Yorkshire Ripper to be freed?

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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

[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]

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

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Robert]

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

[perrymason]

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.

[Shelley]

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

[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