Sutcliffe launches legal challenge against 'die in jail' ruling.

[Ally]

To you, Natalie, as well as to Ally, who speaks so much of rationality and logic, I will say that there is a very obvious logical flaw in the sentence "When we have killed all the killers in the world, there will be no killers left".

Of course there is a logical flaw in that sentence which is why no rational person would use it, and indeed I have not. I prefer "when we have killed all the murderers in the world, we can use the resources wasted on them to improve the lives of others, who are not murdering scumbags."

This is where I stand, and this is where I will remain standing. And just as this thread started out with people speaking about how Sutcliffe deserved whatever form of violence that he had coming to him, I believe I have the right to stand up and speak for my wiew.

You absolutely have the right to speak your view. Just like I have the right to say that any opinion based on emotion and feeling rather than logic and reason is of no value for the purposes of debate.

People do not have a duty to feed and shelter someone who would murder them.

[Fisherman]

Thanks for that, Natalie. I am well read up on Sutcliffe, but I will have a look at your link just the same!
Once again, in answer to your earlier post: Just as you yourself can only speak for yourself, the same thing applies to me. And much as I do not want to upset anybody, speaking my mind on these issues is something I must be allowed to do. The original reason for my doing so, Natalie, was that I was upset by the wiews that first came to light on this thread. Some of them would be enough to make most people afraid of the dark.

The best,
Fisherman

[Natalie Severn]

Here isa link Fisherman,that may help you understand my point about Sutcliffe and his legacy:http://womensgrid.freecharity.org.uk/?p=3789

[Natalie Severn]

Yes Fisherman,thankyou for your reply.I just want it to be clear that while I totally accept that you are entitled to your opinion,I do not accept that you are entitled to speak for me about what happened to me or tell Zodiac how he should feel about what happened to him or how a person should respond to an atrocity that happened to them.
Do you feel you can speak on behalf of the women who went in their droves on "Reclaim the Night " marches when Sutcliffe was terrorizing their district with his murders and tell them that they shouldn"t have felt the emotions they did when they were feeling terrorized? Do you feel you are entitled to speak on behalf of Lesley Ann Downey"s mother whose life was shattered and has been scarred forever by what happened to her daughter ? Or for any of the relatives ,for that matter ,of the victims of Hindley and Brady,or Huntley or Sutcliffe ?
Its a question of respecting a person"s entitlement to reclaim their power and their right to protest, anger, assertiveness etc.Why is anger considered to be somehow a wrong response to their various ordeals ?Who says so?

[Fisherman]

Natalie:

"from what personal experience of such attacks do you speak? Do you feel somehow that your opinion is superior to those who have suffered at the hands of rapists and murderes? Do you feel you know better than them?"

What I feel, Natalie, is that I am entitled to an opinion even without ever having been subjected to the kind of violence you speak of myself. What I also feel is that you are trying to set a scale here, where those who have been beaten up or raped always have the upper hand in the topic we are discussing, due to their experiences. I also think that you are aiming to prove that point by calling me insensitive, somehow making it look like I side with the Sutcliffes of this world.
I donīt.
On the contrary - in this discussion, I am probably the person that is most opposed to violence of all kinds.

I was once a boxer. I was always a big guy, and I inherited my fathers strength. He once moved a car that had parked him in, by lifting the car onto the pavement. And so I came up with the idea that I would probably be able to beat most people up, should I want to. And yes, I had a talent for flooring the other guys, but it did not make me happy, and so I put my boxing gloves on the shelf. I actually found them there this very year, fragile and mouldy, and I threw them away, some thirty-five years after having used them the last time. Today I am a pacifist, and have been for many a year, due to the fact that I resent violence.

So, you see, the actions of Sutcliffe and his likes are something that I distinctly dislike. But I equally dislike any reaction to it that focuses on inflicting violence on Sutcliffe. And that includes what has been called a "clean death" on these boards. Contrary to what you are suggesting, I am not saying that I have some sort of right to judge who may think what about Sutcliffe, nor am I judging those who harbour a wish to get back at him for what he has done to them or their near ones. I am only saying that I myself believe that harming or killing Sutcliffe would be just about the worst way to handle the matter. I remain convinced that he must be kept away from society, but to ensure this by killing him is - to my mind - not the best way to go about it.

To you, Natalie, as well as to Ally, who speaks so much of rationality and logic, I will say that there is a very obvious logical flaw in the sentence "When we have killed all the killers in the world, there will be no killers left".

This is where I stand, and this is where I will remain standing. And just as this thread started out with people speaking about how Sutcliffe deserved whatever form of violence that he had coming to him, I believe I have the right to stand up and speak for my wiew.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ally]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;143327]

...but you just could not let it rest like that, could you? So okay, Iīll offer my own end to the discussion:

Oh my mistake, I thought your end to the discussion was the several long paragraphs preceding your request to agree to disagree.

Logically, a bumble bee cannot fly since itīs construction will not allow for it, according to the Chalmers High School of Technics, Gothenburg. Luckily, nobody told the bumble bee about it.

The often quoted, completely inaccurate, bumblebee myth. Proof that for the rational mind, logic, not rumor and belief always wins out.

[Natalie Severn]

But you, Ally, have not been attacked by Peter Sutcliffe, have you? And consequentially, for you to put him to death would not be an act of self-defence. Nor would it be necessary to prevent him from killing again, since he is already jailed

Women in Leeds came out in droves to demonstrate over Peter Sutcliffe's long reign of terror and the fact they lived in fear of their lives.They believed,correctly that they had a right to walk the streets at night,to get on and off buses without the fear of Sutcliffe jumping out from nowhere with a hammer in his hand bludgeoning them to death because they were women.

While this crafty villain is still alive ,there will always be the possibility that he will get round a warder,as Hindley did, and plot his escape.Its exactly what he is doing now.I think its also what Ian Huntley is up to,in my opinion.He wants Ģ100,000 now ,as compensation.I dont believe it.He wants Ģ100,000 to use it try to bribe his way out of jail so he can murder more children.

One thing I want to ask you Fisherman is this -perhaps you do not realise it to be fair to you , but you have actually upset another poster on here a great deal, who tried to describe the devastation a violation that took place in his young life had on him,and why he feels so sickened by Sutcliffe"s latest move.Why Fisherman, did you feel in a position to so judge his reaction and quite aggressively at that?
And tonight you continue to make all these "pronouncements" about how people who have been attacked should be treated or how they should feel---and from what personal experience of such attacks do you speak? Do you feel somehow that your opinion is superior to those who have suffered at the hands of rapists and murderes? Do you feel you know better than them?
I am sure you are a good person and are trying to be fair and just but actually you have been acting quite insensitively frankly.
Norma

[Fisherman]

Ally:

"I am perfectly happy to agree to disagree."

...but you just could not let it rest like that, could you? So okay, Iīll offer my own end to the discussion:

"Logic never stands a chance against what people "feel" is true."

Wrong. Logic always must be the number one guide. But history is riddled with people who have imposed their "logic" on others, only to find out that it was not very useful. Logically, a bumble bee cannot fly since itīs construction will not allow for it, according to the Chalmers High School of Technics, Gothenburg. Luckily, nobody told the bumble bee about it.

Thanks for the exchange, Ally! See you out there some time!

The best,
Fisherman

[Ally]

I am perfectly happy to agree to disagree. The fact is, you have not provided a single logical, rational basis against the death penalty. It's all about how you feel. You believe it's wrong, and therefore nothing else will matter. It is always thus arguing with people of belief, whether it be religion or the death penalty or what-have-you. Logic never stands a chance against what people "feel" is true.

[Fisherman]

Ally:

"This is why you can't have a reasoned argument with a man. They get all hysterical and start shouting rather than debating."

Hahaha! Thatīs the first really useful argument you have presented so far!

"Marriage is a primitive unimproved upon and unsophisticated method of olden days, does that make it bad?"

Whose marriage are we speaking of? Mine?

"Many, many things that exist in society today are old. Doesn't make them bad. "

You are correct there, Ally. But I do feel that when the wooden stick that was used to wipe your ass was replaced by toilet paper, it was an improvement.

"A nice story. And the introduction of the image of the poor dead child was especially emotive. Perhaps you were seeking to deflect from the obvious that you didn't answer my question."

You mean in the same fashion that you draw on the tears and anxiety of the relatives of murder victims to gain sympathy? Well, at least you did not suggest that it was a false story!
And to be honest, what I tried to do was to point to how primitive rules and norms may change over time. They have stopped shooting Gypsies in Bavarias forests now, as far as I know. I also provided the story as an answer to your question: "How is it is more primitive to kill Peter Sutcliffe than a fish or a cow?" - but you missed out on that.

"use the words you mean"

I do - a lethal injection IS lethal. I mean it.

"You said you wanted to teach the children that violence is not best met with violence but then you just agreed that there is justifiable violence."

Yes. Does that present you with some sort of an enigma? Iīll straighten it out for you: If you can solve a problem without resorting to violence, then do so. If you cannot, but are instead forced to use violence in self-defence, then do so.

"You ask me who makes the determination of who gets killed, but you seem to feel perfectly comfortable drawing that same line of when you think it's fine to kill someone. You do see yourself as being fit to pass the verdict on someone's life and when it can be taken, contrary to what you posted. So it's not so much about teaching the children that violence is wrong, it's that violence is only acceptable in the circumstances you deem it's acceptable?"

Here she goes again ...! And to think that I just asked you to show some respect for each others intelligence!
I have already provided the answer to this, Ally, as you well know. So if you donīt mind, Iīll just quote from my former post:
"Self-defence violence is justifiable. But putting people to death is not self-defence violence other than in a very distant meaning. And the defense it could provide can just as easily be provided by a lock and a key."
So, if you are attacked and if you are convinced that it is either your attackers life or yours, then the better outcome is that the attacker dies.
But you, Ally, have not been attacked by Peter Sutcliffe, have you? And consequentially, for you to put him to death would not be an act of self-defence. Nor would it be necessary to prevent him from killing again, since he is already jailed.

Iīm sure, Ally, that you can think up another way of twisting my arguments to make them sound like something I never meant, just as I am sure that you would not hesitate to put words in my mouth once more. I do not, however, think that it would be a clever thing to do. And whatever else you may be, unclever is not one of them things. So how about agreeing on disagreeing? Iīm prepared to let you get away with a narrow loss ...

The best,
Fisherman

[Ally]

donītĻneed any "slippery slope arguments", Ally. Listen up: I-AM-OPPOSED-TO-TAKING-ANYBODYS-LIFE, I-RESENT-THE DEATH-PENALTY, I-DO-NOT-BELIEVE-THAT-VIOLENCE-WAS-PASSED-DOWN-TO-US-TO-SOLVE-PROBLEMS.
If you think that is "slippery-slope", it will have to stand for you, Iīm afraid.

This is why you can't have a reasoned argument with a man. They get all hysterical and start shouting rather than debating. Take a midol.

Right, letīs go looking for facts, then! I would suggest that "primitive" relates to methods of olden days, unsophisticated and unimproved upon. Like, say, killing people to solve problems.

Marriage is a primitive unimproved upon and unsophisticated method of olden days, does that make it bad? Family, is a primitive, unsophisticated thing of olden days, does that make it bad? The notions of society, law, justice, ,...etc. all primitive concepts from long ago, that are from the olden days, are basic. Doesn't make them bad. Therefore your accusation that the death penalty is primitive, is not a good one. Many, many things that exist in society today are old. Doesn't make them bad.

Your turn: How is it unprimitive to kill for justice? When does it become sophisticated? Since we are looking for facts?

It became sophisticated when we no longer do it in the most brutal manner possible. We aren't killing people by tying them to four horses and pulling them apart. The method has been vastly improved upon and is in fact much more sophisticated means of disposing of those who are deserving of disposal.

"What makes killing people any more or less primitive than killing a cow or a fish?"

Back in the early 1900:s, you were offered money to kill and bring in gypsies in Bavaria, Germany. At one occasion, a proud hunter brought in a dead gipsy woman and her child. He had managed to kill them both with one shot, and was rewarded doubly for his efforts. Howīs that for saving money by killing?
My humble suggestion is that his actions were somewhat more primitive than those of a man who hits a fish over the head. Iīm sure you disagree.

A nice story. And the introduction of the image of the poor dead child was especially emotive. Perhaps you were seeking to deflect from the obvious that you didn't answer my question.

How is it is more primitive to kill Peter Sutcliffe than a fish or a cow?

"A lethal injection is not violent."

Perhaps not. But itīs lethal, you see.

Yes but you were making a statement about violence, you see. So use the words you mean.

Self-defence violence is justifiable. But putting people to death is not self-defence violence other than in a very distant meaning. And the defense it could provide can just as easily be provided by a lock and a key.

You said you wanted to teach the children that violence is not best met with violence but then you just agreed that there is justifiable violence. So you believe in justifiable violence but you want to draw the line at where it occurs. You ask me who makes the determination of who gets killed, but you seem to feel perfectly comfortable drawing that same line of when you think it's fine to kill someone. You do see yourself as being fit to pass the verdict on someone's life and when it can be taken, contrary to what you posted. So it's not so much about teaching the children that violence is wrong, it's that violence is only acceptable in the circumstances you deem it's acceptable?

[Fisherman]

Ally:

"Your false statement that you would pay my share too is a phony rhetorical throw out since you know full well it doesn't work that way and you will never have to make good on your promise."

I am not sure what gives you the right to judge my convictions, Ally. But it is obvious that subtlety is not your game. I mean exactly what I say - if I should be forced to take my share of the pro-death penalty arguers unwillingness to pay, then I would take it. Just because it sounds exotic to you, it does not mean that it gives you the right to call me a liar, Iīm afraid.

"I realize you'd like to separate the "murderers condemned to jail for life" because that gives you a slippery slope argument to go off on a tangent..."

I donītĻneed any "slippery slope arguments", Ally. Listen up: I-AM-OPPOSED-TO-TAKING-ANYBODYS-LIFE, I-RESENT-THE DEATH-PENALTY, I-DO-NOT-BELIEVE-THAT-VIOLENCE-WAS-PASSED-DOWN-TO-US-TO-SOLVE-PROBLEMS.
If you think that is "slippery-slope", it will have to stand for you, Iīm afraid.

"I am looking for facts. What precisely is primitive about killing people?"

Right, letīs go looking for facts, then! I would suggest that "primitive" relates to methods of olden days, unsophisticated and unimproved upon. Like, say, killing people to solve problems.
Your turn: How is it unprimitive to kill for justice? When does it become sophisticated? Since we are looking for facts?

"What makes killing people any more or less primitive than killing a cow or a fish?"

Back in the early 1900:s, you were offered money to kill and bring in gypsies in Bavaria, Germany. At one occasion, a proud hunter brought in a dead gipsy woman and her child. He had managed to kill them both with one shot, and was rewarded doubly for his efforts. Howīs that for saving money by killing?
My humble suggestion is that his actions were somewhat more primitive than those of a man who hits a fish over the head. Iīm sure you disagree.

"A lethal injection is not violent."

Perhaps not. But itīs lethal, you see.

"you are saying that violence is not the best way of dealing with violence. I see. So if a woman is about to be raped, she should just lie back and take it, because to defend herself with violence against an attacker would be wrong? Violence is always wrong?"

Donīt force me to be ironic again, Ally..! Remember what I wrote about Sutcliffe - about if the choice was between setting him free or boiling him in oil? The same applies here - letīs take care of the good ones. Self-defence violence is justifiable. But putting people to death is not self-defence violence other than in a very distant meaning. And the defense it could provide can just as easily be provided by a lock and a key.

"Waht about the nights sleep the victims of their crimes lose, what about when they escape prison and the sleepless nights lost over who they might kill next?"

I could see that argument coming from a thousand miles away, Ally. Just let me say that if you need me to keep all parts equally happy in this issue, I will fail. Thing is, so will you. Letīs just say that I much prefer people sleeing well because somebody is alive, to people sleeping well because somebody has been put to death. Both ways you cannot have it, Iīm afraid.

"Yes it's much better that we all lay back and allow ourselves to be raped and murdered rather than we ever engage in nasty violence by defending ourselves with lethal force. yes, let us all be victims because violence is NEVER justified, right?"

Eighteen lines up, Ally! Thatīs where you find my answer. And can we please be a little less childish and a little more respectful about each others intelligence henceforth, if we are supposed to do this to death any further?

The best,
Fisherman

[Ally]

Unfortunately for those who want the death penalty restored here in the UK, it would mean in practical terms that most, if not all murderers would be acquitted - unless juries consisted exclusively of death penalty supporters with complete faith in themselves and the system to convict the right man or woman.

I am not expressing a personal opinion here, just making an observation based on simple statistics. How many juries today would return a unanimous guilty verdict if it meant sending someone to certain death?

Love,

Caz
X

You know I have been pondering for a while that random juries should be done away with entirely and cases should be tried by a panel of professional jurors. For a variety of reasons. Mostly that most people are too damn dumb to actually weigh the facts of a case and are overly involved in their emotional opinion but also for practical purposes as well.

We have a case about to go to trial here of a woman who stands accused of killing her two year old child. It is a fairly famous case and they are bringing in a jury from OUT OF TOWN that will then be sequestered to prevent "contamination" and defend her right to a "fair trial". Well there are several problems I have with that, the first being, I was living in VA when this case occurred and I heard about it and it was being discussed over there, so how would shipping in a jury from one town over help her, the jury throughout the state and country has been equally contaminated by the news. But moreso, why should anyone have their constitutional right to liberty impinged for six weeks to provide this woman with a jury? Whoever they pick, they are going to be kept away from their friends, their family and lose income for six weeks to provide this woman with a "fair trial". Sorry, but anyone who would want to be on a jury like that is going into it with a biased and ulterior motive no matter what they say on their jury survey. I sincerely doubt that anyone who doesn't get themselves disqualified will be going in with an unbiased mind.

So how is she going to get a "fair trial"?

[Ally]

...just as you have no right to decide for me that I must be forced to accept having him put to death. It works both ways, Ally, and if you feel hard pressed for the pennies you are asked for to avoid taking part in putting somebody to death, I will merrily pay your part too.

However you being forced to accept costs you nothing. And the state doesnt' give me the right to DECIDE if my money and taxes go to pay for killers. I am forced into it. If only people who chose to support killers were required to do so, then that would be one thing. Your false statement that you would pay my share too is a phony rhetorical throw out since you know full well it doesn't work that way and you will never have to make good on your promise. And it is not that I am hard pressed for my pennies, it is that I have a moral objection to succoring scumbags.

What you spoke of was people who did not "contribute to society", Ally, which is why you needed to be faced with the crippled and the sick.

No. I spoke specifically of murderers condemned to jail for life who would never again contribute to society and we would be forced to pay for their continued existence. I realize you'd like to separate the "murderers condemned to jail for life" because that gives you a slippery slope argument to go off on a tangent with but the fact is I specifically stated murders condemned to jail for life who would never contribute.

Killing people is primitive, Ally. Thatīs how most of us wiew things over here in this "emotional" country.

That's an opinion. I am looking for facts. What precisely is primitive about killing people? What makes killing people any more or less primitive than killing a cow or a fish?

Typically, we say that it is strange that a country like the US, that has raised more Nobel Prize winners than any other country, and that has proven to produce many noteable authors, musicians, politicians etcetera, have not progressed from medieval times when it comes to matters of justice.

That's because we are society of people who believe in striving for the best and dont' sit back and allow our socialist collective to feed, house and brainwash us. Those achievers are people who have been forced to reach for something and not have it handed to them.

But again, you have yet to precisely say what is primitive about it, other than your opinion is that it is so. So I ask again, factually and logically speaking, what is primitive about it?

The logic in it lies in passing on to the coming generations that violence is not the best way of dealing with violence.

A lethal injection is not violent. But you are saying that violence is not the best way of dealing with violence. I see. So if a woman is about to be raped, she should just lie back and take it, because to defend herself with violence against an attacker would be wrong? Violence is always wrong?

The benefit of allowing people the right to live on lies in the good nightsī sleep it will provide.

Empty rhetoric. Waht about the nights sleep the victims of their crimes lose, what about when they escape prison and the sleepless nights lost over who they might kill next? See, an easily turned argument because it is based on emotional rhetoric rather than any rational basis.

And if you are of the meaning that teaching people that violence - even deathly violence - is something we need to use to protect ourselves and to save substantial amounts of money, then be my guest!

Yes it's much better that we all lay back and allow ourselves to be raped and murdered rather than we ever engage in nasty violence by defending ourselves with lethal force. yes, let us all be victims because violence is NEVER justified, right?

[Fisherman]

Ally:

"The alternative to prison is ... they can be put to death cleanly"

Not to me, it isnīt. I find the very term revolting, to be honest.

"It is not a matter of vengeance, it is a matter of cause and effect with every action having an equal response."

An eye for an eye ...? Go back, Ally, in my posts, and you shall see what I say about that.

"Who decides that I have a responsibility to support, feed and house a cold-blooded killer. You do not have the right to decide that I must be FORCED to assume responsibility for someone like him."

...just as you have no right to decide for me that I must be forced to accept having him put to death. It works both ways, Ally, and if you feel hard pressed for the pennies you are asked for to avoid taking part in putting somebody to death, I will merrily pay your part too. It makes me sleep better.

"It is very simple where we draw the line. Did the paralyze person murder anyone ? Did the paralyzed person commit violence on someone else? The slippery slope argument is a fallacious one and is always trotted out by those who have no argument that is reasoned. Oh where do we draw the line? It's quite easy"

What you spoke of was people who did not "contribute to society", Ally, which is why you needed to be faced with the crippled and the sick. They have that self same flaw. As for putting murderers to death, I believe that was what happened to Timothy Evans, was it not? Ended up on the wrong side of that line that is sooo easy to draw, unfortunately.

...but that is just another of those mumbo-jumbo arguments that the squemish always bring up once the death penalty arguers are trying to bring some sense into the debate, is it not? A little loss is something we must learn to live with, right?
But donīt mistake that for any main argument of mine. I firmly believe that we do not have the right to take the life of proven serial killers either.

"What precisely is "primitive" about it?"

Killing people is primitive, Ally. Thatīs how most of us wiew things over here in this "emotional" country. When we see people outside an American jail carrying signs saying "Kill the son of a bitch", "Death to the sack of ****" and "Burn, baby, burn", we do not sit back in awe and exclaim: "How wonderfully logic these people are!" Typically, we say that it is strange that a country like the US, that has raised more Nobel Prize winners than any other country, and that has proven to produce many noteable authors, musicians, politicians etcetera, have not progressed from medieval times when it comes to matters of justice.

"you completely failed to actually address the question:
What logical reason is there for keeping a murderer alive? What is the benefit to continue to sustain and feed a murderer?"

On the contrary, Ally. I have addressed it a good deal of times by now, in a good number of posts. The logic in it lies in passing on to the coming generations that violence is not the best way of dealing with violence. The benefit of allowing people the right to live on lies in the good nightsī sleep it will provide.
And if you are of the meaning that teaching people that violence - even deathly violence - is something we need to use to protect ourselves and to save substantial amounts of money, then be my guest! If you say that you would sleep a lot better after having choked Peter Sutcliffe to death, than you would after having been robbed of the tax money he needs to stay alive, then that is a stance I would not take away from you (since I really have no use for it myself).
It just goes to show that we are different in this respect, Ally. You call me a socialist yellowbelly for it, and I call you primitive, and the time may have come to let others decide for themselves who of us is right. Normally, I would have said that you would be in with a good chance, for the simple reason that I am more often than not a great fan of the frankness and honesty you often display on these boards.
...and I am just as certain that you are being honest this time over too, as I am sure that you are simply wrong. Dead wrong, if you see my point.

The best,
Fisherman