Serve the time or life?

[CusworthRovers]

As we are in the season of thought provoking threads:

Sutty will be interned indefinitely.

Is this fair? How about the other murderers who serve a lot less or serve their life sentence and then get released. Is it the fault of the media for over-hyping these killers and causing public fear. Should all murderers serve life, meaning life?

[Filo]

CusworthRovers wrote:

As we are in the season of thought provoking threads:

Sutty will be interned indefinitely.

Is this fair? How about the other murderers who serve a lot less or serve their life sentence and then get released. Is it the fault of the media for over-hyping these killers and causing public fear. Should all murderers serve life, meaning life?

Life should mean life!

[CusworthRovers]

Is that for all murders or just those that have been sentenced to life?

I do agree by the way

[Filo]

CusworthRovers wrote:

Is that for all murders or just those that have been sentenced to life?

I do agree by the way

My opinion is they should serve the length of sentence in full that they have been given.


Also anyone convicted of Murder by terrorism should be executed!

[Ian H]

So, if we get to \"Life should mean Life\" do we then go to the stage of suggesting that Mr Sutcliffe shouldn't have his creature comforts?

I'm aware that the loss of liberty is a huge punishment but if a lifer is then allowed to earn privileges does that run to TV, MP3, fridge & conjugal visits?

Looking at this from another angle, who would wish to be on the committee that put Peter back into society?

Or how about \"He killed at least 13 women & tried to kill at least 8 more, he should be put to death because he is costing this country a fortune to keep.\"

I'm happy that this bloke will (as per a recent ruling) never walk our streets again, but I'm a touch disappointed that in times where we are being asked to tighten our belts people like Sutcliffe don't appear to be doing their bit, particularly as there will probably be some further legal aid type appeal regarding his lack of \"minimum term\".

[Filo]

Ian H wrote:

So, if we get to \"Life should mean Life\" do we then go to the stage of suggesting that Mr Sutcliffe shouldn't have his creature comforts?

I'm aware that the loss of liberty is a huge punishment but if a lifer is then allowed to earn privileges does that run to TV, MP3, fridge & conjugal visits?]/b]

Looking at this from another angle, who would wish to be on the committee that put Peter back into society?

Or how about \"He killed at least 13 women & tried to kill at least 8 more, he should be put to death because he is costing this country a fortune to keep.\"

I'm happy that this bloke will (as per a recent ruling) never walk our streets again, but I'm a touch disappointed that in times where we are being asked to tighten our belts people like Sutcliffe don't appear to be doing their bit, particularly as there will probably be some further legal aid type appeal regarding his lack of \"minimum term\".

They should have no comforts or privilages!

[paul5857]

agreed life should mean life not the poxy sentences they get for what they do, i know haveing been on the recieving end, after losing a brother to such a pathetic system.

how can you be sentenced to life but then be allwed paroll after 14 1/2 years, i for one say on my part after losing my brother life should mean life and if it is a clear cut case wht stop at that, the criminal system does not work or teach them a lesson, capital punishment, public ridicule will teach some!!

[Glyn_Wigley]

paul5857 wrote:

if it is a clear cut case wht stop at that, the criminal system does not work or teach them a lesson, capital punishment, public ridicule will teach some!!

The Guildford Four, The Birmingham Six, The Bridgewater Four, Stefan Kisko, Barry George, Stephen Downing, Sally Clark and Angela Cannings were all clear cut cases. They were all convicted, after all.

I presume you'd have been happy to string them up?

[MrFrost]

Glyn_Wigley wrote:

paul5857 wrote:

if it is a clear cut case wht stop at that, the criminal system does not work or teach them a lesson, capital punishment, public ridicule will teach some!!

The Guildford Four, The Birmingham Six, The Bridgewater Four, Stefan Kisko, Barry George, Stephen Downing, Sally Clark and Angela Cannings were all clear cut cases. They were all convicted, after all.

I presume you'd have been happy to string them up?

If you take someone's life, then in my opiniono life should mean life. And you shouldn't be given the luxury of television, internet access, games console's either.

Those connected to mass scale murder such as 7/7 should be executed as far as i'm concerned.

[Pintolager]

To answer the original question, it depends on the case whether a murderer should serve life for the crime they have committed. For people such as Sutcliffe, then they should be behind bars because his crimes really are heinous, but what about somebody who has murdered because of severe provocation such as domestic disputes - battered wife etc? For me there are different types of murderers, the cold blooded ones and those that murder because of being under duress. The victims families should also be considered when sentencing is being given - they deserve justice because in their own way, they are living a life sentence because of someone's actions and if the authorities lose sight of that, then surely people would lose what faith they have in the judicial system.

[Mike_F]

Pintolager wrote:

To answer the original question, it depends on the case whether a murderer should serve life for the crime they have committed. For people such as Sutcliffe, then they should be behind bars because his crimes really are heinous, but what about somebody who has murdered because of severe provocation such as domestic disputes - battered wife etc? For me there are different types of murderers, the cold blooded ones and those that murder because of being under duress. The victims families should also be considered when sentencing is being given - they deserve justice because in their own way, they are living a life sentence because of someone's actions and if the authorities lose sight of that, then surely people would lose what faith they have in the judicial system.

That's where the definitions of Murder an Manslaughter come into play - no two crimes are identical and the British judicial system, despite some failings is on the whole excellent at defining the different shades of grey in a case right down to the judge's summing up and sentencing.

In cases involving a finite sentence I firmly believe that tax money is well spent in education and programmes to discourage reoffending, particularly anti-gang initiatives in today's society. In the long run this should save the financial and emotional cost of further offences.

I would like to see harsher punishments for reoffending though. You can't keep giving carrots without the threat of the stick. I recently read about a pair of female lovers who battered a man to death after he made a pass at one of them. The main protagonist already had over EIGHTY criminal convictions. I don't care what these convictions were for; nobody should be at large in public if they are such a serial and habitual menace.

In cases such as Sutcliffe's where there is no chance of being released, any money spent on creature comforts or rehabilitation is wasted. A bare cell with the minimum of sustenance is more than adequate. I would stop short of capital punishment but I don't see why the taxpayers should have to foot the bills for keeping depraved killers in comfort.

[not on facebook]

eye for an eye, if you kill/murder somebody or bodys then
it should be the death sentence for your crimes end of.

now the justice system will have to be brought upto a higher and better level in order to give somebody the death penalty.

as pointed out bham six amongst others were later deemed not guilty.

if not death sentence then life should mean life.its all these stupid fcuk wits on the outside who start asking for life sentences to be reduced for whatever reasons.

you get pillocks doing studys saying that person X is no longer a threat to the public and should be let out....

my arse they should be let out,where is the justice in that

[BillyStubbsTears]

Filo wrote:

CusworthRovers wrote:

Is that for all murders or just those that have been sentenced to life?

I do agree by the way

My opinion is they should serve the length of sentence in full that they have been given.


Also anyone convicted of Murder by terrorism should be executed!

Define \"terrorism\".

Would you have executed Mandela? Or McGuinness? And presumably, you'd have executed the Para who murdered the folk in Londonderry on Bloody Sunday? What was that if it wasn't \"terrorism\"?

[BillyStubbsTears]

oslorovers wrote:

eye for an eye, if you kill/murder somebody or bodys then
it should be the death sentence for your crimes end of.

now the justice system will have to be brought upto a higher and better level in order to give somebody the death penalty.

as pointed out bham six amongst others were later deemed not guilty.

if not death sentence then life should mean life.its all these stupid fcuk wits on the outside who start asking for life sentences to be reduced for whatever reasons.

you get pillocks doing studys saying that person X is no longer a threat to the public and should be let out....

my arse they should be let out,where is the justice in that

Nice logic.

I guess the t**t doing 60mph in a 30 zone who hit my wife's kid brother on a pavement and left him brain damaged should have his own head stoved in to leave HIM mentally affected as well?

Or the bloke in a car that knocked my grandad down, breaking his leg? Presumably he should have his leg surgically broken as well?

What about someone who glasses somebody in a pub? Should we have an official \"Face Lacerator in Chief\" to legally punish them?

And we think Sharia Law is medieval? Some of the bloodlust folk from our culture are a lot closer to the Muslims' outlook than they would care to admit.

[BLIR]

The biggest issue I have with this is the strength of the conviction. Glyn has listed a number of convictions that were considered sound at the time but subsequently proved to be wrong. As long as we don't have 100% confidence in someone's guilt we can't really push for the death sentence.

Anyone who admits to a crime could later claim to be mentally disturbed either at the time or at a later date - do we execute people with mental deficiencies?

Of course there are those that are pure evil and probably deserve execution, but the argument would always be that to determine someone is evil without having mental issues is impossible.

Trying to catagorise serial killers is a tricky one. Clearly evil, but at the same time clearly nobody in their right mind would do what they have done - which makes them mentally deficient.

For me, if we could be confident that someone has committed a murder then I would restore the death penalty (ie for those caught with DNA and video evidence where there can be no mistake, such as a robbery gone wrong etc). The penal system needs a shake up, where sentences should be completed in full. If that means a re-assessment of the way sentences are passed then so be it.

Getting out early for good behaviour is bullshit, I would extend the sentences of those that don't behave rather than reduce sentences of those that do.

[MrFrost]

BillyStubbsTears wrote:

Filo wrote:

CusworthRovers wrote:

Is that for all murders or just those that have been sentenced to life?

I do agree by the way

My opinion is they should serve the length of sentence in full that they have been given.


Also anyone convicted of Murder by terrorism should be executed!

Define \"terrorism\".

Would you have executed Mandela? Or McGuinness? And presumably, you'd have executed the Para who murdered the folk in Londonderry on Bloody Sunday? What was that if it wasn't \"terrorism\"?

Why define it? It is what it is.

[Thinwhiteduke]

Filo wrote:

CusworthRovers wrote:

As we are in the season of thought provoking threads:

Sutty will be interned indefinitely.

Is this fair? How about the other murderers who serve a lot less or serve their life sentence and then get released. Is it the fault of the media for over-hyping these killers and causing public fear. Should all murderers serve life, meaning life?

Life should mean life!

Shame they dont apply that to Martin McGuinness / Gerry Adams etc etc

[not on facebook]

BST a bit extreme there fella but loons like yorkshire ripper,
terrorists would fall into the eye for a eye preference.

[kittyslass]

Life should mean life and without any of the extra privelidges. Ian Huntley is living the life of riley with a suite of rooms, all the latest games and games machines, and costing the texpayer a bindle. They should all have to share their cells like other criminals. They are happy to do the crime, so should beprepared to do the time. They know how overcrowded the prisons are and so if they are prepared to take the risk of doing the crime they should put up with whatever hardships their time in prison means. Victims don't have that option!

[Filo]

BillyStubbsTears wrote:

Filo wrote:

CusworthRovers wrote:

Is that for all murders or just those that have been sentenced to life?

I do agree by the way

My opinion is they should serve the length of sentence in full that they have been given.


Also anyone convicted of Murder by terrorism should be executed!

Define \"terrorism\".

Would you have executed Mandela? Or McGuinness? And presumably, you'd have executed the Para who murdered the folk in Londonderry on Bloody Sunday? What was that if it wasn't \"terrorism\"?

Mandela was never under the British judicial system, was Mcguinness ever convicted of Murder? and the Para was a member of the armed forces under a higher command in a civil disorder situation (this in no way condones the actions on bloody Sunday). My original statement meant anyone convicted of murder by terrorism should be executed

[MrFrost]

kittyslass wrote:

Life should mean life and without any of the extra privelidges. Ian Huntley is living the life of riley with a suite of rooms, all the latest games and games machines, and costing the texpayer a bindle. They should all have to share their cells like other criminals. They are happy to do the crime, so should beprepared to do the time. They know how overcrowded the prisons are and so if they are prepared to take the risk of doing the crime they should put up with whatever hardships their time in prison means. Victims don't have that option!

Now he is one cnut I would like to see tortured the extreme and then tossed to the dogs.

[paul5857]

if the cases are clear cut then yes, my opinion comes from losing my brother who was stabbed 35 times, the sentence given to the killer was life however parole ws possible after 14 years...but then i suppose that is the justice sysyem, so yes i do think that if a case is clear cut as this one was then yes i would gladly pull the lever myself !

[grayx]

CusworthRovers wrote:

As we are in the season of thought provoking threads:

Sutty will be interned indefinitely.

Is this fair? How about the other murderers who serve a lot less or serve their life sentence and then get released. Is it the fault of the media for over-hyping these killers and causing public fear. Should all murderers serve life, meaning life?

Multiple killers like this monster should be locked up for life, or preferably executed. End of. Other murderers have to be looked at individually, reasons,provocation etc.

[BillyStubbsTears]

MrFrost wrote:

BillyStubbsTears wrote:

Filo wrote:

CusworthRovers wrote:

Is that for all murders or just those that have been sentenced to life?

I do agree by the way

My opinion is they should serve the length of sentence in full that they have been given.


Also anyone convicted of Murder by terrorism should be executed!

Define \"terrorism\".

Would you have executed Mandela? Or McGuinness? And presumably, you'd have executed the Para who murdered the folk in Londonderry on Bloody Sunday? What was that if it wasn't \"terrorism\"?

Why define it? It is what it is.

Ahh, sorry again. This is another one of those things that other folk understand easily but I'm too thick to follow. Do enlighten me. Was Mandela an executable terrorist?

[Mike_F]

Regarding Mandela, despite agreeing with the reasons for his actions (i.e. standing up against an oppressive regime) and having a lot of respect for the way he conducted himself with humility upon his release and in the years since I do still class him as a terrorist.

Many innocent people died at his command which is unforgivable. I've already stated that I don't agree with capital punishment (an opinion which has changed over the last decade) but I have a real problem with the way Mandela is lauded as an angelic character.

If working with the likes of Mandela, McGuinness et al is the price we pay for many millions of people living safer lives then it is worth paying but these people have blood on their hands and we can never forget that.

[Glyn_Wigley]

paul5857 wrote:

if the cases are clear cut then yes, my opinion comes from losing my brother who was stabbed 35 times, the sentence given to the killer was life however parole ws possible after 14 years...but then i suppose that is the justice sysyem, so yes i do think that if a case is clear cut as this one was then yes i would gladly pull the lever myself !

All the cases I listed earlier in this thread were clear cut. They were convicted. Are you saying you'd have happily pulled the lever on them?

[Glyn_Wigley]

Filo wrote:

My original statement meant anyone convicted of murder by terrorism should be executed

So you'd have happily hung ten innocent people (Birmingham Six, Guildford Four) then?

Nice.

[Ian H]

if the cases are clear cut then yes, my opinion comes from losing my brother who was stabbed 35 times, the sentence given to the killer was life however parole ws possible after 14 years...but then i suppose that is the justice system, so yes i do think that if a case is clear cut as this one was then yes i would gladly pull the lever myself !

All the cases I listed earlier in this thread were clear cut. They were convicted. Are you saying you'd have happily pulled the lever on them?

My View: I could never find a reason to work with the criminal justice system enough to be responsible for one incorrect execution. I understand how people get dragged into \"Clear Cut\" but even if they were caught on camera signing on to the murder with a Passport and two different forms of identification (a utility bill is not suitable) I couldn't quite believe enough to push the plunger (or whatever).

I used to think that castration (chemical or physical) wouldn't be a bad option but I've mellowed a bit.

[The Red Baron]

I used to favour the return of capital punishment because of the powerful deterrent effect. I still believe that fewer people would carry weapons (knives in particular) if their use could land them on the gallows. However, the number of cases where there have been serious miscarriages of justice (Glyn has outlined a few) have made me reconsider.

However- for murder I do think that life should mean life. Whether there should be categories of murder, with perhaps one carrying a whole life tarrif and the other carrying one of, say, 20 years is perhaps a subject that needs further debate.

[MrFrost]

Glyn_Wigley wrote:

Filo wrote:

My original statement meant anyone convicted of murder by terrorism should be executed

So you'd have happily hung ten innocent people (Birmingham Six, Guildford Four) then?

Nice.

Look at the flip. Would you say someone like Ian Huntley doesn't deserve the death penalty?