Jack's Punishment

[Hatchett]

Hi,

Thanks AP.

And of course after the hanging it is quite likely that over the years conspiracy theories and such like would spring up that the wrong person was hanged after all.

I think such is the nature of trying to bring such horrendous crimes back down to the actions of a human being.

If Jack the Ripper had been caught and hanged, we could now be debating his guilt or innocence, much like the A6 thread.

Best wishes.

Hatchett.

[Roy Corduroy]

Thank you AP,

it's likely that JTR would have spent several months on remand, in which time he would have been turning handles on boxes (which prison officers would have occasionally tightened using a screw-driver, hence the term 'screws'), or performing other unessential, remedial tasks. Why? because the Victorians believed that this was 'character' reforming or performing other unessential, remedial tasks.

Such as this at HM Prison Preston



Caption at (site)

Roy

[AP Criminologist]

Dear all,

it's likely that JTR would have spent several months on remand, in which time he would have been turning handles on boxes (which prison officers would have occasionally tightened using a screw-driver, hence the term 'screws'), or performing other unessential, remedial tasks. Why? because the Victorians believed that this was 'character' reforming, despite - might I add - the extremely high rates of re-offending in 1888 (and today for that matter: 56% after 2 years, and 70% after 7 years in the UK).
After this, regardless of whether the person being tried for the JTR murders was innocent or not, it is likely that he/she would have been found guilty, and then sentenced to hanging. The Home Office and Criminal Justice System as a whole would not risk the inevitable public backlash if the key JTR suspect was found innocent or insane. This can be backed up by research which has been done on the 'chivalry theory' in Criminology, whereby well presented, young, female offenders, with children, are treated more leniently in the Courts in all cases of research, when compared to male offenders who have been convicted of the same offence, are punished harsher. Whatever you may be told, unfortunately, evidence tells us that there is no such thing as a fair trial!
Having said all this however, if a JTR suspect were to be found insane, there would have to be a lot of evidence to back this up. This is not just because this case is so prolific, but also because it is, and was a necessity to have an over-whelming amount of evidence available if you were going to plead insanity. Because 'insanity' is a socially constructed term, its definition varies from person to person, from case to case, from country to country, from 1888-2011 etc... and therefore the ability to prove it in court is nigh on impossible in a majority of cases, which is why such a low number of suspects actually attempt to use it as a defence (only 1% of murder suspects actually attempt to plead insanity in the US, and the success rate of this figure is much smaller). Overall, this means that the liklihood of JTR being found insane, weighs on the fact of whether or not he/she actually was insane. Even then however, it is likely that JTR still would have been found guilty, and sentenced to hanging.

Regards,

[Hatchett]

Hi Michael,

I think you will find that the new law actually made it more difficult to gain an insanity verdict.

But at the end of the day we are talking about the possible punishment by the State of Jack the Ripper in 1988/89.

Best wishes.

Hatchett.

[The Good Michael]

It must have had some difficulty or he wouldnt have had to have it changed would he?

I thought we were talking about the intial rulings anyway.

It is a little bit dubious to try and make a reasoned judgement on just one example case, I would suggest.

That's why I didn't make a judgement. I said for him, a convicted murderer, the conviction was overturned because the new law was just put in regarding insanity.

Mike

[Hatchett]

It must have had some difficulty or he wouldnt have had to have it changed would he?

I thought we were talking about the intial rulings anyway.

It is a little bit dubious to try and make a reasoned judgement on just one example case, I would suggest.

Best wishes.

Hatchett.

[The Good Michael]

James Kelly got his guilty verdict changed to insanity without having to do anything. I think for him at least it wasn't a difficult thing.

Mike

[Hatchett]

Hi there,

I think that is just a play on words.

If you consider cases at that time where insainity was pleaded under those rules you will see how difficult a plea it was to succeed.

It is complete conjecture as to whether there would have been a riot or not. It could be possible that if he had been caught and so turned from a monster into a man, a lot of the hysteria could have subsided into just plain anger.

Best wishes.

Hatchett.

[The Good Michael]

How can you say, "would in my view have been undoubtedly hanged."?

He would have been hanged in your view, or he would have been undoubtedly hanged.

By the way, the laws had just been changed in about 1885 (whenever James Kelly was tried), and being declared insane was a very real possibility. I believe he would have been declared insane had he gone to trial and that the public would have been very unhappy, even riotous over that decision.

Mike

[Hatchett]

Hi,

In those days under the McNaughton rules it was very difficult for a plea of insanity in murder cases to succeed. Part of the problem was the rules themselves, very much like a Catch 22 situation.

Considering that hanging was the only recorgnised legal form of punshiment for murder in 1888, then Jack the Ripper, who ever he was, would in my view have undoubtedly been hanged.

Best wishes.

Hatchett.

[Sister Hyde]

Most serial killers are not psychotic and thus they are responsible for their crimes. I believe this was true in case of Jack, too, and thus he would have been hanged.

Yep, psychotic people do realize very well what they are doing, they are definitely conscient of their acts, they just can't help it.

[Christine1932]

Most serial killers are not psychotic and thus they are responsible for their crimes. I believe this was true in case of Jack, too, and thus he would have been hanged.

[The Good Michael]

Perhaps. But, compared to presidents, how many British monarchs have been assassinated since 1776?

Ok, you've got me there. Don't mention the periods from 600 until 1649 or you'll not have a leg to stand on.

Mike

[The Grave Maurice]

We've never had that problem in America. Voting in a president has always seemed a little better method than family squabbles over who's in line for the crown and the bloodbaths that always followed.

Perhaps. But, compared to presidents, how many British monarchs have been assassinated since 1776?

[The Good Michael]

Mind, the number of screwed-up hangings in the UK pales into insignificance compared with the history of screwed-up electrocutions in the USA.

Maybe that's because the US has so many more executions. More executions=more screw-ups.

Mike

Maybe you're referring to the executioner being poor at his job?

Since 1976 there have been 1,243 executions in the States. It is estimated that at least 39 were wrongful executions. I can't find any British stats, but the English have a rich history of executions. It always came with putting a new monarch on the throne. We've never had that problem in America. Voting in a president has always seemed a little better method than family squabbles over who's in line for the crown and the bloodbaths that always followed.

Cheers,

Mike