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

[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.

[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

[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]

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

[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.

[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.

[The Good Michael]

I'm with Frank on this one.

Mike

[j.r-ahde]

Hello you all!

Well;

I think, that Sutcliffe has a right to make appeals as many as he likes.

But;

1. The victims cannot be brought back to life.

2. Like Zodiac said, the scars of the survivors cannot be repaired.

3. I don't know, if there is a study about released serial killers (if any of them has ever been released) doing it again or not. But I don't want to see any ginnypigs about the matter.

All the best
Jukka

[Fisherman]

Adam, Zodiac; the way I see things, it rests upon the non-criminal part of society to deal with people like Sutcliffe. That basically means that the good guys are the ones who must handle the bad ones.

Now, my favoured wiew of the ones belonging to the good side, is a wiew of compassionate people who identify their top priority as the the duty of seeing to it that the good guys are not harmed by the bad guys. In the case of Sutcliffe, I believe that it means that he must never again walk free. But this is not primarily because society needs to get back at him for what he did, but instead because those who abide by the rules and norms of society should be safeguarded from the likes of Sutcliffe to the largest possible extent.

Sutcliffe of course does not deserve any leniency from society, nor has he earned any dignity by his actions. On the contrary - he has effectively disabled himself to be able to raise any such demands at all.
But that does not mean that we have somehow earned the right to treat him badly, no matter how strange that may sound. Our obligations lie not in revenge against wrong-doers, but in safeguarding the good ones. Consequentially, however "fair" it may sound to hand over the shaping of justice to the relatives and friends of Sutcliffes victims, and let them decide his fate, it would be a disastrous route to choose. It would corrupt any true sense of justice and it would bring us back to the an-eye-for-an-eye-age that most of us recognize was never a wise way of imposing law and order. The obvious result in Sutcliffes case, if we were to live by such a rule, would be to simply lynch him. And theoretically speaking, if we had a chance to undo what Sutcliffe did by lynching him, then that would probably be the "moral" thing to do. But no such chance is at hand, is it?

The likes of Sutcliffe are dangerous to society for a number of reasons. They kill other people, and that is a sad thing. They leave, just like you point out, a good deal more people orphaned, traumatized and physically and mentally crippled, and that is perhaps, in a sense, even worse.
But letīs not forget that they also put us all, to a larger or smaller extent, at risk to corrupt ourselves morally. And once we give in to the temptation they impose upon us - and that involves anything from denying them any sort of dignity and hope to dragging them out into the street and ripping them apart - we have taken a step along the road that we blame the likes of Peter Sutcliffe for having walked to the full - the road of intentionally harming other people. Letīs show ourselves some respect and avoid that.

The best,
Fisherman

[Zodiac]

I think even a prisoner needs some hope; the hope of freedom. If there is nothing left, there should still be hope.

Hope? Try tell that to the 13 women and girls that Sutcliffe brutally murdered, there is no hope for them. They can never hope be be released from the death sentence that he condemned them to. Try tell it to the 26 orphans that Sutcliffe created, whoses childhoods he totally destroyed. Try tell it to the women and girls who "survived" his attacks, their brains irepairably damaged, their broken skulls held together with metal plates. Yet still worse even than their physical scars, their mental and psychological ones. Their personalities changed almost beyond recognition, their relationships with their families and friends shattered, often beyond repair. Try tell it to the families and loved ones left behind. Theirs is a life sentence from which there is no hope of release until they die. Try tell it to Wilf MacDonald, who would never recover from the horrific murder of his daughter Jayne, just 16 years old, and who would fashion, with his own hands, the simple cross that would mark her grave from the wood of the bunk bed that she would never sleep in again. Within 2 years he would be buried next to her. Jayne used to babysit for the local kids, including both myself the McCann children. Try tell it to my friend Sonia, who never recovered from her mum's murder when she was just 7 year old and who, finally, simply could not go on any longer and took her own life, just before Christmas 2007.

I think deep inside Peter Sutcliffe knows that he will never be released, but at least he wants to have the hope.

He may well want it, but he does not deserve it. The very least he deserves is to spend the rest of his life in hopeless despair.

I think that people like Peter Sutcliffe should never be released.

I completely agree with you.

I think that even prisoners should be treated as humane as possible. We - the community - can and should take away their freedom for what they have done, but we cannot and should not take away their human dignity.

Dignity??? What dignity did he allow his victims? NONE! He took away every last shred of their dignity! For ****s sake I'm not even going to go into the details of what that sack of **** did to them, it makes me too ill. If you really give a damn you can look it up for yourself.

I think that it is a shame that there are people who helped to make the world a better place and are now treated worse than any prisoners. I think their situation should be improved, but that cannot be achieved by worsening the situation in our jails. I think that even those who think that prison is some kind of holiday to some would not like to be imprisoned.

I think that it is SHAMEFUL that there are people who helped to make the world a better place and are now treated worse than any prisoners. And as for whether or not prisons are holiday camps? Well my advice is simple, Don't go around commiting the crimes in the first place and you won't have to worry about booking a suite will you?

Best wishes,

Zodiac.

[Adam Went]

Frank:

I think that even prisoners should be treated as humane as possible. We - the community - can and should take away their freedom for what they have done, but we cannot and should not take away their human dignity.

Depends on the crime/s that they have committed. Those who stoop to the level of taking the lives of other people for no other reason than the sheer satisfaction of it don't deserve anything resembling 'dignity'.

I think that even those who think that prison is some kind of holiday to some would not like to be imprisoned.

Free medical, free dental, free rent, free counselling, free food, free education, free electricity, phone calls and visits frequently. How are they being taught a lesson exactly? Our tax money goes into all of that BS. Meanwhile our senior citizens can barely afford to survive....there is no justification for that. None!

Other than that, pretty much agree with your points.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Fisherman]

... and I think that was just about the best post on this thread so far. Thanks for that, Frank!

The best,
Fisherman

[Frank]

I think even a prisoner needs some hope; the hope of freedom. If there is nothing left, there should still be hope.
I think deep inside Peter Sutcliffe knows that he will never be released, but at least he wants to have the hope.
I think that people like Peter Sutcliffe should never be released.
I think that even prisoners should be treated as humane as possible. We - the community - can and should take away their freedom for what they have done, but we cannot and should not take away their human dignity.
I think that it is a shame that there are people who helped to make the world a better place and are now treated worse than any prisoners. I think their situation should be improved, but that cannot be achieved by worsening the situation in our jails.
I think that even those who think that prison is some kind of holiday to some would not like to be imprisoned.

[Zodiac]

Oh but we all know how well the prisoners get treated these days, it's almost like a holiday for some of them.

There was a docco on TV just last night actually, which showed that old age pensioners, who helped build the world we know today and some of whom probably fought for us and lost friends and family in wartime, get treated worse than an average prisoner does. It is absolutely sickening and deplorable that this should be allowed to happen.

Why Sutcliffe should even be allowed to consider this option is a joke....bring back Alcatraz and the Tower of London, I say.

Cheers,
Adam.

Yes, Adam, it's all just too sick and ****ed up and I just don't have the words tonight. Maybe better if I post tomorrow.

Best wishes,

Zodiac.

[Adam Went]

Oh but we all know how well the prisoners get treated these days, it's almost like a holiday for some of them.

There was a docco on TV just last night actually, which showed that old age pensioners, who helped build the world we know today and some of whom probably fought for us and lost friends and family in wartime, get treated worse than an average prisoner does. It is absolutely sickening and deplorable that this should be allowed to happen.

Why Sutcliffe should even be allowed to consider this option is a joke....bring back Alcatraz and the Tower of London, I say.

Cheers,
Adam.