Colin Pitchfork

[essex man]

Absolutely not. No bereaved parent is ever going to be able to make an unbiased decision.

Either Society believes in, and trusts in, our penal system to rehabilitate offenders, or we may as well just hang ‘em high and be done with it.

Absolutely that's the point

 

[Ashtree]

Think the parents of the victims should decide at this stage.
If they have been able to forgive then maybe consider him for parole.
If they would rather he dead then leave him in there

Oh dear….

 

[Danllan]

Public opinion changes with the wind, especially in these days of professional social media managers. It needs to be tempered against radical changes, as it will swing a different way next week with whatever new story comes along.

Do you believe it is possible for people to be rehabilitated, or not? If so, somebody has to judge whether that has been successful, and the public's perception from seeing emotive accounts of their crimes is never the way to do so. It's what the offender is like now that is important, not back then, unless you believe that rehabilitation is never successful?

No comment from you regarding the stats given and how happy you'd be with your family having a high risk of death...? Odd that, or perhaps not. Yet despite you're avoiding answering my questions, I've no concern in responding to yours.

My views are held after long consideration, personal experience and that of others who I respect and trust. I have no reason to believe this is not the case for the vast majority of other people, and everything and everyone I have come across backs this up.

Of course some people are easily swayed, stupid, unable to grasp the facts from empirical evidence, statistics of what-have-you, but they are a tiny minority. You seem to be conflating a crazed mob with whoever you disagree with.

Some people can never be rehabilitated; this is not a 'belief' of mine, it is certain knowledge. Some people can be rehabilitated very successfully; my own experience and that of those who practised before me and do so now with whom I am in contact, is that about half of violent offenders can be expected to remain the same, about a quarter to more or less stay clear of trouble and the remaining quarter to avoid it altogether. Murderers are different, and I refer you back to my earlier comments on those.

None of that changes the fact that your seemingly beloved and admired Probation Boards have a failure rate - with MURDERERS! - of up to one in ten! No, I have no faith in them as currently constituted, none at all. I would be far more reliant upon the opinions of prison staff than is currently the case. (Read a probation report and you'll find that is normally glossed over in a paragraph, two at most)

So, I think some people can never change, so it is an obvious corollary I therefore think that they should either be executed or never released, for the pubic's safety - and, possibly, theirs too.

Absolutely not. No bereaved parent is ever going to be able to make an unbiased decision.

Either Society believes in, and trusts in, our penal system to rehabilitate offenders, or we may as well just hang ‘em high and be done with it.

Oh dear….

See below...

Oh dear….
A very simple analysis of judgements handed down by the British or most other democratic countries justice system over the past say 50 years, would very very quickly lead you to the headstones of numerous (probably dozens) totally innocent people, who would have been executed if capital punishment was on the statue book.
I rest my case…..

Then you have no case; because you have not factored in both the number of people killed by recidivists and the fact that some evidence is incontrovertible, e.g. CCTV + witnesses + DNA and other extensive forensic evidence - comparing current evidential standards with those of, say the 90s and earlier is absurd.

I advocate a capital sentencing option, and just that; the default would and should be a whole life sentence.


(Writing 'Oh dear' was a wee bit amusing, once; now it just looks like the words of someone who wants to appear 'above' the others, and yet isn't bright enough to articulate a coherent argument, instead writing something like your bit above...

 

[neilo]

@Danllan , if you believe that some criminals can be rehabilitated and some cannot (with which I agree), then somebody has to make the call as to whether they are suitable for release. That should never be down to a politician, responding to Facebook campaigns to look good to the electorate.

If you naively believe that public opinion is not fickle and easily swayed, then why on earth are there so many spin doctors and social media managers prospering in Westminster?

As I posted previously, but conveniently forgotten as you try to put words in my mouth, I didn’t not suggest that the Parole Board was perfect, or could not be improved. It is however, their job to decide if a prisoner is suitable for release, or indeed not. They seem pretty adamant in this case, that he should be freed.
With respect, I would suggest they are in a better position to make that call than you or I.

 

[essex man]

I think if my daughter has been raped and murdered then I have a moral right to a determining view on whether their murderer is released, irrespective of whether they are deemed rehabilitated.

 

[neilo]

I think if my daughter has been raped and murdered then I have a moral right to a determining view on whether their murderer is released, irrespective of whether they are deemed rehabilitated.

Why so? Your view would be clouded by emotion, quite understandably, and you would find it nye on impossible to come to an impartial decision.

If it were left to the loved ones of victims then nobody would ever be released, regardless of whether they were still a danger to society, or not. If that were the case then we may as well just bring in capital punishment again and be done with it.

I do understand your point though, and I, like many I expect, would find it hard not to have circumvented the judicial process if I was in that position.

 

[essex man]

Why so? Your view would be clouded by emotion, quite understandably, and you would find it nye on impossible to come to an impartial decision.

If it were left to the loved ones of victims then nobody would ever be released, regardless of whether they were still a danger to society, or not. If that were the case then we may as well just bring in capital punishment again and be done with it.

I do understand your point though, and I, like many I expect, would find it hard not to have circumvented the judicial process if I was in that position.

It's not supposed to be an impartial decision.

 

[Danllan]

@Danllan , if you believe that some criminals can be rehabilitated and some cannot (with which I agree), then somebody has to make the call as to whether they are suitable for release. That should never be down to a politician, responding to Facebook campaigns to look good to the electorate.

If you naively believe that public opinion is not fickle and easily swayed, then why on earth are there so many spin doctors and social media managers prospering in Westminster?

As I posted previously, but conveniently forgotten as you try to put words in my mouth, I didn’t not suggest that the Parole Board was perfect, or could not be improved. It is however, their job to decide if a prisoner is suitable for release, or indeed not. They seem pretty adamant in this case, that he should be freed.
With respect, I would suggest they are in a better position to make that call than you or I.

No, they aren't, because I apply facts and in the whole of my experience with them (and others with more than me) they apply theory. Under my way no murderer could kill again, under theirs between 5% and 10% do kill again.... what do you say to the families of the victims, to the fathers of the girls f ^ cked and then sliced up or garroted? Because that is the reality you seem to think is worth having...

 

[essex man]

Why so? Your view would be clouded by emotion, quite understandably, and you would find it nye on impossible to come to an impartial decision.

If it were left to the loved ones of victims then nobody would ever be released, regardless of whether they were still a danger to society, or not. If that were the case then we may as well just bring in capital punishment again and be done with it.

I do understand your point though, and I, like many I expect, would find it hard not to have circumvented the judicial process if I was in that position.

Some loved ones of victims do find the capacity for forgiveness in these circumstances.
It would allow them to sanction release without feeling further victimised by the perpetrator.

 

[ollie989898]

Life imprisonment should mean life imprisonment, no release. I don't agree with death sentences, you cannot adequately punish someone who has committed hideous crimes by merely giving them a relatively painless lethal injection, so what is the point? No. Better to imprison them for life, let them work each day and repay some of their debt to society whilst being kept out of society and so making society a bit safer.

In the USA, where the death penalty is carried out, prisoners sit on death row for years whilst the lawyers fight it out, ultimately costing all concerned a fortune. I'm not convinced the US justice system is even an effective deterrent either: it remains one of the most violent societies on Earth. I see in Chicago alone over the Independence day weekend 18 people were shot dead. You're telling me the threat of death is deterring violent crime then?

 

[alex04w]

Life imprisonment should mean life imprisonment, no release. I don't agree with death sentences, you cannot adequately punish someone who has committed hideous crimes by merely giving them a relatively painless lethal injection, so what is the point? No. Better to imprison them for life, let them work each day and repay some of their debt to society whilst being kept out of society and so making society a bit safer.

In the USA, where the death penalty is carried out, prisoners sit on death row for years whilst the lawyers fight it out, ultimately costing all concerned a fortune. I'm not convinced the US justice system is even an effective deterrent either: it remains one of the most violent societies on Earth. I see in Chicago alone over the Independence day weekend 18 people were shot dead. You're telling me the threat of death is deterring violent crime then?

What a poor argument.

Chicago is in Illinois and the state of Illinois abolished the death penalty on 9th March 2011.

So what you are saying is that the absence of a death penalty does not work!! Maybe they should reintroduce the death penalty to deal with their rising number of murders (838 in 2012 and 1,343 in 2020).

 

[ollie989898]

What a poor argument.

Chicago is in Illinois and the state of Illinois abolished the death penalty on 9th March 2011.

So what you are saying is that the absence of a death penalty does not work!! Maybe they should reintroduce the death penalty to deal with their rising number of murders (838 in 2012 and 1,343 in 2020).

It was just an example. America has the death penalty yet they still have horrifying levels of violent crime. I can't see that it deters anyone.

 

[essex man]

In America prison is a business, they want repeat customers so make little effort at rehab.
Once you put someone to death, you can't make money out of them any more, hence deathrow has long term inmates

 

[The Agrarian]

What a poor argument.

Chicago is in Illinois and the state of Illinois abolished the death penalty on 9th March 2011.

So what you are saying is that the absence of a death penalty does not work!! Maybe they should reintroduce the death penalty to deal with their rising number of murders (838 in 2012 and 1,343 in 2020).

I'm afraid that's not a strong argument. St Louis, the city with the highest murder rate, applies the death penalty.

Violent crime rates come from a combination of societal issues, not the level of deterrent. Berlin, for example, has a homicide rate of about 2/100k vs 11/100k in St Louis.

@Danllan refers to some people who 'cannot be rehabilitated.' That may be the case, for example with the psychopath. I don't believe however in such a certain outcome - only in the probability of it being high. So even considering the death penalty on this basis only, rather than on a right to life, means that the possibility should not be removed from anyone in their natural lifetime. Whether they are ever certified as fit for release is a matter for the board, and they should act with much caution, paying due attention to the probability and risks of failure of rehabilitation, and reoffending upon release. They should indeed protect the public interest as a matter of priority.

It's only fair though to recognise that in any justice system in which rehabilitation is sought, that mistakes (hopefully a very low level) and unexpected outcomes can and will occur. If they level is too high though, questions need to be asked about the deliverance of that system, rather than whether we should just slit their throats and be done with them.

 

[mwj]

I live less than 150 miles from Chicago and there murder rate does not bother me in the least bit. The people involved in these crimes are not strangers. An outsider to the very local areas will never be involved. Random killings in this country are rare. Statistically if you are murdered you will be killed by someone you associate with at some level.

 

[caveman]

I hear now that Pitchfork will not even be put on the sex offenders register either?

 

[Danllan]

...
@Danllan refers to some people who 'cannot be rehabilitated.' That may be the case, for example with the psychopath. I don't believe however in such a certain outcome - only in the probability of it being high. So even considering the death penalty on this basis only, rather than on a right to life, means that the possibility should not be removed from anyone in their natural lifetime. Whether they are ever certified as fit for release is a matter for the board, and they should act with much caution, paying due attention to the probability and risks of failure of rehabilitation, and reoffending upon release. They should indeed protect the public interest as a matter of priority.

It's only fair though to recognise that in any justice system in which rehabilitation is sought, that mistakes (hopefully a very low level) and unexpected outcomes can and will occur. If they level is too high though, questions need to be asked about the deliverance of that system, rather than whether we should just slit their throats and be done with them.

It is the case and is obviously so because it happens... As for probabilities, yes and no; we know from data and retrospective analysis - that's hindsight to me and you - that for all those who do it, there is a 100% probability of killing again. You can water that figure down by adding in some that don't, but it won't bring back the murdered people or reduce the grief and pain of their families. Why dance around avoiding the conclusion that some can't be 'fixed'?

I asked @neilo, and he's afraid to answer, so I'll ask you in the hope and expectation of greater moral courage: would you let your children, wife etc. repeatedly and unnecessarily use a high bridge or plane that had a failure rate of between 5%-10%, if so why, if not why not?

I only ask that because it's all very well arguing, as you and he are, from the near statistical certainty that it won't be your family killed by these people on their release; but it is a very different thing if the chances of you not having them alive tomorrow is between 1 in 20 and 1 in 10. Wouldn't you agree?

@ollie989898 you argued for them to do hard labour rather than be executed; if one doesn't have a religious dogma about the sanctity of all life (which always seems conveniently flexible when on the spot) the cost of keeping them argues against it. Any value from the work they do would be far outweighed by the expense of their upkeep.

I hear now that Pitchfork will not even be put on the sex offenders register either?

Probably because it could compromise his safety; hopefully will be kept a close eye on...

 

[neilo]

Not ‘afraid’ @Danllan , just failing to rise to your petty game.

As I have repeatedly said, I would have put him to sleep, but that’s not the system we have. We have a penal system that is built on the right to life and on rehabilitation into society.

I am struggling to see how you can have so little faith in a legal system where you have spent so much time as one of the slimy parasites that extract ludicrous amounts of money out of society. Or maybe that is the reason why?

 

[Danllan]

Not ‘afraid’ @Danllan , just failing to rise to your petty game.

As I have repeatedly said, I would have put him to sleep, but that’s not the system we have. We have a penal system that is built on the right to life and on rehabilitation into society.

I am struggling to see how you can have so little faith in a legal system where you have spent so much time as one of the slimy parasites that extract ludicrous amounts of money out of society. Or maybe that is the reason why?

Ensuring people are not murdered is not a petty game; your ignorance of both the Criminal Justice System and the remuneration given to the Criminal Bar is not surprising, but rather disappointing when you choose comment on both.

So now, and since you appear to be aspiring to moral courage, tell us why you wouldn't have advocates defending people accused of crimes and why you wouldn't have others prosecuting them. While you're at it, and knowing your stuff of course, give us a quick run-down on what the Criminal Bar get on a per case basis, broken down into appearances, advices, interviews etc., won't you?

Of course you know this already, I write for the benefit of others who may not, but the vast majority of Criminal Barristers won't make enough to pay income tax when they start out, and I'd be surprised if more than one in ten is netting >£30k within five years of starting, and most will never get >£50k p.a., which is a lot less than many farmers and others I know. And all for ensuring the guilty are convicted and the innocent acquitted, barstewards.

So, which 'slimy parasites' are you referring to? Commercial lawyers can be paid huge amounts, but that is not from the public purse. Please let us know who these people are that we may revile them too.

 

[caveman]

Given that it's well accepted that (for simplification) nobody can take the straight out of the straight, the homosexual out of the homosexual nor the lesbian out of the lesbian...
How on earth can anybody think they can reform the kiddie fiddler?