tax payer a shed load of money!

Reintroduce the death penalty, retroactively apply it to anyone with multiple separate convictions for murder, rape, or child sexual abuse. Nothing of value will be lost, and the lefties can't complain it's a miscarriage of justice because they've offended twice.

Your arguement is invalid, times change and there should be nothing wrong with saying we got his sentence wrong and reassessing it. If a case can go back to trial i.e. retrial as the Bain case has multiple times for example why can we not reassess someones sentence?

In a first world country, I think it's fair to assume that being a responsible adult includes being sufficiently clued about the country's law to know that:

 

1. we have banned the death penalty; and
2. that we have laws against double jeopardy and arbitrary punishments (imposing a sentence, making someone serve that sentence, and then deciding to execute them in cold blood would, I would like to think, be classed by a fair-minded and intelligent person as being arbitrary, even without knowing that international human rights law clearly establishes that this is so).

And I don't think it's too much a stretch to ask that people be able to work out the blatant wrongness of drawing a false equivalence between someone being found not guilty on appeal/re-trial versus the state arbitrarily re-sentencing a person without reference/regard to the fact that the state chose not to exercise a right of appeal. You can cover your ears as much as you'd like but either there's some profound unintelligence at work here or there are people who simply have decided that when it suits them, they can just apply another moral standard altogether. This is plain and simple  ugliness of heart and mind at work. No expertise is required to work this out.