Yorkshire Ripper to be freed?

[kensei]

I've been reading the discussions about rehabilitation and how if someone is judged not to be a danger anymore there is no practical reason to keep them locked up. I'd like to cite an example from my own neck of the woods in the American midwest.

A convicted sex offender, Alfonso Rodriguez Jr., had been in and out of jail for rape involving the use of a knife since he was a teenager, but he had never killed anyone. His last conviction resulted in a stiff prison term of 23 years, which he served every minute of and was then released, officially classified as "high risk" but still deemed fit to live in society. He was 50 years old when he got out in May of 2003 and went to live with his mother in the city of Crookston, Minnesota. Got a job as a drywaller on a construction crew and was being a productive citizen.

Only six months after his release, Rodriguez kidnapped, raped and murdered a 22-year-old college girl named Dru Sjodin from the nearby city of Grand Forks, North Dakota. She was missing from November '03 to April of '04, her body hidden beneath winter snow, but Rodriguez was arrested shortly after her disappearance, fingered by various forensic evidence. When she was found, Dru was in a gully just outside of Crookston, face down, undressed from the waist down, her hands bound behind her back with wire, stabbed in the throat and with a plastic bag tied over her head. Rodriguez was convicted of the crime in September of '06 and sentenced to death- neither Minnesota or North Dakota has the death penalty, but since he transported Dru over state lines after kidnapping her it became a federal case. It was North Dakota's first death sentence since 1914. Today Rodriguez is on death row in Terre Haute, Indiana, the same place where Timothy McVeigh was executed. Approving that sentence was one of the final acts of Attorney General John Ashcroft before he left office.

I was a minor part of the huge search effort to find Dru Sjodin's body, involving hundreds of volunteers and even the National Guard. It was an extremely emotional experience, especially when it turned out that myself and a friend of mine had passed by only 70 yards from where she was later found.

Bottom line- these people do not rehabilitate. Those urges never go away.

[Robert]

Hi Barnaby

I gather from your post that Florida has particularly tough punishments. You say that the fact that there are still murders means that the punishments aren't deterring anybody. That's a bit like saying, why have surgeons? If operations were going to work, no one would die on the operating table. And why have a police force? If policemen/women were going to deter crime, no one would be committing any crimes whatsoever.

BTW, when you talk about whether "we" are prepared to accept such and such a risk of such and such a crime : as far as the UK is concerned, "we" never get a say. It's "they" - i.e. the Liberal Establishment - who decide what risks "we" - meaning the rest of us - are going to be forced to run. When the Sutcliffes of this world are released by that Establishment, I can assure you that they don't end up buying a house next door to a "rational" judge, a "compassionate" bishop, or a "tolerant" Guardian reader.

[Barnaby]

I have my doubts about these rehabilitations, but even if we believed that such people would never kill again, it would still be necessary to hold them, in order to deter the potential killers. Otherwise, we'll have people thinking, "I'll do the murder and then if caught, convince them I'm rehabilitated."

Hey Robert,

I don't think potential serial killers are going to be deterred by observing the severe punishments doled out to convicted serial killers. If this were the case, why would anyone kill anyone in Florida?

Best,

Barnaby

[Barnaby]

How do you determine what constitutes a "truly rehabilitated person"? Is there any actual test or empirical, proven method of determining a "truly rehabilitated person" that doesn't rely on subjective and fallible speculation?

Great point.

An aggressive dog who bites is more likely to bite again than your average pooch. You can rehabilitate a dog and certainly it could make a good pet, but you are running a risk and always must keep a close eye on it. If the dog bites again, you are responsible. Are people who attempt to rehabilitate these dogs performing a valuable service or tempting fate? An argument can be made for either side.

To answer the question (you already know the answer), there is no test. The psychologists involved are dealing with probabilities. What level of risk are we willing to accept? To say that we must be 100% certain of anything is as unrealistic as my fantasy rehabilitation scenarios. When are we comfortable in saying that a drug dealer probably isn't going to deal again, a pedophile isn't going to sexually offend again, a robber isn't going to steal again, etc? We play these percentages all of the time, and once in a while we get burned. We should always strive to reduce that "once in a while" to as near-zero as possible through better diagnostics. More often than not, though, (or else our tests are crap) we are right and those dogs don't bite again. Isn't that worth something?

[Robert]

I have my doubts about these rehabilitations, but even if we believed that such people would never kill again, it would still be necessary to hold them, in order to deter the potential killers. Otherwise, we'll have people thinking, "I'll do the murder and then if caught, convince them I'm rehabilitated."

[Brenda]

There are some crimes you shouldn't be able to ever be released from, no matter what age you were when you committed them. It is unfortunate for someone to be inprisoned their whole life, but they knew that could happen when they committed their crimes. Even little children know that, and though they may not be able to appreciate the full scope of how long "life" really is....they still know some people go to jail forever when they do wrong.

I believe a serial killer has something irreversibly wrong in their brain chemistry, just as a pedophile does. Is it their fault? Not really, but that doesn't take away from these people being a very real threat to the outside world, and to themselves also.

[Ally]

How do you determine what constitutes a "truly rehabilitated person"? Is there any actual test or empirical, proven method of determining a "truly rehabilitated person" that doesn't rely on subjective and fallible speculation?

[Barnaby]

Your hypothetical situations are ridiculous because there is absolutely NO way of guaranteeing whether or not a serial killer will kill again.

Fair enough. But I conceded that from the get-go.


QUOTE=Ally;69759] Interesting. What purpose does punishment serve? So you don't see any benefit in punishment?? If a child steals a toy, the should be told, Don't do that again, and as long as they say ok, they should face no punishment for what they did? If a guy drives drunk, and he promises never ever to do it again, and takes an alcohol class (HAHAHHAHA) that should be sufficient and no punishment necessary? A man rapes 3 women, goes and takes a "women are people too" class, and off you go dear, no punishment needed?? A man walks in, finds his girlfriend in bed with another man. He kills them both. The likelihood of this scenario ever repeating itself--him finding a paramour in bed with another, is extremely unlikely to ever occur again. So as long as he says sorry, he shouldn't face any punishment?
[/QUOTE]

Here you are misrepresenting my views. I said that punishment was necessary to protect society AND to change the future likelihood of their behavior. So, if a child steals a toy and is scolded and now is less likely to steal another toy, then that is a legitimate use of punishment. And so on with all of your other examples.

My only point was that if punishment is serving neither of these two functions, as in the case of a truly rehabilitated person, what's the use?

I think we are just going to disagree on this one.

[Sox]

charles is as mad as a meercat...but he didn't kill anyone...

He was not convicted of killing anyone. There have,however, been statements from some family members that Manson did commit murder.

[Ally]

[QUOTE=Barnaby;69724]Hey Ally,

Even if it cost little to guarantee that he would not kill again, you still object.

No matter what individual monitoring system, it is still less cost effective than a prison system where the guard to prison ration is much higher than there is in an one on one situation. And ankle bracelet doesn't prevent him from killing again, it would just tell you if he was at the place where he was killed. Your hypothetical situations are ridiculous because there is absolutely NO way of guaranteeing whether or not a serial killer will kill again.

Now I understand that we need to protect society. But if (big if) they really are rehabilitated, why the need for punishment? What purpose does it serve?

Interesting. What purpose does punishment serve? So you don't see any benefit in punishment?? If a child steals a toy, the should be told, Don't do that again, and as long as they say ok, they should face no punishment for what they did? If a guy drives drunk, and he promises never ever to do it again, and takes an alcohol class (HAHAHHAHA) that should be sufficient and no punishment necessary? A man rapes 3 women, goes and takes a "women are people too" class, and off you go dear, no punishment needed?? A man walks in, finds his girlfriend in bed with another man. He kills them both. The likelihood of this scenario ever repeating itself--him finding a paramour in bed with another, is extremely unlikely to ever occur again. So as long as he says sorry, he shouldn't face any punishment?

So no matter what, people should be allowed to get away with doing whatever they want to do ? And should never suffer for their actions no matter how much their actions have caused others to suffer? I find it interesting that you don't believe the criminals should suffer, and that it's wrong for us to inflict pain on them, but think nothing of their victims who have suffered. Two wrongs don't make a right is a cliche and it's not apt. It's not wrong to inflict pain on the guilty. It's only wrong to inflict pain on the innocent. By their actions, killing, raping, what have you, they have invited the pain, therefore, it is not wrong to give it to them. Robert beat me to it above but there can be NO forgiveness for Sutcliffe or any of his ilk. The people who could forgive him are dead by his own hand. We don't have the right to grant him forgiveness for his crimes against them.

[Limehouse]

Hi Perrymason,
To tell you the truth, i personally think this country is going to the dogs.....Britain is overcrowded for one, the police have to allow any illegal immigrants in ( kind of blind eye) and they are not allowed to chase and catch them, this comes from Brit Govt! Political play on figures of crime are abound, it depends on what is a crime and which areas are to tackle which share of crimes going by stats, so one area may look crime free on the books, but in reality rape, drugs and domestic violence is on the up, but police always put it down as ' no crime ', criminals are also being employed in our police force, in Scotland for instance there is a division called the ' Crime Squad ' ( oh crime fighters you may think), no, all this division of police officers have criminal records themselves! It's true! Even the European Court of Human rights are looking down on Britain on it's violence towards women. We have a terrible class system that stems from the Victorian period and further back if you ask some, my friend who has a criminology degree and other degrees was a probation officer ( Social worker for prisioners), she also said that some of Britains prisions are run by no better than some criminals themselves. We are on the brink of a police state here, new laws have recently been introduced, you have to be careful of how you will talk to a police officer now, also no arguing with them as it will be a criminal offence, what if you get an officer who is a criminal anyway and a bit nasty on the sly? Now he could have you with a bit of bad attitude and that's it ' Your with a criminal record '!
Oh, there's more but i won't go on too much....You find out a lot when you delve into human rights issues.
Plus, they want more immigrants in because they know that they will end up voting Britain into Europe ( easier job for someone else to do instead, so fat cat politicians will be the true cream, with easier jobs to boot....Just a shunting aound of a few red-tape plans that others put the brain power in, not the British Government!)
Think of this:
Why is it that a muslim labourer can get British residency in as little as 6 months along with a British Passport and virtual claim as a native, well same rights as a native of Britain, but Mr Alfied the owner of Harrods in Knightsbridge who has been bringing hefty taxes into this country, i'll bet he's paid millions of pounds to the British Govt in taxes over the years, no less than about 20-25 years of paid taxes, yet the British Govt won't allow him to have any residency claim or a passport........I'll tell you why, because he's powerful in social circles and he's not dumb either!
The British Government is not what it is cracked up to be, and the Iraq war was suitable for an excuse to bring forward the plan of a police state......If i can get out of here i would......My choice would be New Zealand, but that's a dream, because they are not daft and they don't let anyone in!
Regards
Shelley

Hi Shelley,

I'd just like to challenge a few points you made.

the police have to allow any illegal immigrants in ( kind of blind eye) and they are not allowed to chase and catch them,

The police are not responsible for illegal immigrants, the Home Office is. Illegal immigrants are always sent back to their country of origin immediately unless they claim asylum in which case their claim will be thoroughly investigated and if found to be false, they are sent home. That is not to say that there are not illegal immigrants in this country who are unknown to the authorities. There will always be a number who outstay their visas or who enter the country illegally and go to ground. This happens in other countries too. A great many of them find work.

The 'criminals being employed in the police force
that you mentioned are ex-offenders, who have reformed, and who are used by police officers to advise on criminal behaviour so that offenders can be more readily aprehended or crimes can be prevented altogether. It is admirable that these ex-offenders are so concerned about the effects of crime on society that they are willing to prevent further crimes or help to detect other criminals. This must surely be a positive move.


"Plus, they want more immigrants in because they know that they will end up voting Britain into Europe"

Actually we are already in Europe. We are part of the European Union and therefore subject to certain aspects of European law. We don't have to subscribe to all of the laws and of course, as members, we have the right to debate laws and ratify or amend/reject them through the European Parliament. We are not a passive and helpless state at the mercy of Europe.

"Why is it that a muslim labourer can get British residency in as little as 6 months along with a British Passport and virtual claim as a native, well same rights as a native of Britain, but Mr Alfied the owner of Harrods in Knightsbridge who has been bringing hefty taxes into this country, i'll bet he's paid millions of pounds to the British Govt in taxes over the years, no less than about 20-25 years of paid taxes, yet the British Govt won't allow him to have any residency claim or a passport"........

Getting redisdency in Britain has nothing to do with being a Muslim labourer or a Muslim businessman. It is to do with their country or origin. If a person is born in a former British colony or protectorate, they have (at present) the right to a British passport and the right to become resident in this country if they have a means of earning a living (or if they have close relatives living here). This is about to change and a points system is being introduced.

Mr Al Fyed was born in Egypt- not formally a British colony or protectorate - and is therefore subject to the rules that cover all other applicants to become British nationals. As someone who has continuously accused the British government of corruption, has made a mockery of the British justice system and who has accused the husband of the Monarch of being a murderer, he is obviously not going to be granted a British passport. As for paying millions in taxes, if, as you say, he is not a British resident (although I would argue that he lives here a great deal of the time) he is not subject to the same tax laws as everyone else and it is therefore unlikely that he pays millions in tax.

I realise that some aspects of life in Britain have become challenging and we have a great deal of work ahead to achieve and maintain proper law and order in society. However, we are a great deal better off than many countries
and we have a great many things to be proud of. It doesn't help the morale of the nation when groundless myths are expressed and repeated as if they are solid truths.

[Barnaby]

Hey Ally,

I didn't mean for you to get caught up in the details of the obviously unrealistic scenario. I could rephrase it and have you imagine a scenario where the surveillance costs less than that associated with incarcerating him. (Not so unrealistic - isn't that the point of house arrest?) But again that is not the point.

Even if it cost little to guarantee that he would not kill again, you still object.

And yes, punishment is also about paying for your crimes. Which you aren't really doing if you are free to walk the streets. Quid pro quo. You take a life, you lose yours. Either via life imprisonment, or death.

Now I understand that we need to protect society. But if (big if) they really are rehabilitated, why the need for punishment? What purpose does it serve? It is not a deterrent. And if it is no longer necessary to keep society safe from the perpetrator (they are rehabilitated), then the only function of it is to continue to inflict some measure of pain on them. Two wrongs don't make a right.

I suppose that my view stems from the fact that I don't believe in traditional notions of free will and think that all behavior is caused by genetics and environment. (That goes for all of us and not just serial killers so please spare me that I'm trying to use it to excuse their aberrant behavior that obviously society cannot tolerate.) So punishment for any other purpose than protecting society and trying to change their future behavior makes little sense to me.

Given that complete rehabilitation is extremely unlikely, we must lock them away or kill them to protect society. So I agree with you in that respect.

Respectfully,

Barnaby

Hi Perrymason,
To tell you the truth, i personally think this country is going to the dogs.....Britain is overcrowded for one, the police have to allow any illegal immigrants in ( kind of blind eye) and they are not allowed to chase and catch them, this comes from Brit Govt! Political play on figures of crime are abound, it depends on what is a crime and which areas are to tackle which share of crimes going by stats, so one area may look crime free on the books, but in reality rape, drugs and domestic violence is on the up, but police always put it down as ' no crime ', criminals are also being employed in our police force, in Scotland for instance there is a division called the ' Crime Squad ' ( oh crime fighters you may think), no, all this division of police officers have criminal records themselves! It's true! Even the European Court of Human rights are looking down on Britain on it's violence towards women. We have a terrible class system that stems from the Victorian period and further back if you ask some, my friend who has a criminology degree and other degrees was a probation officer ( Social worker for prisioners), she also said that some of Britains prisions are run by no better than some criminals themselves. We are on the brink of a police state here, new laws have recently been introduced, you have to be careful of how you will talk to a police officer now, also no arguing with them as it will be a criminal offence, what if you get an officer who is a criminal anyway and a bit nasty on the sly? Now he could have you with a bit of bad attitude and that's it ' Your with a criminal record '!
Oh, there's more but i won't go on too much....You find out a lot when you delve into human rights issues.
Plus, they want more immigrants in because they know that they will end up voting Britain into Europe ( easier job for someone else to do instead, so fat cat politicians will be the true cream, with easier jobs to boot....Just a shunting aound of a few red-tape plans that others put the brain power in, not the British Government!)
Think of this:
Why is it that a muslim labourer can get British residency in as little as 6 months along with a British Passport and virtual claim as a native, well same rights as a native of Britain, but Mr Alfied the owner of Harrods in Knightsbridge who has been bringing hefty taxes into this country, i'll bet he's paid millions of pounds to the British Govt in taxes over the years, no less than about 20-25 years of paid taxes, yet the British Govt won't allow him to have any residency claim or a passport........I'll tell you why, because he's powerful in social circles and he's not dumb either!
The British Government is not what it is cracked up to be, and the Iraq war was suitable for an excuse to bring forward the plan of a police state......If i can get out of here i would......My choice would be New Zealand, but that's a dream, because they are not daft and they don't let anyone in!
Regards
Shelley

If this is true....then how are the police in Britain like some Fishermen?

They both practice "catch and release".

It would be Idiocy in my opinion.

Best regards.

[Robert]

It's impossible to forgive someone for what he's done to someone else. It's a contradiction in terms.