Yorkshire Ripper to be freed?

[Pablito]

He's 61; an old man. He's been punished enough and although he did monstrous things, he's still a human being.

According to everyone around him he is now totally harmless and they would know better than us. To some extent those calling for him to be hung are dragging our civilisation back 50 years, and... i hate to say this... but becoming potential murderers themselves in the process.

Although I would have to add that I would not include the families of the victims in this, it is totally understandable that they would want vengance... but we haven't had any of our family members killed by him and so should know better... otherwise we would end up back in Roman times for gawd sake

[Ally]

[QUOTE=Pablito;69386]

he's still a human being.

And? So what? What difference does his DNA sequence matter at all when it comes to judging what he did. If we are ascribing magical properties to the simple fact of being a human being, as if being a human being were something so special, then it could be argued that by slaughtering other human beings, he has demonstrated he doesn't have whatever "magical" properties make human beings so special and should therefore be removed from the gene pool.

According to everyone around him he is now totally harmless and they would know better than us.

No, what they say is, **as long as he keeps taking his medication, he poses no threat to society**. And who is going to make sure that he continues to take his medication once he is released from a structured and controlled environment? You? Are you going to volunteer? Once he is free, there are absolutely no guarantees that he will not cease taking his medication. The fact of the matter is, MOST people who are on meds for schizophrenia or bipolar disorder stop taking their medication at least once. If they are not homicidal killers, the results of them stop taking their medication is generally not horrendous before they go back on, but with someone who has proven himself capable of killing, what will the results be when he inevitably stops taking his medication.

[Pablito]

[QUOTE=Ally;69387]

And? So what? What difference does his DNA sequence matter at all when it comes to judging what he did. If we are ascribing magical properties to the simple fact of being a human being, as if being a human being were something so special, then it could be argued that by slaughtering other human beings, he has demonstrated he doesn't have whatever "magical" properties make human beings so special and should therefore be removed from the gene pool.


No, what they say is, **as long as he keeps taking his medication, he poses no threat to society**. And who is going to make sure that he continues to take his medication once he is released from a structured and controlled environment? You? Are you going to volunteer? Once he is free, there are absolutely no guarantees that he will not cease taking his medication. The fact of the matter is, MOST people who are on meds for schizophrenia or bipolar disorder stop taking their medication at least once. If they are not homicidal killers, the results of them stop taking their medication is generally not horrendous before they go back on, but with someone who has proven himself capable of killing, what will the results be when he inevitably stops taking his medication.

Removed from the gene pool? Who would decide who would be removed from the gene pool? What would the criteria be? I'm sorry but it sounds like something the Nazis would come up with.

And so the solution to dangerous schizophrenics who stop taking their medication is to kill them?.. I mean really...

[Ally]

HOw do you decide who gets removed from the gene pool? Easy. People who violate others right to life lose their right to life. Quid pro quo. The nazi reference is a cheap and weak scare tactic. no one is saying that people should be killed because they have brown hair or are a particular religion or even because they are schizophrenic. Plenty of schizos don't kill people. But if you kill people, not in self-defense, but simply because, hey why not, then you should be removed permanently for the safety of the other members of the population.

[Pinkerton]

While I don't believe in the death penalty I also don't think someone like Sutcliffe should ever be let out of prison. And I will take 100 to 1 odds that he never WILL be released from prison. Any takers? This is just the press trying to sell papers. If they wouldn't let Myra Hindley out of prison they SURE as hell aren't going to let out Sutcliffe. I DO believe that some of the Manson family should be let out of prison (though certainly NOT Charles Manson). They've served close to 40 years in prison and were obviously a classic case of young, dumb kids being indoctrinated into a cult.

Understand your point kensei, however John Hinkley is only allowed brief visits with his parents. He is still incarcerated in a mental hospital. And he isn't a serial killer.

So I wrecken you're a libertarian eh Ally? Or an anarchist!

[Christine]

Anyone who isn't deterred by capital punishment or a long prison sentence, is too stupid to be let loose on society.

Well, that's the thing Robert. Most criminals think that they aren't going to get caught, therefore the punishment is irrelevant. And for those that do think about being caught, life in prison is as much of a deterrent as capital punishment. There might be some isolated cases of people of are deterred by death but okay with the risk of life, but I also suspect that there might be people who would prefer the death penalty to life in prison.

[Limehouse]

He's 61; an old man. He's been punished enough and although he did monstrous things, he's still a human being.

According to everyone around him he is now totally harmless and they would know better than us. To some extent those calling for him to be hung are dragging our civilisation back 50 years, and... i hate to say this... but becoming potential murderers themselves in the process.

Although I would have to add that I would not include the families of the victims in this, it is totally understandable that they would want vengance... but we haven't had any of our family members killed by him and so should know better... otherwise we would end up back in Roman times for gawd sake

61 is not old. I work with three people who are older than 61. All three are teachers, working full time in a challenging job and all three are fit and able people, as lively as a 45 year old.

It matters not whether he is said to be harmless. What does matter is that if he is REALLY rehabilitated, he should realise the need for him to stay locked up out of respect for the families of his victims and in recompense for his actions in taking at least 13 lives.

I persoanlly doubt whether he is at all rehabilitated as, only recently, papers were reporting that Sutcliffe has NEVER shown any remorse or responsibility for his crimes. He was still telling prison visitors and researchers that the women he attacked should not have been on the streets at night. I question how a man who swiftly and violently ended the lives of 13 women and attempted to end the lives of at least seven others can become 'harmless'. There is surely something in him that is fundamentally flawed.

[chrismasonic]

i don't believe he will be released ever but i believe 100-1 odds is worth a cheeky tenner...
send me my betting slip...

er...why do the manson family get out and not charles?
they were the ones that killed people...not him

[Robert]

Exactly, people who are guilt-stricken would not want to come out, in my opinion.

[Sox]

Pinkerton is right, it's sensational reporting and nothing more. Sutcliffe was not, according to the law, insane at the time he commited these crimes and so his current 'sanity' would have no bearing on a release date.

[Pinkerton]

i don't believe he will be released ever but i believe 100-1 odds is worth a cheeky tenner...
send me my betting slip...

There is a sucker born every minute...

er...why do the manson family get out and not charles?
they were the ones that killed people...not him

Hitler most likely didn't "directly" kill anyone either...It is the person who initiates or plans the murder who gets the stiffer sentence (as it should be). Manson systematically indoctrinated a bunch of young, troubled, runaway kids and manipulated them for his own purposes. There was a recent documentary that showed how he did this. A large percentage of the population of young kids in these circumstances could have been taken in by this (of course EVERYONE things they are immune to such tactics...). This doesn't "absolve" them from the brutal murders they committed. I just believe that after 20 or 30 years they deserve a second chance.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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?