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

[Limehouse]

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.

I agree with every word Robert.

[claire]

Hi Nats,
This is the thing, isn't it, that to recover, either as a direct or indirect victim of crime(s), we almost have to give vent to our own ability to destroy and to punish. Without doing that, it's a concession of our own powerlessness, and leaves all the power in the hands of the perpetrator. Untangling that need from actually carrying it through in the real world is a tricky old balance; I can't begin to say how much I admire your honesty and courage.

@Proto...I understand your distinction, of course. But justifying capital punishment in such a way depends upon a) the legitimacy of the state, and its wider machineries of justice (Iran, anyone?), and b) the supposition that, a priori, it is acceptable to put someone to death. In some states, it is considered acceptable; in others, the constitution determines that it is not. What is not acceptable, I think, is to decide such matters on the basis of outrage about specific events.

But, you know, this all said, I think part of such a debate arises from our diminishing belief that, in the end, part of a murderer's punishment is the eternal damnation that arises from the fact s/he's committed an act that even God cannot forgive. Since so many of us no longer believe in such a thing, we look to discover vile things that we can wreak upon such offenders, and to justify those in the context of the state, our new religion.

I think I may be rambling now... Ranting, even. I'm just going to nip up to the bar, anyone?

[Robert]

Nats, you are actually in the category of those who have the most chance of being objective. Those who have never been the victim of a serious crime are likely to be the least objective.

[Natalie Severn]

Thankyou Claire---you illustrated with great clarity the dilemma those touched by such crimes have to face!
With regards to state execution. Iran is currently the focus of an international outcry about Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani ,a 43 year old woman ,who has been sentenced to death by stoning.Her initial sentence was for "having an illicit relationship outside marriage" though since the international outcry began the Iranian authorities claim she also conspired to kill her husband .
Sakineh said," I was found guilty of adultery and was acquitted of murder but the man who actually killed my husband was identified and imprisoned but he is not sentenced to death---because his son pardoned him.The reason is quite simple, its because I am a woman. They think they can do anything to women in this country.For them adultery is worse than murder.But not all kinds of adultery: an adulterous man might not even be imprisoned but it is the end of the world for an adulterous woman.Its because I am in a country where women are deprived of their basic rights."
Her lawyer has been exiled and has just gone to Norway from Istanbul.His wife has been imprisoned without charge in solitary confinement in a Tehran prison.

Is the state in this case correct to sentence her to death ?Does it depend on who you are?

[Natalie Severn]

Is that so Robert? I didnt know that I must admit.

[protohistorian]

The people ruled by the state are the only ones who can determine state legitimacy. As for our case, England appears to enjoy it's state, and so the state has legitimacy. We may not like other states and their ways, but we our judging them by our value systems, and we inherited most of those. Dave

[Robert]

Does anyone know if women can vote in Iran?

[protohistorian]

Robert, If the people in Iran are unhappy they can revolt. They have done this as recently as 1979. I should I add that that revolt was against a leader the United States gave them because it felt it had the right to stick it's nose into someone elses business. Dave

[Robert]

Hi Dave

I was just asking a factual question. I'm curious, because one does see women on the streets protesting (or did before the crackdown).

[protohistorian]

Sorry Robert, I did not mean to be short. Here is a link. Dave

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Iran

[Robert]

Thanks Dave. Very interesting, and quite a mixture.

[protohistorian]

No worries Robert. I like learning also! Dave

[Zodiac]

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.

Hi Nats,

First off, I am so sorry to hear about what happened to you when you were a little girl, that is just too awful for words and I want to thank you for your bravery in helping to explain to people just how the whole debate over the rights, dignity and humane treatment of the serial murderer, rapist, paedophile etc. can seem both hurtful and offensive, when you are one of those whose world has been violated by them. I know that nobody deliberately sets out hurt/offend the victims or their loved ones, but is sometimes very difficult to be lectured to from the high moral ground, when every cell in you is crying out to punish the evil bastard, make them suffer as they did their victims. What you said about flashbacks and sleep disorders really strikes a chord with me, in my nightmares I am always the same powerless child I was back then. I've certainly "punished" him in my imagination like you say, oh boy, I have done things to him that would make Ghenghis Khan cross over the road to avoid me!!! I'm sorry if this sounds uncivilised and vengeful, but I've often felt like I actually need to see Sutcliffe die, not to kill him, though I would do that gladly, but just to be there when it happens, to check for a pulse, to make sure that he is really dead, to know that he is never ever going to be able to come back again.

I realise of course that this is never likely to happen and I agree with you Nats that Prison is probably the best punishment that we should expect from society. But I make no appologies to anyone for wanting their living conditions to be harsh/spartan. I'm not talking bread & water and daily floggings, but I do not see what is so civilized about rewarding them for the unspeakable things that they put their victims through and for all the misery and pain inflicted on those left behind, with access to Pool tables, gyms, table tennis, dvds, television etc. That is not civilised, that is like spitting on the victims memory and a kick in teeth to their loved ones, many of who are living in harsh/spartan/difficult circumstances and are not fortunate enough to have access to such of lifes little luxuries.

Sorry about the rant, I'm still not sure that I've managed to get accross what I was trying to say, but rant over anyway.

Best wishes,

Zodiac.

P.S. Thanks again Nats for saying some of the things I've just not been able to put into words properly.

P.P.S. I hope I have not offended anyone with my post, that was not my intention but I appologize if I have done so anyway.

[claire]

The people ruled by the state are the only ones who can determine state legitimacy. As for our case, England appears to enjoy it's state, and so the state has legitimacy. We may not like other states and their ways, but we our judging them by our value systems, and we inherited most of those. Dave

I don't think you can conflate enjoyment with legitimacy. Even Utilitarians had to work a bit to associate happiness with legitimacy; it's not that straightforward.

Also, there are plenty of states that, even if you judge them according to their own value systems, are illegitimate and/or corrupt.

As for Iran (your later post), or any number of other countries, whoa, I really think you overestimate the ability for people to protest. If protest means certain death, it carries a far greater disincentive than it does in, for eg. the UK. The 79 coup was a very different affair to the present situation and, in any case, left a deal of casualties of its own (many of our sizeable Persian population here fled Iran at that time). And, as we might observe in Afghanistan and elsewhere, protests and attempts to wrest power don't always lead to 'what the people want,' but 'power to whomever has the most cash and firepower.' Does that make them legitimate states?

No, the fact that someone has power and that the entire populace isn't on the street in protest does not give them legitimacy or, in turn, the right to decide on capital punishment, or any other such measure designed to strip an individual and the wider society, of dignity. I don't know the answers, of course (!), but this is inadequate argument.

[Robert]

Hi Zodiac

In my book, posters only need to worry about causing offence if they've done so by rudeness, bad language etc. If someone is offended because they don't like someone else's opinion, they'll just have to get on with it.

Those like you and Nats who feel able and willing to speak out are to be admired.