Yorkshire Ripper to be freed?

[Limehouse]

For people who have referenced Charles Manson and his followers, just a few points:

Someone pointed out how Manson himself didn't actually kill anyone. Actually I'm pretty sure I remember from when I read "Helter Skelter" that he was known to have killed at least one person but was never tried for it. He was also present for the LaBianca murders and was the one who tied the LaBiancas up and told them it was only a robbery and not to worry. And for those discussing whether any of the others should be getting out of prison, Susan Atkins- considered by many to be the most brutal of the killers- is critically ill right now and has been refused early release to die in peace.

Now on Sutcliffe- I consider myself a spiritual person, and I believe that forgiveness for those who have done wrong is important, though it is one of the hardest things in the world to do. I have experienced such situations myself and have found that harboring grudges and hatred is a poison to the soul. However, you can forgive someone and still expect or even demand that they pay for what they've done. So can't we agree- isn't it a fairly elementary point- that if a serial killer with thirteen dead victims and seven walking wounded who loomed over screaming women while bashing their heads in with a hammer isn't a model candidate for unconditional life imprisonment then there is no point to the whole system? I hope the people in this thread insisting that there is no way this release is going to happen are right. Pray for mercy for the man's soul, and for solace for the souls of his 20 victims, and then pray just as hard that Sutcliffe never again knows freedom.

I absolutely agree with you Kensei, Sutcliffe should never be released because he should pay for his crimes with his freedom. However, he could still earn forgiveness. For me, even though his crimes have not affected me personally, forgiveness is a long way away. In order to earn forgiveness, one has to show remorse and Sutcliffe has not yet done that. When he does, and
as long as he means it, I will consider forgiveness.

[Mike Covell]

Which has been interpreted as the first step to release. Also the name of the thread does give the impression that he is being released.

Chris Lowe

Yorkshire Ripper to be freed is a statement.

Yorkshire Ripper to be freed? is a question.

[kensei]

For people who have referenced Charles Manson and his followers, just a few points:

Someone pointed out how Manson himself didn't actually kill anyone. Actually I'm pretty sure I remember from when I read "Helter Skelter" that he was known to have killed at least one person but was never tried for it. He was also present for the LaBianca murders and was the one who tied the LaBiancas up and told them it was only a robbery and not to worry. And for those discussing whether any of the others should be getting out of prison, Susan Atkins- considered by many to be the most brutal of the killers- is critically ill right now and has been refused early release to die in peace.

Now on Sutcliffe- I consider myself a spiritual person, and I believe that forgiveness for those who have done wrong is important, though it is one of the hardest things in the world to do. I have experienced such situations myself and have found that harboring grudges and hatred is a poison to the soul. However, you can forgive someone and still expect or even demand that they pay for what they've done. So can't we agree- isn't it a fairly elementary point- that if a serial killer with thirteen dead victims and seven walking wounded who loomed over screaming women while bashing their heads in with a hammer isn't a model candidate for unconditional life imprisonment then there is no point to the whole system? I hope the people in this thread insisting that there is no way this release is going to happen are right. Pray for mercy for the man's soul, and for solace for the souls of his 20 victims, and then pray just as hard that Sutcliffe never again knows freedom.

[Nothing to see]

Yes, you're right. The thread title says: Yorkshire Ripper to be freed?

OK, I'll be pedantic (but not very often). Freed means released. As in sent back out into the general community. I have to say from what I've read in the media at home that that's what is expected.

So, can someone definitely say which is it? Sent to an ordinary prison or back to the community?

[truebluedub]

He is not being 'released'.

He is being transferred from a mental home/lunatic asylum to a regular prison.

Which has been interpreted as the first step to release. Also the name of the thread does give the impression that he is being released.

Chris Lowe

[Stephen Thomas]

He is not being 'released'.

He is being transferred from a mental home/lunatic asylum to a regular prison.

He is not being 'released'.

If something's worth saying it's worth saying twice.

[truebluedub]

You guys do know that if he is released this may happen http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3713243.stm this also happened with the killers of Jamie Bulger.
If this did happen no one would know if he was living next door to them.
Chris Lowe

[Richard Eaton]

If anyone feels that Sutcliffe is now a reformed person and should be released, (whether they be giving their professional opinion as psychiatrists, or just lay people concerned for his human rights), presumably they will then be willing to welcome him into their home to live with them, their wife/husband and children.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

I am definitely with Ally on this one.
These types of individuals are not possible to succesfully ship back into society - they are predators and not functional human beings. Regardless of measures taken, the main objective must be to keep them as far away from society as possible and to protect the rest of humanity from these creatures.

All the best

[Ally]

I see. So as a society, in your philosophical exercise, we are supposed to spend millions if not billions of dollars coming up with a means to surgically implant, monitor and control the behavior of an individual --just so he can walk the streets because he is incapable of controlling his own behavior. Because this murdering psycho is such a vital component to the human whole, that we should devote millions of dollars and pay for round the clock surveillance for him? Why exactly? I mean why is this psychotic murderer worth the time, effort and resources that it would take to keep him from killing someone on the streets? When there are much easier and much more cost effective measures that would do the same thing.

Why should we spend all those resources, round the clock individual monitoring, so he can go to starbucks if he wants to?

No. Sorry. He's not worth it. He's not worth the resources that it would require to keep him "monitored". He's NOT that special. 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.

He's not at all special. A human being but one of billions. Hardly rare, except in his inhumanity. Unlike the vast majority of those billions, he has chosen to violate the lives of others. There is a very simple way to keep him from violating any more: remove him from society. Permanently.

[Barnaby]

The point of punishment is not to bring the victims back and it's not eye for an eye either. It's to make sure, PERMANENTLY that they never get the opportunity to snuff out another person ever again.

You cannot guarantee that they won't commit murder if they are released. They have proven themselves completely unconcerned with violation of people's lives in the past and as you say, people who think like this, there is no deterrent sufficient to prevent them from doing it in the future. The only way to guarantee they don't do it again, is either to kill them or keep them locked up for life.

Philosophically speaking, let's suppose that you can guarantee that they will not commit another crime. Maybe they are implanted with electrotrodes such that a lethal shock could be delivered (from remote 24/7 surveillance) upon any instance of problem behavior. (I'm not operating in reality - this is a thought exercise.) The point is, imagine a fool-proof way of stopping all future instances of crime.

Now would you be OK with letting them back into society? I imagine most people would not be. They want an "eye for an eye" and believe that serial killers do not deserve to live or at least should be deprived of their freedom for life IRRESPECTIVE of whether or not they would commit another crime. I was objecting to this line of thinking.

From a practical point of view your argument is well taken.

[Limehouse]

Here is evidence that doctors in mental health units do not always get things right. This young man attacked a girl AFTER he had been released as fit from a mental health unit.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/sussex/7900112.stm

How can we be sure Sutcliife no longer poses a threat to women?

[c.d.]

Maybe Charles should have thought twice before he tattooed a swastika on his forehead. Tends to make some people a little uncomfortable.

c.d.

[chrismasonic]

charles is as mad as a meercat...but he didn't kill anyone...he just told his people helter skelter told them to do it...
no ones gonna let him out of prison...

if someone had put jack into motion like some people believe...if they'd been caught would the gaffers sentence be stiffer than the ripper?

[Ophelia]

I don't think any Home Secretary would make the decision to release Sutcliffe.

If 'they' want to release someone who poses no danger to the public then release Ronnie Biggs.