Colin Pitchfork

[Danllan]

There is no questioning his guilt. I've no problem with this individual being executed, but even those who have surely couldn't argue with his being detained until death.

My own experience with people like him convinces me that they never can be reformed, and will always re-offend if released. I would like to see all who are 'professionally' advocating his release, resign if he does offend again. I'd also like to see them paraded on their knees in front of any future victim's family.

On the presumption that we have a general agreement that he should either be dead or in prison until dead, what are your opinions about his imminent release?

Colin Pitchfork: Double schoolgirl murderer's release confirmed - BBC News

 

[br jones]

Noose,in these times of social media, he will be found quickly,and someone will to the decent thing

 

[betweenthelines]

He has served the sentence handed down by a judge after a trial by jury

The law now says he can be released.

Anything else is trial by mob and not what anyone ones to see in a civilised Country

 

[neilo]

He has served the sentence handed down by a judge after a trial by jury

The law now says he can be released.

Anything else is trial by mob and not what anyone ones to see in a civilised Country

Either that, or the law needs changing to account for people that don’t believe in rehabilitation. The parole board is there to judge whether he is still a danger to society and I’m glad they’ve stood up to pressure from populist politicians.

Whether the parole board always get it right is a different argument, but I’ve more faith in those that actually know the facts, than I have in the members of Facebook.

 

[Danllan]

He has served the sentence handed down by a judge after a trial by jury

The law now says he can be released.

Anything else is trial by mob and not what anyone ones to see in a civilised Country

See below...

Either that, or the law needs changing to account for people that don’t believe in rehabilitation. The parole board is there to judge whether he is still a danger to society and I’m glad they’ve stood up to pressure from populist politicians.

Whether the parole board always get it right is a different argument, but I’ve more faith in those that actually know the facts, than I have in the members of Facebook.

The facts of this case are public knowledge. Of course there must be the rule of law, yet the law has to reflect public sentiment to maintain public confidence. The sentence of life has existed for centuries, some of the Bench has (mis)used it for the last few decades to allow their 'liberal' ideals a free rein over what Parliament intended from the 60s onwards.

I'm not on facebook and don't want to be either; my own experience of parole panels is that they have invariably a strong left / liberal bias, not reflecting the population as a whole. Surely, in these days of calls for there being 'representative' proportions in everything, such panels should represent the population as a whole and, where that is not the case, do their best to act as a panel so composed would, shouldn't they?

 

[neilo]

It's not the parole board's job to court public opinion or appease the baying masses, it is to decide if our penal system has done it's job in rehabilitating the convicted criminal. They clearly consider that this individual is no longer a danger to society.

I'm not arguing as to whether the parole board needs reforming or not, that is a separate issue afaic.

 

[Muck Spreader]

On average it looks like around 3 convicted murderers a year who complete their sentence, subsequently go on to murder again.

 

[ollie989898]

I'm not in favour of hanging people or any of the like. I do think life should mean life though.

 

[JCMaloney]

I bet he won`t be moving in next door to anyone on the parole board or the judges that supported their decision.

We`ve paid for his keep and will pay for his release and onward life outside after two premeditated rapes & murders.

The system has failed his victims, their family and society as a whole.

 

[JCMaloney]

As a footnote he was doing his "day release" around Bristol.....around 2017

 

[betweenthelines]

See below...


The facts of this case are public knowledge. Of course there must be the rule of law, yet the law has to reflect public sentiment to maintain public confidence. The sentence of life has existed for centuries, some of the Bench has (mis)used it for the last few decades to allow their 'liberal' ideals a free rein over what Parliament intended from the 60s onwards.

I'm not on facebook and don't want to be either; my own experience of parole panels is that they have invariably a strong left / liberal bias, not reflecting the population as a whole. Surely, in these days of calls for there being 'representative' proportions in everything, such panels should represent the population as a whole and, where that is not the case, do their best to act as a panel so composed would, shouldn't they?

A public panel has been involved in the Pitchfork case-the Jury at his trial.

The decision as to when a prisoner should be released from custody is best left to people who have a full understanding of the issues-and of the state of mind of the prisoner.

What you seem to be suggesting appears to be a sort of public panel to make such decisions. Which begs the question, "who chooses the panel?" Or would you like it to be chosen at random? A sort of Liberty Lottery?

 

[Danllan]

A public panel has been involved in the Pitchfork case-the Jury at his trial.

The decision as to when a prisoner should be released from custody is best left to people who have a full understanding of the issues-and of the state of mind of the prisoner.

What you seem to be suggesting appears to be a sort of public panel to make such decisions. Which begs the question, "who chooses the panel?" Or would you like it to be chosen at random? A sort of Liberty Lottery?

Remind me of how a jury influences sentence, will you please? The jury is the tribunal of fact, not law, and it has no say in sentencing.

From your comments it seems that you are happy for the law not to reflect public opinion, provided it does yours...

 

[TechWise]

As others have said, it's the judge who dishes out the sentence, not the parole board. The judge can only go by the sentencing guidelines which government could change if they wanted to. If the politicians genuinely wanted people like that locked up until death, they could easily legislate to make it so.
I think people would be very surprised if they read the sentencing guidelines. It's virtually impossible for a judge to impose the maximum sentence actually prescribed by Parliament.

 

[Pasty]

Interesting comparing our sentencing with such as the US which in a few states would be death or a plea deal for life (actual life) without parole. Ours seems very lenient. I was watching Homicide Hunter the other night and some bloke got 2 death sentences and 635 years in jail. I worked out that he needs to be re-incarnated at least 11 times to get freedom.

 

[Danllan]

On average it looks like around 3 convicted murderers a year who complete their sentence, subsequently go on to murder again.

No, it's more.

Of course I'm a decade or so out of date with direct word of mouth from the CPS, but the figure up to the mid-late 2000s varied between 5% and 10% of those released each year, and typically several hundred murderers are released each year. This leads us to a figure of at least 15 repeat killings committed by those with known form out of an annual ~750. I doubt things have changed much over the years, since human nature hasn't. But none of this is really to the point because most murders are not committed by people who'll be very likely to do it again.

We know from statistical data globally, and that and empirical evidence here, that certain types of murderers are orders of magnitude more likely to be recidivists than others. Sex killers, paedophilic killers, and - rather unsurprisingly- serial killers are the groups traditionally most prone to recidivism, religious extremists are a modern addition to the top of the list.

Having spent a fair bit of time with killers of all sorts, from the batsh!t crazy, to the calm psychopath, to the old bloke who saw his wife on a slow road to a miserable death and wanted to help her, to the bloke who got drunk and lost his temper next to a conveniently placed heavy object; I can tell you without any doubt that I'd have no problem with release of the latter two after they'd served their time. The others simply would not ever be safe for the public - including our wives, our kids - to have around them.

 

[Pasty]

No, it's more.

Of course I'm a decade or so out of date with direct word of mouth from the CPS, but the figure up to the mid-late 2000s varied between 5% and 10% of those released each year, and typically several hundred murderers are released each year. This leads us to a figure of at least 15 repeat killings committed by those with known form out of an annual ~750. I doubt things have changed much over the years, since human nature hasn't. But none of this is really to the point because most murders are not committed by people who'll be very likely to do it again.

We know from statistical data globally, and that and empirical evidence here, that certain types of murderers are orders of magnitude more likely to be recidivists than others. Sex killers, paedophilic killers, and - rather unsurprisingly- serial killers are the groups traditionally most prone to recidivism, religious extremists are a modern addition to the top of the list.

Having spent a fair bit of time with killers of all sorts, from the batsh!t crazy, to the calm psychopath, to the old bloke who saw his wife on a slow road to a miserable death and wanted to help her, to the bloke who got drunk and lost his temper next to a conveniently placed heavy object; I can tell you without any doubt that I'd have no problem with release of the latter two after they'd served their time. The others simply would not ever be safe for the public - including our wives, our kids - to have around them.

I would (without your experience) agree with that. I expect a lot of murders/ manslaughters are lost tempers due to things like infidelity/ jealousy and so on and probably those folk live to regret it and are capable of rehabilitation. The true nut jobs are the ones who need banging up forever.

 

[matthew]

I remember the Pitchfork trial. He had avoided a .DNA sweep of the area by paying / persuading another chap to present as him. Then boasted what he’d done, in the local pub, and was overheard by an off duty police officer.

The judge - again from memory, awarded this devious bugger a whole life sentence. But afaik, that doesn’t have the force of law behind it. It may do in the future.

Hadn’t the chap who stabbed the two rehabilitators in London, killing both, been recommended for early release?

 

[Pasty]

I remember the Pitchfork trial. He had avoided a .DNA sweep of the area by paying / persuading another chap to present as him. Then boasted what he’d done, in the local pub, and was overheard by an off duty police officer.

The judge - again from memory, awarded this devious bugger a whole life sentence. But afaik, that doesn’t have the force of law behind it. It may do in the future.

Hadn’t the chap who stabbed the two rehabilitators in London, killing both, been recommended for early release?

Life without parole should be on the list. As far as I am aware from my limited knowledge, the problem with judges handing out longer sentences is that they are then open to appeal.

 

[Mek]

I’m all for the death sentence. What is the point of keeping a well proven murderer locked up for life. The money spent on keeping them alive for no reason would be better spent looking after the elderly. My pension backup plan would be to murder someone deserving so I get looked after properly by the state.

 

[Muck Spreader]

Life without parole should be on the list. As far as I am aware from my limited knowledge, the problem with judges handing out longer sentences is that they are then open to appeal.

Friend in the Home Office once told be that parole is very important with certain lifers, as without it they can be very difficult to control.