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

[claire]

******* hell. Whisky. Back slaps. The odd kiss, if I'm of a mind. Here's the reality: life sucks. Sometimes things hurt so badly that we don't even know our own minds anymore. The only thing we can do is struggle through it the best we can, and reach out hands to others from time to time.

You know, maybe somewhere between all of this, there's some truth, or at least some resolution, that can be attained. Getting there, though, requires at least considering the opposite perspective. I don't see how else we can recalibrate our moral compasses from time to time.

Then again, maybe not. Maybe it's just too complicated an issue to do anything but yell and generalise. And maybe, in the end, that's what makes us human: both our failing and our salvation.

I'm off fer a gin.

[claire]

So bugger off,what do you know about male violence and rape!

posts crossed...lol More succinct than I managed

[bolo]

Hello all,

I wanted to add my opinion to this thread but I guess it's too late now that it got all emotional and one-sided. Too bad, as I found it quite interesting on the first few pages.

* buggers off *

Regards,

Boris

[mariab]

Don't “bugger off“, Bolo! I don't think that this thread should exclude male posters! Fisherman said some “clueless“ things, but I think it has more to do with him having led a sheltered life that anything else. And it probably has more to do with age than with being male or female. My boss (who's old like the mountains) is like this too, he hates admitting that he was ever wrong – unless physically threatened. And come to think of it, my mom is the same, will never apologize when wrong, and she ain't a “clueless male“. So it must be an age thing...

[Natalie Severn]

Did you ever---Maria---you then must be the oldest "little girl" on the planet!

[mariab]

Did I ever – what?
I didn't mean to offend anyone mentioning age. But it's a fact that representatives of older generations NEVER EVER admit a mistake to a representative of a younger generation. That's why I'm not surprised that Zodiac apologized eagerly, whereas Fisherman could not fathom it.

[Natalie Severn]

Is Pollyanna starting to understand the concept of despair through her struggles with Methuselah?.....

[caz]

I must admit I don't really 'get' what's going on here.

Nats slags Fish off for expressing his dislike of the death penalty here on the Sutcliffe thread and I could have sworn I read her expressing the same dislike of the death penalty on the burka thread.

I do get why victims of serious crimes feel strongly about the subject and feel offended when they think others would have the offenders get off more lightly if it were up to them. But why does that apply here? Nobody to my knowledge has suggested that Sutcliffe has been treated too harshly up until now, and, if anything, most people here (apart from Ally) appear to think that a lethal injection would have been far too kind to the "street cleaning" scumbag. Street cleaning my arse.

It's all a wee bit academic if there is no way that Sutcliffe is ever going to be set free with a slap on the wrist, and no way he is ever going to face legal execution either. But if our politicians had the balls to introduce measures that would stop offenders like this having access to a penny more of taxpayer's money than is absolutely necessary for their barest survival needs, until the grim reaper sees fit to pay a visit, I imagine we would all sing with one voice and not keep beating each other up over stuff we either can't change or wouldn't want to change.

Love,

Caz
X

[Natalie Severn]

Yes Caz,but I am against public stonings and beheadings -not lethal injection for the likes of Sutcliffe.

[mariab]

Quote:Is Pollyanna starting to understand the concept of despair through her struggles with Methuselah?
Nah, probably the other way around. Polyanna's despair pertains to more immediate, tangible troubles.

Caz, as always you're the voice of reason.

[caz]

Yes Caz,but I am against public stonings and beheadings -not lethal injection for the likes of Sutcliffe.

Ah, sorry Nats, I must have entirely misunderstood what you were saying elsewhere regarding a female equivalent of Sutcliffe:

Very, very few people were taken in by this monstrous woman,who many did wish dead along with her grotesque lover,
but wishing someone dead is one thing, actually carrying out murder by law - state execution quite another.
I wouldnt want to go back to this primitive and quite revolting state punishment....

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

And this Nats:

'So what happens if a person who has killed as a result of mental health problems arising from an illness such as paranoid schizophrenia, ie due to an illness of the mind that was beyond his or her control? Do we hang these people by the neck too?'

I thought you were arguing recently on yet another thread that Sutcliffe genuinely saw himself on a moral 'mission' to clean the streets - which would make him mentally ill if you were correct, wouldn't it? Must be my mistake again.

And this:

'I was honestly a bit surprised there still was a 'Bring Back Hanging" lobby? Are you going to volunteer as Britain"s next hangman then Robert? Is this all to do with supporting fundamentalism of one kind or another?
I know there is a lot of public flogging ,public beheadings and a fair bit of public stoning in quite a few countries where fundamentalism is rife- and some thousands of women languishing in jails because they would prefer to live in a secular society ----in fact they would prefer to live under some sort of Democracy if possible.........but where is this going to end---are we actually going to lobby for widow burning to be allowed as well in honour of certain fundamentalist religious "revivals"?'

I'm not sure I see any significant difference between Robert's rope and your lethal injection in a 'where is this going to end' sense. I don't see why either need go any further, do you? Colonel Mustard with the rope in the library or Mrs White with the needle in the kitchen doesn't have to lead on to the Rev Green with fire or (brim)stones in the public square.

'But Robert,you havent answered my question.Why not go the whole hog and have public hangings ,the birch,the stocks, the pillory ,hands cut off for stealing a sheep .whoops---I forgot -it was a hanging offence wasnt it ? So why not go the whole hog?'

Why not ask the same questions of yourself, with your lethal injections?

Love,

Caz
X

[Natalie Severn]

You did well Caz, even the "emboldening" was fair enough! Congratulations!
Ok. Well I think Ally and others have brought me round to more of an acceptance of the death penalty when it is carried out by a "lethal injection".I have always been untroubled by the death penalty for the crimes against humanity carried out by Hitler and his henchmen.And so long as there is no question of guilt or the wrong person being executed, for crimes of torture and murder carried out on children,for example those committed by Hindley and Brady -and I would include Ian Huntley here and his like; for the serial murders,rapes and mutilations that comprised the types of crimes against women that Sutcliffe committed .For these and similar murders I believe in the death penalty ie death by lethal injection.
Norma

By the way--why not you ask yourself a few questions:Ever changed your mind about anything at all, Caz? Ever wondered whether you were wrong over anything at all,Caz? You seem full of "certainty" that you are able to find so many faults in my posts!

[Natalie Severn]

My --you have got it in for me Caz.
Well, fair enough:I am not for public floggings,the birch etc.And I dispute that there is any similarity between the public beheadings and stonings of women for adultery say,in certain Middle and far East countries and a lethal injection for Hindley,Sutcliffe and co.No comparison in either the crime or the punishment .There is a question of degree in all this in my view -but I am not going to debate the merits of stoning or hanging versus a lethal injection.

Regarding the mentally ill.Absolutely no question that there should be no death penalty if the person can be shown to have taken "instructions" from his auditory or visual hallucinations-in other words if the person was suffering from a psychotic episode.The person here is so clearly not responsible for their actions.
Sutcliffe was assessed and found not insane.So were Brady, Hindley and Huntley.It is however the case that Sutcliffe feigned insanity but several psychiatrists said he was faking it.

[caz]

By the way--why not you ask yourself a few questions:Ever changed your mind about anything at all, Caz? Ever wondered whether you were wrong over anything at all,Caz? You seem full of "certainty" that you are able to find so many faults in my posts!

All the time, Nats, all the time.

That's why I find it frustrating when I see anyone being totally dogmatic in a debating situation. I try to be open to all alternative views, unless they seem to be at total odds with the available facts.

I applaud you for being willing and able to change your own views, and you have a perfect right to do so, as often and as completely as you like. It's just that here you appeared to be having a go at Fish for a view you were quite strongly expressing yourself only a matter of days ago. That seemed more than a tad unfair.

Love,

Caz
X