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

[caz]

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

[Natalie Severn]

I have to say I am very grateful to Ally for her robust posts on this matter. I have never considered myself to be pro hanging but I certainly would be delighted if Sutcliffe and Huntley were given an injection to get them out of here!Exactly like I felt over Hindley and Brady.Let them die.They were proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.It doesnt have to be by a primitive hanging ceremony or the electric chair.Just a needle.
And I dont know why anger is considered such a "primitive" emotion or wrong of itself.Who said so and why?
Was it wrong and an "over reaction"when the psychiatric nurses at Chester Hospital fainted and broke down on hearing a nine year old child being tortured? Was this reaction a tad "over the top,then? Wasnt it best that this item of news was suppressed,as it indeed was, because the "innocent" British public had a right to be protected from hearing what this young child endured?They are still protected in fact about the true ghastliness of these crimes---since nobody other than the nurses and those "in camera "in court has ever heard the tapes to this day----so even in death Lesley"s voice is silenced---to protect the public!Tape recordings of a nine year old child pleading for her life as her fingernails were torn out by Hindley? Lesley Ann Downey and the other children had rights too ---yes they had rights.And in death they have rights --for the murder,rape and torture that was carried out on them by Brady and Hindley.Those crimes need to be properly understood for what they were --- the public are entitled to be told the truth not half truths about those crimes . They should not have been hidden away as though they were something done in an abattoir---" best not talked about".And the criminals who did them did not deserve to live and be supported by us.

[Ally]

Ally:

But - as I likewise have pointed out before (and I thought that you did not want me to post too much ...?) - if the alternative to imprisonment is to let people like Sutcliffe walk free, then that is no alternative at all.

The alternative to prison is, rather than continuing to house them for 6 decades, during which time they will be subjected to all sorts of "inhumane state sanctioned abuse", they can be put to death cleanly, avoiding financial burden on innocent citizens and avoiding that inhumane treatment they will suffer in jail as well.

The paramount importance that must be pressed in all of this is NOT that we need to take revenge, it is NOT that death penalty is a useful thing and it is NOT that anybody who has lived a righteous life may have a go with a baseball bat at the heads of those who did not.

YOu are the one who keeps talking about revenge. I am not talking about revenge. Peter Sutcliffe has done nothing to me, therefore there is nothing for me to get revenge on. It is not a matter of vengeance, it is a matter of cause and effect with every action having an equal response. Scientific even.

Because we have a collective responsibility towards all people, no matter how bad they are.

No we don't. To use your argument...says who? 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. I don't accept your premise, there is absolutely no reason or logic behind it. It is fallacious. We do not have a collective responsibility towards people who would commit violence against us.

But what about the paralyzed? What about the aids victims in the final stages of their disease. What about a rapist? A robber? A shoplifter? A shoplifter with cancer?
WHERE, ALLY, DO WE DRAW THE LINE? Who gets to judge?

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. And has been drawn. Murderers can be put to death. A life for a life. Quite simple.

We shall pay for Sutcliffes life because we are NOT animals, Ally, and because we recognize that we do not have the right to put other people to death. All other suggestions are primitive.

No. The suggestion is not primitive. It's logical. What precisely is "primitive" about it? How precisely is feeding and clothing a murderer more "advanced"? What logically makes it a better alternative?

The rest of your post is a long rant about the injustice of the death penalty and why it's so bad and it's biased and blah blah blah, but 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?

[Fisherman]

Ally:

"Have you noticed that every time you find yourself in a debate that you cannot just walk away from, you blame the other person for your lack of will power? I have posted three posts on this. How many have you posted?"

Three to you - and a number of other posts that I wish you had read before going to war.

"You have either missed the point, or are choosing to evade it. One of your pins for being against the death penalty is that it is state-sanctioned violence. Jail is state sanctioned violence. Therefore you DO condone state sanctioned violence and your argument against the death penalty as state-sanctioned violence is rendered moot."

You do have a flair for simplicity, Iīll give you that! Unless you have noticed it yourself, Ally, there is a built-in difference inbetween these two types of punishments, and that is that those who are subjected to the violence involved in being imprisoned can hold some hope of things getting better, whereas that does not apply to the former category...
Like before, I urge you to read what I have said in my former posts; in this case I have very clearly pointed out that I do NOT approve of jail-related violence. But - as I likewise have pointed out before (and I thought that you did not want me to post too much ...?) - if the alternative to imprisonment is to let people like Sutcliffe walk free, then that is no alternative at all.

The paramount importance that must be pressed in all of this is NOT that we need to take revenge, it is NOT that death penalty is a useful thing and it is NOT that anybody who has lived a righteous life may have a go with a baseball bat at the heads of those who did not. The one parametre that carries true weight here is that we must safeguard the good people in society from the ones who aim to harm them - that is, the Sutcliffes. Now, if jailing such men in an environment that is violent is the only alternative, then letīs jail them in violent environments. If boiling them alive in oil is the only alternative to letting them loose, then letīs boil them in oil. If handing them over to a mob is the only alternative, then so be it, FOR IT IS OF VITAL IMPORTANCE THAT SOCIETY IS CLEARED OF THEM!
Now, as circumstances will have it, we are not forced to electrocute Sutcliffe in order to keep him away from society. Nor do we have to hand him over to any mob or boil him in oil to reach this - we can simply lock him away. And when we do so, we should try and avoid people having a go at him inside the prison walls, since we ought not provide the those who would love to kill him with an opportunity to kill. It would be completely unethical in every sense, towards the intended killers, towards Sutcliffe and towards ourselves.

"you have not answered on previous threads my question as to why precisely his victims and society at large should be forced to provide him with food and sustenance for the next 90 years? Why should we pay for his continued existence? He will never contribute meaningfully to society again if he remains behind bars. So why exactly should we continue to pay for a life that was a total waste, and will never be productive?"

Because we have a collective responsibility towards all people, no matter how bad they are. If Hitler had not shot himself the same would have applied to him, and if you think I am a friend of his life and ideas, then think again, Ally. And still I say the responsibility is ours, unless we want to go searching for the thin line where we may dispose of anybody who is "not productive". You mentioned earlier that animals kill other animals who do not function, and that such a thing is natures way of pointing out to us that we may do the same with Sutcliffe, since another stance would just be a uselessly emotional one.
But what about the paralyzed? What about the aids victims in the final stages of their disease. What about a rapist? A robber? A shoplifter? A shoplifter with cancer?
WHERE, ALLY, DO WE DRAW THE LINE? Who gets to judge? You? Me? Shall we vote for it, or shall we find a new Ceasar who can send people to death with the aid of his thumb?
We shall pay for Sutcliffes life because we are NOT animals, Ally, and because we recognize that we do not have the right to put other people to death. All other suggestions are primitive.

"Your basis against the death penalty has nothing to do with intelligence. It is primarily about emotion and how you feel. Which is the opposite of reason and logic. there is no LOGICAL reason for keeping Sutcliffe and his ilk alive. What intelligent reason is there for his continued existence?"

Aha. So all the investigations made, telling us that the death penalty will not stop people from perpetrating crimes that sort under it, are only emotional inlays in the debate? My dismay about the fact that the US has a long tradition of sending afroamericans to their deaths for crimes that white people will get away with with their lives spared, is just an irrational irritation about something unavoidable? The notion that the fact that Italian americans have gone from being the worst criminals in the USA during the 1920:s to being as law-abiding as any other group of foreign based Americans may have had something to do with social factors is just whining about things that donīt matter?
Actually, Ally, since I am the one speaking calmly for the right of every human being to live on in spite of what they have done, whereas you crave Sutcliffes head on a plate, a good deal of posters may be confused by your assertion that I am the emotional one in this debate. It may well seem that you are the one who feels like tearing Sutcliffe to pieces, whereas I am the one who is content with having him locked up.

"My views on the death penalty are based entirely on logic."

Thatīs the strange thing, Ally. You see, I am of the same mind in my case. And we cannot both be correct, can we?

The best,
Fisherman

[claire]

[QUOTE/]”So it's all right to lock them up, treat them worse than dogs, throw them in cages where they will be beaten and raped by other animals, but a clean death, oh no, THAT's degrading? You think prisons are less socially sanctioned violence? The state is forcing them to be there, therefore the state is responsible for anything that happens to them. You think Joran Van der Sloot isn't going to be PRAYING for a clean death?”
[/QUOTE]

Mm. Cos that's not emotive hyperbole. I can almost hear the soapbox creaking.

(sorry, effed up the formatting)

[Ally]

You just wonīt give it a rest, will you, Ally?

Have you noticed that every time you find yourself in a debate that you cannot just walk away from, you blame the other person for your lack of will power? I have posted three posts on this. How many have you posted? This is what comes of teaching people they aren't responsible for their own actions.

And a lot of wrapping it was, for some reason. I have no problem with posters asking away, but when they start out by throwing unpolite accusations about them, I tend to be less inclined to take them seriously. And if they react to this by crowning themselves winners of the debate, it does very little to increase my lust for a rational discussion. The fact that this seems to be how you often go about things, disguising it as a no-nonsense tough guy attitude, will not be helpful either.

Yawn.

No, it is not alright. But given the choice between letting them loose or subjecting them to the reality of prison-life for a man who represents the lowest form of life, as seen by the inmates, I would opt for the latter choice. That is not saying that I condone all the actions that are taken against men like Sutcliffe – it is just saying that the good guys out there should not be confronted with the Sutcliffe characters if it can be avoided. Letīs not fall in the trap of over-simplification if we can avoid it, Ally.

You have either missed the point, or are choosing to evade it. One of your pins for being against the death penalty is that it is state-sanctioned violence. Jail is state sanctioned violence. Therefore you DO condone state sanctioned violence and your argument against the death penalty as state-sanctioned violence is rendered moot. The good guys out there can absolutely be prevented from the likes of encountering Sutcliffe, with the implementation of a simple injection.

And you have not answered on previous threads my question as to why precisely his victims and society at large should be forced to provide him with food and sustenance for the next 90 years? Why should we pay for his continued existence? He will never contribute meaningfully to society again if he remains behind bars. So why exactly should we continue to pay for a life that was a total waste, and will never be productive?

”If intelligence were enough to override nature, violence would have been stamped out 4000 years ago.”

And if nature was enough to override intelligence, we would still have the death penalty here in Sweden. But we donīt. You do, though …
Cheap shot? Absolutely, but since you brought the subject up, thereīs one answer for you.

Actually it's not a cheap shot, it's a senseless and irrational shot. Your basis against the death penalty has nothing to do with intelligence. It is primarily about emotion and how you feel. Which is the opposite of reason and logic. there is no LOGICAL reason for keeping Sutcliffe and his ilk alive. What intelligent reason is there for his continued existence?

Those against the death penalty are more emotional and acting based more on feeling than those "revenge crazed blood thirst savages" out for death.

My views on the death penalty are based entirely on logic: there is a limited number of resources on the planet and no individual should be forced to pay for the food and shelter and clothing of a man like Sutcliffe for all of his life.

[Fisherman]

You just wonīt give it a rest, will you, Ally?

"My tone ... was wrapped around actual arguments"

And a lot of wrapping it was, for some reason. I have no problem with posters asking away, but when they start out by throwing unpolite accusations about them, I tend to be less inclined to take them seriously. And if they react to this by crowning themselves winners of the debate, it does very little to increase my lust for a rational discussion. The fact that this seems to be how you often go about things, disguising it as a no-nonsense tough guy attitude, will not be helpful either.
My advice to you, Ally, would be to go back on this thread and read my posts. They contain answers to just about everything you presented within that voluminous wrapping. I will, however, provide you with a few answers to points that have not already been discussed:

”So it's all right to lock them up, treat them worse than dogs, throw them in cages where they will be beaten and raped by other animals, but a clean death, oh no, THAT's degrading? You think prisons are less socially sanctioned violence? The state is forcing them to be there, therefore the state is responsible for anything that happens to them. You think Joran Van der Sloot isn't going to be PRAYING for a clean death?”

No, it is not alright. But given the choice between letting them loose or subjecting them to the reality of prison-life for a man who represents the lowest form of life, as seen by the inmates, I would opt for the latter choice. That is not saying that I condone all the actions that are taken against men like Sutcliffe – it is just saying that the good guys out there should not be confronted with the Sutcliffe characters if it can be avoided. Letīs not fall in the trap of over-simplification if we can avoid it, Ally.

”You seek to equate the murder of an innocent with the killing of a person so far removed from humanity that they could take another's life with no more thought than you give to your fish.”

No. But I condemn BOTH actions.

”If intelligence were enough to override nature, violence would have been stamped out 4000 years ago.”

And if nature was enough to override intelligence, we would still have the death penalty here in Sweden. But we donīt. You do, though …

Cheap shot? Absolutely, but since you brought the subject up, thereīs one answer for you. And I do believe that even you would agree that very many ”elements of nature” have been abandoned in favour of intelligence. If, for example, I was to take a liking to you and find that my life felt somewhat empty withut you, I would not club you over your head and drag you to my cave. Instead, in serious conflict with my nature and true desires, I would ask you to come home with me and look at my etchings. And you would not want to blame that on my inferiority complex, would you?

The best,
Fisherman
(going shopping - but Iīll be back...!)

[Ally]

Actually no, you didn't. My tone, which you may object to if you choose, was wrapped around actual arguments, points of fact and statements for debate. Your reply had none of that and did not contain a single point of rebuttal or fact or argument. If you are going to respond as I did, then make an effort to present rebuttal as well as tone and not empty posturing.

And your objecting to my saying socialist and inferiority complex is hardly a relevant objection, since you have no problem with the portrayal of those of us who believe in the death penalty to be blood-baying savages out for revenge and other statements of hyperbole and irrationality.

[Fisherman]

Ally writes:

"By your clown routine, I presume you have no rational response to what I posted"

My "clown routine", Ally, was led on by the fact that you yourself chose to treat me, shall we say, slightly unseriously. I was presented with the choice of taking your accusations of inferiority complexes, lack of faith and galloping socialism seriously or playing along at your own pace. I went for the latter.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ally]

By your clown routine, I presume you have no rational response to what I posted, and have resorted to buffoonery. I won't bother to respond to the clowning and will just accept your concession of defeat.

To answer the one question posed to me: yes, I am absolutely sure that I could cleanly and without remorse kill the likes of Peter Sutcliffe or one of his ilk. I could also kill a pedophile, a rapist or a child abuser with as little problem as stepping on the aforementioned roach. Actually I have more problems stepping on roaches. I love shoes and hate to see them befouled by bug guts.

There's a scene in one of the Lethal Weapon movies (sigh, no more enjoyment of those now that Mel gibson has gone nuts) where his character was confronted by a snarling dog and his partner says shoot it, and he says something like "I can't shoot a dog. People are okay, I can shoot them, but not a dog." I totally get that sentiment.

[Fisherman]

Ally:

"I am sorry you suffer from such a complete inferiority complex or lack faith that you have a rational and logical mind."

Donīt be, Ally - you just go ahead with your judging and never mind me. I prefer not to be noticed at all when it comes to making decisions on the scale we are speaking of here.

"It is not crimes against society that make one deserving of death. It is deliberate crimes against other individuals."

I am not sure whether you speak of passing death sentences ā la the US here, or if you are just talking about everybodys right to judge other people, but whichever way, I AM sure that it is societyīs norms that rule these things. We do not state that somebody deserves to die because mr Chatworthy of Queensborough Terrace think so - we adjust to the norms and rules of our fellow men and women - society, that is!

"I realize with the new socialist collective mentality, it is hard for some to understand the concept of individual rights and individual responsibilities and that we aren't just products or members of the world that surrounds us, but autonomous beings who are responsible for ourselves."

Socialist collectivism does not enter the equation the way I do my counting.

"So it's all right to lock them up, treat them worse than dogs, throw them in cages where they will be beaten and raped by other animals ..."

Me oh my; did I say ALL THAT?

"You think prisons are less socially sanctioned violence?"

I do...? Really?

"You think Joran Van der Sloot isn't going to be PRAYING for a clean death?"

Uh-huh? That too?

"I would be perfectly happy to carry out not "violent retribution" but perfect justice on anyone who attacks me. However your state has made that illegal for me to do. Therefore justice demands that they do it for me, because they have refused me the right to seek justice on my own behalf."

And you would rather have it the other way around?

"You are a fisherman for real are you not?"

You better believe it, Ally! A shy, faith-lacking fisherman with an inferiority complex, but still ...!

"You seek to equate the murder of an innocent with the killing of a person so far removed from humanity that they could take another's life with no more thought than you give to your fish."

Is that so? Amazing!

"I could absolutely kill a person of Peter Sutcliffes nature. There would be no reveling, there would be no "mwah ha ha, the blood I crave!" It would be of no more consequence to me that stepping on a roach."

Now, THAT is what I call guts, Ally! No whining about everybodys right to some sort of dignity there! No emotions, no remorse. Zap, bang, whoom, and away go the creeps. And to think that just a small effort of wiping off your soles is all that is needed afterwards! Now, I donīt want to be fussy, but you ARE sure that you could do it, are you not? Or would you have somebody do it for you? Maybe it could be carried out as some sort of societal duty, teaching us all the necessity of ... well, crushing the occasional roach. The squeamish members of society who were not up to it could be sent on courses, where they would learn to be a bit more macho and abandon their socialist agendas. Makes one wonder how Pol Pot managed to pull his thing off, does it not?

"Religions of the world have given us this false impression that we are somehow special, somehow divine, something more than just monkeys, which leads us to a false impression that somehow, someway if we just do everything perfectly, we will rise above our base natures and somehow, we will live in a world without violence. Not going to happen."

Well, there goes that misconception, thank you very much ...!

"I'm Wicked through and through"

I refuse to believe that, Ally - surely even for you there is hope?

The best,
Fisherman
(who, incidentally, thought he was done with this thread)

[Ally]

You see, Robert, what I try to refrain from is thinking that I could somehow be a valid judge of whos life is worth more and whose is worth less. Itīs not until you allow yourself this, that you can come up with the idea that you are fit to pass judgement on other people and carry out verdicts.

I am sorry you suffer from such a complete inferiority complex or lack faith that you have a rational and logical mind. I do not however have any doubt of my ability to judge validly whose life is worth less than another's. It depends solely on the individuals actions.

In a sense, it is of course all very simple; society imposes a set of more or less severe norms and rules on us,and those who manage to live up to those norms and rules are regarded as better citizens than those who do not.
Those who fail very significantly - for example by killing for lust - end up at the bottom place of the list.
It all could not get much simpler than that, could it?

Actually it's a lot more complex but with your lack of faith in your reasoning I can understand how you are confused. It is not crimes against society that make one deserving of death. It is deliberate crimes against other individuals. I realize with the new socialist collective mentality, it is hard for some to understand the concept of individual rights and individual responsibilities and that we aren't just products or members of the world that surrounds us, but autonomous beings who are responsible for ourselves.

We need things to be evened out, we need the scales to stop tipping over, we want what we define as justice.
But who is to define and measure the amount of revenge we are to impose upon the perceived wrongdoers and normbreakers? Who are to carry out the punishment?

As "society" has made it illegal for me to carry out the punishment against my attacker, then it is society's job to do it on my behalf. In the olden days, if a person is murdered, then the mob goes and kills the attacker. This is messy, I understand and could lead to accidental slayings of the non-guilty. So the state steps in. However, they must enact the punishment that they have denied me. If you attack a human being, if you commit violence against an individual of that society, then you have proven yourself detrimental to that society as a whole and you need to be removed from it. The resources of that society should not be used to sustain you, the members of that society should not be forced to provide for you. You have proven yourself an enemy to that society and you should not be permitted to exist within it or be succored by it. In short: death.

I say that it is a damn sight MORE naive to believe that there is such a thing as benefiting from carrying out socially sanctioned violence.

We put dogs to sleep with a lot less violence than these men inflict on their victims. Death need not be violent. However since you are opposed to socially sanctioned violence, what exactly do you think happens in prisons? So it's all right to lock them up, treat them worse than dogs, throw them in cages where they will be beaten and raped by other animals, but a clean death, oh no, THAT's degrading? You think prisons are less socially sanctioned violence? The state is forcing them to be there, therefore the state is responsible for anything that happens to them. You think Joran Van der Sloot isn't going to be PRAYING for a clean death?

Claire, once again:
"let's not turn ourselves into blood-baying savages who would look to the state to justify our own lust for violent retribution. That doesn't let us off the hook."
Exactly so.

I would be perfectly happy to carry out not "violent retribution" but perfect justice on anyone who attacks me. However your state has made that illegal for me to do. Therefore justice demands that they do it for me, because they have refused me the right to seek justice on my own behalf.

Natalie left a question of mine unanswered. She wrote that she would not mind "them" pulling a sack over Peter Sutcliffes head and throwing him into the river to drown, and I asked who "them" were supposed to be. That question still stands, and not only for Natalie; it stands for anybody who is prepared to crave anybody elses blood in return for a criminal offense, no matter how sick and bad that offense may be.

You are a fisherman for real are you not? You go off trolling for your victims all the time. Do you crave their blood? Do you glorify in their deaths? Do you stand over their fishy bodies and revel in the gore and the blood? No? Why aren't you reveling or agonizing over the death? Not all deaths are equal deaths are they?

You seek to equate the murder of an innocent with the killing of a person so far removed from humanity that they could take another's life with no more thought than you give to your fish. So in my mind, they are no more than fish. I could absolutely kill a person of Peter Sutcliffes nature. There would be no reveling, there would be no "mwah ha ha, the blood I crave!" It would be of no more consequence to me that stepping on a roach.

Those who would be truly prepared to take Peter Sutcliffes life in exchange for his deeds would justify their own actions by saying that the world would be a better place without the likes of Sutcliffe in it.

No. I don't have to "justify" my actions by saying that the world would be a better place without him. It's not about improving the world. Other than taking out the trash and not wasting my resources or forcing me to pay for the housing of monsters under some phony pretext of social "awareness". It is you guys who argue against the death penalty who need to fall back on making the world better, and your dreams of redemption. You fail to understand simple biology. Humans, for all our achievements are ANIMALS. Religions of the world have given us this false impression that we are somehow special, somehow divine, something more than just monkeys, which leads us to a false impression that somehow, someway if we just do everything perfectly, we will rise above our base natures and somehow, we will live in a world without violence. Not going to happen. If intelligence were enough to override nature, violence would have been stamped out 4000 years ago. All intelligence has done is given us better tools than teeth and claw to enact violence. When an animal becomes diseased and turns against its pack, the pack does not shelter it. And neither should we. Our intelligence doesn't make us better or more able to cope with the diseased. It just makes us more prone to waffling about it.

[Fisherman]

Natalie:

"Anyway,enough said."

Robert:

"I will drop it for now"

Fisherman:

"Good suggestions!"

[Fisherman]

Mike writes:

"Plaguematic, maybe. I seem to remember something about Rattus Norwegicus"

Thatīs all garbled, Mike. Them rats came from the old Habsburgian empire, so Praguematic would be the word your searching.

The best,
Fisherman

[Bob Hinton]

Simple solution

There is of course a very simple solution to this problem of wanting early release, and that is to have only one sentence. On giving a verdict of Guilty where the offence warrants a prison sentence all that is needed is to give one not to exceed two hundred years.

Thay way the prisoner knows right from the start that he will not serve longer than two hundred years. He may serve a shorter sentence but that's up to him. If he is very good and well behaved he might get out early. If not he can stay in untill the 200 are up.

It would be teriffic incentive for prisoners to keep their noses very very clean and be so well behaved.

Of course this is a once only offer. If they are released early and re-offend they then do the full 200 - or as much of it as they can.