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

[Adam Went]

Fisherman & all:

Well, it would be fair to say that Sutcliffe could never be released anyway, as the release of somebody of his calibre into the public would mean that it would be just a matter of time before street justice would catch up with him anyway.

The point is though, that him and his kind shouldn't even be allowed the vague possibility of an eventual release. It should be very much a case of "throw away the key...". Yet another fault with the prison system.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Frank]

It is a fair point to argue with the pain of the victims and their relatives. It is true that Sutcliffe did not care about their dignity at all. But we as the community have, however, no right to repay their pain. We have the right to remove all the Sutcliffes of the world from our community.

The first article in the German Basic Law (constitution) is:
The dignity of man is inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all public authority.

I think this is very important, and it includes the dignity of victims as well as of perpetrators, although it may be hard to accept or even to understand. That is my opinion, and I think it is the intention of the drafters. That does not mean that the community is not allowed to keep people like Sutcliffe imprisoned forever. But that also does not mean that people like Sutcliffe should not even be allowed to make appeals.
As for the dignity of the victims and their relatives it is a shame that they get so little support by legal and public authorities (at least in Germany). But I don't see how it could be helpful to anyone to take some kind of revenge, but that again is just my personal attitude. Maybe someone from the States can answer me the question if it does ease the pain of the survivors if a perpetrator is executed. They still have to grieve for their beloved lost. Nothing can bring back the victims to life. No punishment as hard as it would be can do so. I can imagine that people would like to think that the Sutcliffes of the world were monsters and no human beings, so they deserve ill treatment and should not be allowed human dignity, but in the end they are still human beings. Human beings who committed terrible crimes. Human beings who still have dignity. Dignity is nothing which can be allowed, given or taken away. But dignity can be violated. But is there a difference between a Peter Sutcliffe violating the dignity of his victims and a community violating the dignity of a Peter Sutcliffe? It is hard to accept, even for me, but: No, there isn't! The community would also commit a crime in doing so, and I would not like to be part of such a community. That is why I think Sutcliffe should be allowed to hope for release, but that is also why I think that Sutcliffe should never be released.

[Fisherman]

Adam Went writes:

"The point is though, that him and his kind shouldn't even be allowed the vague possibility of an eventual release. It should be very much a case of "throw away the key...". Yet another fault with the prison system."

I agree that Peter Sutcliffe belongs behind bars, Adam. As a theoretical practice, we may throw forward a scenario where we know for a fact that he would never harm a flie anymore. In such a case, I would still say that he should not be let out, partly since we should not allow such a thing to scare members of society, and partly since it would be harmful to peoples sense of justice.

To round off, I think Frank puts things very well in post 68. Long as we do not share in the bloodlust of people like Sutcliffe, we should be able to cope with men like him.

The best,
Fisherman

[Bob Hinton]

Oh really...

I have no problem with Sutcliffe not dying in jail. Rig up a gallows outside the prison and ask him to make his choice. Simples.

[Fisherman]

Bob Hinton writes:

"I have no problem with Sutcliffe not dying in jail. Rig up a gallows outside the prison and ask him to make his choice. Simples."

Others may be of this opinon if they want to - and I know they do and always have done - but I will not share in the cheering when he swings in such a case. And I would not do so for the exact same reason that I did not cheer when Wilma McCann died.

The best,
Fisherman

[Robert]

If Sutcliffe has now come to appreciate the enormity of his crimes, then he should not want to be released. If on the other hand he does not appreciate the enormity of his crimes, then he is either mad or bad, and should not be released.

If Sutcliffe has somehow convinced himself - or been convinced by others - that he has now paid his debt for what he has done, and that the account has been squared, then he is so deficient in moral feeling that it would be positively dangerous to release him.

[Natalie Severn]

Bob Hinton writes:

"I have no problem with Sutcliffe not dying in jail. Rig up a gallows outside the prison and ask him to make his choice. Simples."

Others may be of this opinon if they want to - and I know they do and always have done - but I will not share in the cheering when he swings in such a case. And I would not do so for the exact same reason that I did not cheer when Wilma McCann died.

The best,
Fisherman

Hi Fisherman,
Wilma McCann was one of his victims so I dont understand the comparison frankly.
Sutcliffe wore a '"sex-suit" consisting of an old jumper he had altered himself that allowed him to further abuse his -victims as well as to murder and mutilate them .He clearly planned these murders carefully,.Also we were told he was definitely not insane.
I couldnt care less what happens to him ,and if he is ever released,I hope he is quickly found and dealt with . Anyway lets just hope that ,like Myra Hindley ,he will never be freed.
Let them tie him up with ropes put a sack over his head and throw him in the river like the rotten garbage that he has been proven beyond any doubt whatsoever ,to be .
Reserve compassion for the relatives of his victims who have had to live with the anguish of having their mother,daughter or sister brutally murdered by one of the worst serial killers who has ever lived.

[Fisherman]

Natalie Severn writes:

"Wilma McCann was one of his victims so I dont understand the comparison frankly."

What I am saying, Natalie, is that just like the taking of Wilma MccCanns life was wrongful, so it would be to take Sutcliffes life in exchange for it. Two wrongs do not one right make.

I sincerely hope that nobody mistakes my stance for some sort of defense for Peter Sutcliffe and what he did. I am as outraged by it as anybody else. I just do not want people to be so corrupted by it that they feel that they have the right to turn into hangmen (or -women) themselves.

This is why I will settle for stating that Peter Sutcliffe should spend the rest of his days jailed and away from society, whereas I see nothing good coming from calling him "rotten garbage" or rejoicing at the very thought of having him lynched, at least not on my own behalf. And if you somehow think that I cannot reconcile this conviction of mine with a deep sympathy and all the compassion in the world for those who were left to grieve his victims, then you are simply wrong. For that you can do without running with the mob.

Please consider this:

"Let them tie him up with ropes put a sack over his head and throw him in the river like the rotten garbage that he has been proven beyond any doubt whatsoever, to be."

Who are "them" Natalie? Would you do the throwing yourself, or would you just sit back and watch?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

For informations´sake - I will be going away over the weekend, and so I shall not be able to respond to any further posts until at the very earliest on Sunday evening. So no disrespect meant if I stay silent for a couple of days!

The best,
Fisherman

[Robert]

Hi Fisherman

You seem to be assuming that Sutcliffe's life is of equal value to those of his victims. I don't agree.

[Natalie Severn]

This is why I will settle for stating that Peter Sutcliffe should spend the rest of his days jailed and away from society, whereas I see nothing good coming from calling him "rotten garbage" or rejoicing at the very thought of having him lynched, at least not on my own behalf.

Peter Sutcliffe surrendered his humanity when he chose to go out,armed with a knife and his home made sex kit, night after night ,murdering and mutilating women.
I see no reason not to think of him as garbage and wish he could be erased from the face of the earth.

[Adam Went]

Well, perhaps think of it this way:

Sutcliffe was jailed for life in 1981. He had 13 victims. That means that if he was to be released, say, next year to round it off, that would be 30 years in prison for the murders of 13 people, which equates to less than 2.5 years for each murder.

How can there possibly be even the remotest justification for something of that nature? Even to contemplate it is horrible.

Cheers,
Adam.

[claire]

Absolutely, he should not be released. Everything that he did, the damage that he wreaked, speaks volumes against his liberation.

But I agree with Fisherman: barbaric acts committed by the likes of Sutcliffe present an enormous risk to our own moral code--to dispense of him in a way that is akin to the way he dispensed with his victims, like so much inconsequential rubbish, makes us just like him.

Now, balancing that with the very human gut reaction, that I share, I confess (to do untold damage to those who have destroyed others), is a tricky tightrope to navigate. But do we allow our own dark side to take over, and descend to the depths that those we deplore have sunk to? I hope not.

There are no easy answers, are there? On the one hand, we can argue against the use of public funds for Sutcliffe's staging of an appeal. But on the other, do we suggest that only the wealthy in such situations can have access to the machinery of justice? What I mean is, if Sutcliffe paid for his appeal out of his own money, would this be more justifiable? More acceptable?

I think, at some point, we have to concede that incarceration alone is sufficient punishment--offenders go to prison AS punishment, and not FOR punishment. It serves the dual purpose, in many cases, of protecting the public from further harm. Should he get out? No, of course not. Let him drive himself crazy amongst the other evil-doers, listening to their screams night after night; let him be subject to the vicissitudes of policy makers who choose what inmates eat, do, sleep on, see, meet. Lobby for judicial reform, by all means, to forbid such appeals. But 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.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Claire,
Well personally I am against the death penalty for a number of reasons , which I won"t go into now, suffice is to say I accept, as you do , the punishment by prison sentences for murderers and rapists.
However , as a result of a crime by a stranger that went unpunished when I was four years old ,[despite police combing the area where I lived to try to find him] I was still, after many years, subject to certain anxieties connected with the crime which kept re-surfacing every so often, causing me to have disturbing flashbacks and sleep disorders.
Eventually , after gaining the courage to talk about my fears with a doctor who specialized in working with victims of childhood trauma I was encouraged to "punish"the man myself,--in my imagination that is, which I did, and I then began to recover from the original ordeal in which I had been a small child in the complete power of an evil monster.
I suspect that it may at least in part due to this personal experience that I sometimes find it difficult to be objective about the likes of Sutcliffe, Hindley ,Huntley etc .

But I do agree that with regards to the law of the land, a prison sentence is the civilised response to such atrocities and as such is probably the best response from the point of view of society.

[protohistorian]

state execution is not murder

Murder is the taking of human life despite state sanction against it. State execution is the taking of with state sanction. Before we dismiss the value of the state in this definition we should all consider that we are members of a state whether we like it or not, and we are all dependent on the state to provide certain things, not the least of which is security from homicidal whack jobs.Dave