General Chat

this is always an immotive subject and could be argued for ever more with no real conclusions.
Suffice to say and in my opinion the judicial system in this country is c**p
Just to finally say that if somebody breaks into your property with a gun, knife whatever for gods sake do,nt hurt them co.s you will end up in prison something called weapon toting burglers rights
igor

it was on the news today - apparently Ian Brady has agreed to help the police find Keith's body but doubt it will be found - they've taken him and Myra to the moors before and they failed

apparently Brady is as mad as a box of frogs and has been for some years - I worked at our local psychiatric hospital for thirty years and one of our Nursing Officers had to go to Broadmoor with one of our patients - he saw Brady whilst there and said he was absolutely barking

Hi Rose
Agreed a long time ago but still very high profile even now as Ian Brady has once again refused to co operate and tell the police where the third body is buried (or only for favours)
Jack Stalker has said they tried to do it virtually by running computer enhanced geograpphy of Saddleworth Moor.
What is the point he's going to die in jail (the longest hunger strike in memory) so why not give some people a chance to bury him properly
igorxx

Ref your last paragraph. by all means, not , Ann. You'll get no flak from me.

Going way back to my original post, I said then that there were some deviants who have to be kept away from us all, for our own protection.

The point I was trying to make (in the light of recent publicity) was - what is to be gained by denying Ronald Biggs his freedom, and his son a bit of time with his father?

Nobody to my knowledge has argued that he's about to threaten us in any way, so I can only conclude that there's a revenge thing going on here.

And, if that's the case, we're all belittled.


Sue x

in our local paper a week or so back a man in his seventies was convicted of sex crimes against children - happened many years ago but as with these sort of cases, took a long time for the victims to buck up the courage to speak about it - when one spoke out others came forward and the monster came to court - he is in his seventies and suffering from cancer, but he was given a prison sentence and told he would remain in gaol until he died - quie right too!!

agrees with rose

i will never forget that tape those monsters made
it makes me cringe thinking of it
nobody who has heard it could ever forget

certainly not forgotten by me Rose - I remember with horror that little girl Lesley Anne Downe pleading with Myra Hindley that she wanted her Mum - no way is that forgotten

By the way.I wasa Deputy Governor........not an inmate.........

Sorry I just want to pick up on one comment below, I just have to!

".........the Moors Murderer's crimes are distant and forgotten."...not by anyone I know!

of course you have to punish crime - you teach a child what is right and wrong and if they persist in doing the same naughty thing you persist doling out some kind of punishment or penalty until they realise that they must not do it - you have to show a child what is right and what is wrong to prepre them for life - if they have failed to learn that by the time they are an adult then that is where the law has to step in and issue the punishment. You would hope that whilst serving a prison sentence they would see the error of their ways and decide to take a different road in life on release

I would hope that the vast majority of us have been brought up to be fair and honest, although we quickly learn that life is not fair and people are not always honest, but we continue to be fair and honest ourselves in spite of everything. If someone wrongs me, burgles my house say or steals my car, I want them to have to pay for that crime in some way - why should they take what is mine and get away scot free.

I do not think prison is the place for crimes such as fraud say - punishment can be doled out without a custodial sentence but for physical crimes of violence and murder then prison is the place and the sentence should be served in full - the fact that someone has confessed to a heinous crime should not lessen their sentence, why should it.

People who abuse children, such as the case of Baby P, should never again be allowed to have children in their care and unless compulsory sterilisation is brought in for such creatures, any children they may have in the future should be immediately removed from them - they should also go on a register as sex offenders have to

I do like a good debate - shall get off my soapbox now and wait for the flak!!!!!

just a thought here before i go up,i do know Sue that you are pragmatic,
but if Ian Brady and Myra hindley had committed their horrendous and obviously (sex based crimes) by that i think they both got off on them)
Would todays obviously weak judicial system have given them life
while the us are prepared to exradite an aspergers victim to the states for hacking into national security systems to prove the existence of little green men ( he could get life)
Makes you wonder (if this don,t make sense its cos im tired
igor

Hi Ed

thanks for provoking a bit of thought.

Ref your second point "Furthermore, if punishing a criminal makes them think twice about committing another criminal act upon their release (because they don't ever want to go back inside), then surely the punishment has acted as a deterrent?" - how do you apply this theory to the case in point? Just how does Biggs think twice? Assuming of course that he's in a position to think at all?

Sue x

I come back to my original proposition - what's the point?

The reasons I placed punishment and deterrent together are as follows:

If an individual, as a potential criminal, sees by a well-publicised case that getting caught will result in a severe sentence, with no frills inside (the punishment), then they may think twice before committing the crime (therefore it becomes deterrent).

Furthermore, if punishing a criminal makes them think twice about committing another criminal act upon their release (because they don't ever want to go back inside), then surely the punishment has acted as a deterrent?

Evening all,

Ed has begun to nail the point of this whole debate, when he asks what the point of the penal system is:

"Is it to punish/deter crime, or is it to rehabilitate? In my mind, these two goals are mutually exclusive, and to try and do both weakens the other aim"

I'm not sure you can use the objective of punishing crime in the same breath as detering same. Detering crime implies that it will effect others; punishing crime implies that it will effect the perpetrator.

Do you want to deter crime? If fhat's the motive, then you'd be better employed in this case lobbying for extradition from Brazil

Do you want to rehabilitate criminals? Then more emphasis on self-awareness, learning etc would be a step in the right direction.

Do you want to punish crime? Which would achieve precisely what?

For the record, I'm not a "bleeding heart", I'm just pragmatic.

Sue x

Yeah, it seems to me that the only people who get a life sentence now are the families of the victims.

And it seems to me that the only people who qualify for "Yuman rights" are the criminals - not the victims, not their relatives.

In my opinion, if you commit a serious enough crime then you forfeit you "Yuman rights". You had no consideration for you victim's rights, so why should you be entitled to any?

There used to be, many centuries ago, the concept of "Outlawry". If you committed and were convicted of a crime serious enough, you were declared "Outside the Law". The state no longer offered you protection and you could be legally killed by anyone without recrimination.

I am old enough to remember the arguments and promises made when hanging was abolished in the UK. The abolitionists promised that the end of capital punishment would be replaced with severe sentencing, many MPs stating that "life would mean life " in serious cases.

Within a very short time the bleeding heart brigade had ensured that the average "life" sentence was 14 years. Today it is under 10 !!!!!!

But then, we cannot erode a prisoner's "Yuman Rites" can we?

Bernie my Boy,

I fully agree. I have argued in the past (and on another thread) that this country needs to decide what the object of the criminal justice and penal system is - is it to punish/deter crime, or is it to rehabilitate? In my mind, these two goals are mutually exclusive, and to try and do both weakens the other aim.

My personal belief is that it should be to punish and deter. Make it hard, make it uncomfortable and make the sentences long. Added to that, there are people who you cannot risk being released back into society, and as the death penalty is no longer an option, then they have to be locked up until they die - if you can't prevent someone from committing the crime once, then you certainly can prevent them from doing it twice. This should be accomplished by dropping them about 8' whilst wearing a hemp collar - I mean we shoot mad dogs, don't we? - but as this is not an option, then lock them up for good and let them rot.

PS, it's nice to see someone else spelling "gaol" properly and not the American way.

One other thing which happened, he Only married that woman out there to have a child with her so he could,nt be extradited back to the UK. The Brazillian Government would not allow it as he was then the Father of a Brazillian National.**M**.

The argument being used to free Biggs is that he is old and frail and no danger to the public.
What the do-gooders in politics (and on these pages) don't grasp is that this man was a convicted criminal who escaped justice for decades and came back to the UK only because his money had run out and he wanted the British taxpayer to look after him as his health deteriorated.
There is a prisoner in Sudbury Prison, Derbyshire, named Harry Roberts, who was convicted of the massacre of three policemen in London in 1966. I mean massacre, when the car in which he was travelling was pulled over, he drew a gun and calmly shot one policeman. As the other unarmed officers retreated he shot one of them and his accomplice shot the other. There are now calls for this piece of scum to be released, the bleeding-heart brigade claiming, "he is an old man".
One day Ian Huntley will be an old man and no doubt the do-gooders of the future will be saying in 2040, "but he is just a poor old man and can do no harm".
Unfortunately the selective memories of reformers forget the victims from decades ago and and concentrate on the perpertrator in his/her present state. They can never see them as they were at the time.
Try and release Rose West or Ian Huntley now and there would be uproar, because their crimes are fresh in our minds. But Robert's, Bigg's and the Moors Murderer's crimes are distant and forgotten.
Biggs should serve the remainder of his sentence, if that means dying in gaol, so be it. It was his choice to escape justice for so long, he now has to pay the price.

Not me xx