Parole board scores again!

[Roland Butter]

I don't doubt they do know more about him, that doesn't change my view. The important fact here IMO is the nature of his crime - the point still stands as does the question I already asked - he murdered three children he was looking after and impaled them on railings, he was clearly a rather sick individual, whether or not he might have changed now and been deemed to be low risk now doesn't matter IMO - why bother taking any risk with someone like that?

Indeed, the safety of the public should always outweigh an individual's rights, and while 45 years incarceration is very rare by UK standards,
he is there to pay for a heinous crime, a crime that most right-thinking people would agree deserves a whole life sentence.

 

[FortuitousFluke]

How many people have been murdered since 1964 by people who have been convicted of an earlier homicide and who have been released on parole/Under license?

No idea, I was just providing relevant stats. How are the two things related? If you abolish the death penalty do all people who would previously have received the death penalty become eligible for parole?

 

[Ergates]

Indeed, the safety of the public should always outweigh an individual's rights, and while 45 years incarceration is very rare by UK standards,
he is there to pay for a heinous crime, a crime that most right-thinking people would agree deserves a whole life sentence.

And the safety of the public should outweigh any individuals thirst for revenge too. Harsher prison sentences (and/or death penalty) don't make the public safer and there is a good amount of evidence to suggest they have the opposite effect.

 

[enkoda]

Which the parole board would have been fully aware of when they made their decision, yet they still decided he was safe enough to release. It's almost as if they know more about the situation that you do.

They do have access to more information, yet they still make decisions that result in completely avoidable death and misery for innocent people. The fact that it happens at all shows the current system needs to be re-evaluated.

Here is a recent example of what can happen when violent offenders are given a pat on the back for being good in prison and let out on licence: https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/story-how-unwin-mcfall-both-14465421

And the safety of the public should outweigh any individuals thirst for revenge too. Harsher prison sentences (and/or death penalty) don't make the public safer and there is a good amount of evidence to suggest they have the opposite effect.

How does the death penalty for violent murderers not make the public safer?

 

[Roland Butter]

Harsher prison sentences (and/or death penalty) don't make the public safer and there is a good amount of evidence to suggest they have the opposite effect.

Just read that back and consider where you went wrong in writing that statement.

We'll wait.

 

[StriderX]

Just read that back and consider where you went wrong in writing that statement.

We'll wait.

Do you have a point to make?

 

[Roland Butter]

Do you have a point to make?

Do you ?

 

[enkoda]

Just read that back and consider where you went wrong in writing that statement.

We'll wait.

I'm glad it's not just me that read it that way!

 

[FoxEye]

In a previous thread, about employers being able to find out about past sexual and violent assault accusations in some circumstances, you eviscerated The Left for being too cautious, yet here you do the same for the idea that they may be too laissez faire.

Not that this guy getting a job in a nursery or wherever is actually realistic, thanks mainly to laws and regulations brought in under the last labour government.

You surely can't expect him to hold consistent views.

You mean in the other thread where a guy was found not guilty of a crime, and subsequently this turned up on his CRB check?

Yes, surely that's the same as a guy who murdered and then impaled three children.

I sure can't see any difference there.

 

[Orionaut]

No idea, I was just providing relevant stats. How are the two things related? If you abolish the death penalty do all people who would previously have received the death penalty become eligible for parole?

I am comparing Deaths as a result of miscarriages of justice back in the days of capital punishment with the deaths of innocent people as a result of poor decisions made by parole boards'

I am sure I read somewhere that the figure in question is actually quite high

IE the Parole boards poor judgement on the likelihood of violent criminals re offending is likley to be responsible for far more innocent people losing their lives than Pierrpoint ever was...

Now, this will still have happened before 1964. Not all people with Murder convictions went to the gallows, And of those that didn't, many were eventually paroled.

But I think it has happened far more in more recent times.

 

[FortuitousFluke]

I am comparing Deaths as a result of miscarriages of justice back in the days of capital punishment with the deaths of innocent people as a result of poor decisions made by parole boards'

I am sure I read somewhere that the figure in question is actually quite high

IE the Parole boards poor judgement on the likelihood of violent criminals re offending is likley to be responsible for far more innocent people losing their lives than Pierrpoint ever was...

Now, this will still have happened before 1964. Not all people with Murder convictions went to the gallows, And of those that didn't, many were eventually paroled.

But I think it has happened far more in more recent times.

The thing is execution isn't the only way to stop violent offenders re-offending. Life time incarceration would work too and judging by the US model both costs a lot less than the execution process and also leaves the possibility of people being pardoned if they are found to have been wrongly imprisoned.

 

[rubberduck]

I am all for his release providing someone who geeen lit it is willing to let him stay as a lodger at their house around their family.

 

[Orionaut]

The thing is execution isn't the only way to stop violent offenders re-offending. Life time incarceration would work too and judging by the US model both costs a lot less than the execution process and also leaves the possibility of people being pardoned if they are found to have been wrongly imprisoned.

Again, not quite what I am getting at.

Consider;

Position #1; We should not have capital Punishment because we can never be absolutely certain that the suspect is guilty and even a tiny risk of executing an innocent person should be considered an unacceptable risk in a civilized society.

Position #2; Everybody (Well almost everybody anyway) deserves a chance of redemption. All but the most exceptional Convicted Prisoners should have the possibility of a second chance through release after serving fixed sentences or parole. A modest (even significant) risk that they might re-offend and even go on to injure or even kill innocent people should be considered an acceptable risk in a civilized society.

Now, I suspect there are many here who hold both those positions to be the correct ones.

Why?

Justifications please.

 

[FortuitousFluke]

Again, not quite what I am getting at.

Consider;

Position #1; We should not have capital Punishment because we can never be absolutely certain that the suspect is guilty and even a tiny risk of executing an innocent person should be considered an unacceptable risk in a civilized society.

Position #2; Everybody (Well almost everybody anyway) deserves a chance of redemption. All but the most exceptional Convicted Prisoners should have the possibility of a second chance through release after serving fixed sentences or parole. A modest (even significant) risk that they might re-offend and even go on to injure or even kill innocent people should be considered an acceptable risk in a civilized society.

Now, I suspect there are many here who hold both those positions to be the correct ones.

Why?

Justifications please.

Well they're two entirely different points. I could say that anybody who is afraid of flying in a plane should never ride a bike, because accident rates for those riding bikes dwarf those for people who fly in planes, but that's not how it works.

For me state sanctioned execution vs increased risk factors from parolees isn't a fair comparison. Firstly I'm concerned about giving the state as a whole the right to execute its prisoners. In addition to that there is a risk of mistakes occurring as detailed before, these mistakes can't be rectified and nobody has managed to yet convince me that execution provides any benefits when compared to whole life tariffs, which allow the possibility at least for people to be released if found to be wrongly convicted. The risk/reward factor is out of whack.

In terms of early parolees I'm an advocate of prisons main goal being rehabilitation (at the moment it isn't but that would be my ideal), with punishment and segregation being either aspects alongside the rehabilitation or alternatives where rehabilitation isn't considered an option. If we assume we get to a place where x number of people are rewarded for their rehabilitation with earlier release, and we assume that a proportion of those people have genuinely been rehabilitated and are able to now contribute to society then that's potentially a net positive, for them, for the system, and for society. You have to weigh that up with what happens when it goes wrong, but at least under this example there are actually some positives to weigh against the negatives, in the capital punishment argument I personally don't see any positives outside of social vengeance which I won't support.

Now I am open to an argument that looks at actual figures and debates whether or not the number of successful early releases is high enough to justify the failures, but I suspect if it didn't stack up I would first look to improve the success rate rather than scrap the concept.

So really suggesting that holding both views implies some kind of cognitive dissonance isn't quite right. If you really wanted to get cold you could argue that the ratio of deaths/reoffending vs the savings made through early release/rehabilitation might stack up favourably. It's a bit harsh but it might be the governments justification.

 

[Ergates]

How does the death penalty for violent murderers not make the public safer?

Because it doesn't work as a deterrent and, despite the moral panic, the number of murders committed by people on parole (for murder) is low.

 

[200sols]

Because it doesn't work as a deterrent and, despite the moral panic, the number of murders committed by people on parole (for murder) is low.

Low, but still not 0. Death penalty eliminates the threat as does whole life imprisonment. Either is fine.

 

[StriderX]

Doesn't stop the murders happening the first place which is far more important to any sane person and it vastly increases the likelihood that murder would take place if they were likely to be Death Row'd.

Rapes, turn into Murders being the biggest one.

Please stop thinking in small isolated incidents that you don't think transpires beyond them.

 

[Ergates]

Doesn't stop the murders happening the first place which is far more important to any sane person and it vastly increases the likelihood that murder would take place if they were likely to be Death Row'd.

Rapes, turn into Murders being the biggest one.

Please stop thinking in small isolated incidents that you don't think transpires beyond them.

There is also the argument that the existence of state sanctioned killing has the effect of legitimising violence. If it's OK for the state to kill people who have wronged, it must be OK for me.

 

[dowie]

And the safety of the public should outweigh any individuals thirst for revenge too. Harsher prison sentences (and/or death penalty) don't make the public safer and there is a good amount of evidence to suggest they have the opposite effect.

But I presume you're talking about crime in general. When it comes to sick murderers who have flipped out and brutally murdered kids in the way that this guy has then I'm not sure that really applies.

Seems pretty obvious that for that subset of murderers, this guy or people like the Moors murderers, Fred West, Ian Huntley types etc.. then locking them up for a full life sentence to ensure they can never re-offend would be inherently safer than releasing them because we think they've been sufficiently rehabilitated.

I doubt that the question of whether some subset of really disturbing murderers faced full life terms or were eligible for parole has been demonstrated to have any impact on whether or not the likes of those people would have committed their crimes in the first place. However it is rather obvious that letting them out leaves some risk of reoffending that isn't present if we simply keep them locked up for life and frankly, given the nature of these extreme offences, then I don't think the rest of society should necessarily accept that tail risk.

 

[Gixer]

He was locked up at 21, he's done over 45 years in jail, almost 50. If they believe he's been rehabilitated, then I trust their judgement.

Clearly, he should be closely monitored for years afterwards with restrictions, ban from working with kids, kept away from schools and things of that nature, routine visits and a tracking device.

Do you not see the irony in your own post. You trust their judgement yet you think he should be restricted from all the things you mention? If you trust their judgement you'd let him babysit your children no questions asked. Would you let him babysit your own children? If the answer is no then he has not been rehabilitated to the level required to return to society. No one can be watched 100% of the time and in that moment he isn't being watched.....

In this case for me life should mean just that and he should spend the rest his life rotting away in jail. I don't care if it costs, it mitigates completely the risk he'll kill someone else's child.