Parole board scores again!

[Ergates]

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.

But you can't have 2 sets of rules that get applied according to some arbitrary distinction made at the point of sentencing. Murder vs Really Bad Murder? The system we already have in place can keep people locked up for life if they are deemed to be a significant risk to the public - they just don't get parole.
I'm not averse to people spending the rest of their lives in jail. What I am against is some kind of *automatic* full life sentence, and the judgement of "Person has done X they should never be released" as opposed to an approach that assess the risk posed by the individual prisoner at the point they are up for parole. If McGreavy no longer poses a threat, there is nothing to be gained from keeping him in prison - other than the bill for keeping him there (prison is hellishly expensive). Releasing him from prison doesn't undo what he's done. It doesn't mean we've forgiven him and he's our best mate now. It just means "We're confident this person isn't going to murder anyone else". Whilst it's possible to argue that confidence is misplaced, doing so when the only information you have available is gleaned from a short newspaper article is largely futile because you are arguing from a position of ignorance.

 

[dowie]

But you can't have 2 sets of rules that get applied according to some arbitrary distinction made at the point of sentencing. Murder vs Really Bad Murder?

Why not - do you suppose that all murderers have the exact same sentence? Or ditto to any number of crimes tbh... the severity of the crime is taken into account.

The system we already have in place can keep people locked up for life if they are deemed to be a significant risk to the public - they just don't get parole.
I'm not averse to people spending the rest of their lives in jail.

Good - well IMHO someone who has impaled kids on railings after flipping out and brutally murdering them is well into the territory of should be locked up for life.

What I am against is some kind of *automatic* full life sentence

I'm not advocating that, I'm advocating it in extreme cases, again, for the third time, why bother taking any risk with someone like that????

If McGreavy no longer poses a threat, there is nothing to be gained from keeping him in prison

Well yes there is, if he's locked up he can't reoffend and his crime is serious enough that it is hardly unreasonable to hold the opinion that he should face a full life sentence. No one has a crystal ball that can tell them for sure he will not re-offend, given what he's done already that IMHO is sufficient to not even want to take the risk in the first place.

Whilst it's possible to argue that confidence is misplaced, doing so when the only information you have available is gleaned from a short newspaper article is largely futile because you are arguing from a position of ignorance.

No I'm not, you're being rather ignorant or forgetful here, as I've already pointed out I've got all the information I need to hold the opinion I've put forth, I frankly don't care about what his behaviour has been like in recent years inside or what basis they have determined he is low risk... putting aside that psychology is currently undergoing a research crisis and is full of rather unsound ideas, models etc... even if I assume that they've got a robust system of determining whether someone is likely to reoffend or not my opinion remains the same - that this "extreme event" he has already demonstrated he's previously been willing to carry out isn't worth risking even if it has a low probability of reoccurring.

 

[Ergates]

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.

No, "Safe to be released back into society" is not the same as "Safe to be employed as a baby sitter". The are many people I wouldn't trust to babysit my children - most of whom have never committed a violent crime.

 

[Orionaut]

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.

How do you know it doesn't work as a deterrent? Have you asked any potential murderers?

It won't deter the people who are not going to be deterred, it will deter those who will be.

It isnt going to deter everybody. either because some people just dont care or because they think they will get away with it and/or the benefits, to them, outweigh the risks.

However, back in the day one got far fewer of the "casual" Murders that we seem to get today and (So called) professionals like bank/payroll robbers were very careful indeed not to "Accidentally" kill anybody.

I cant find the article now, but i am sure i remember reading that the majority (Possibly a significant majority) of homicides in the UK today are committed by people with prior criminal convictions for other offenses.

Me, I am not so much a "Hangem High" person really, but I AM a "Three times loser" one!

I also dislike prison (For various reasons, including the idea that LWP in a prison is basically inhumane)

Shorter, but more physical punishments, EG short terms of "Hard Labor" (7 Days was not an uncommon sentence in the Victorian age) or for more serious offenses an actual whipping. should be used for minor offenses and people who (For whatever reason, including multiple recidivism) we do not wish to ever see again should be exiled.

There are several possible options for this (Exile) ranging from voluntary transportation to any country willing to have you, to isolated crofts in an otherwise uninhabited location such as one of the many currently uninhabited Outer Hebrides islands or even west Falkland, and right up to a full-on penal prison colony mining Coal (or whatever) in somewhere like Svarlbad (Which we do have the right to do) or somewhere similar.

 

[Ergates]

How do you know it doesn't work as a deterrent? Have you asked any potential murderers?

It won't deter the people who are not going to be deterred, it will deter those who will be.

Because countries/states with the death penalty *don't* have lower murder rates than those without. In fact, they have marginally higher ones.

 

[arknor]

decisions like this are easy to make

Is the parole board willing to let him babysit theirs or a close relatives young children for 3 hours each night for a week without any supervision?
If the answer is NO he stays locked up.
If the answer is YES we see how he handles these circumstances and will at the end know if he is reformed and no longer a danger to the general public.

You can bet your left ass cheek they would never agree though! but it's okay when it's a strangers risk right?!?!?!?!

Same thing should go for any offenders.

Want to parole a thief? let him stay at your house for the first few nights...
Want to parole a rapist? let him stay in the same home as the parole boards wives and make sure he has access to alcohol


whens charles bronsons parole? hes less of a danger than this creep child killer.

I'd happily let charles bronson live in my house for a week, sure no risk of him

 

[enkoda]

But you can't have 2 sets of rules that get applied according to some arbitrary distinction made at the point of sentencing. Murder vs Really Bad Murder? The system we already have in place can keep people locked up for life if they are deemed to be a significant risk to the public - they just don't get parole.
I'm not averse to people spending the rest of their lives in jail. What I am against is some kind of *automatic* full life sentence, and the judgement of "Person has done X they should never be released" as opposed to an approach that assess the risk posed by the individual prisoner at the point they are up for parole. If McGreavy no longer poses a threat, there is nothing to be gained from keeping him in prison - other than the bill for keeping him there (prison is hellishly expensive). Releasing him from prison doesn't undo what he's done. It doesn't mean we've forgiven him and he's our best mate now. It just means "We're confident this person isn't going to murder anyone else". Whilst it's possible to argue that confidence is misplaced, doing so when the only information you have available is gleaned from a short newspaper article is largely futile because you are arguing from a position of ignorance.

No, the words were "he no longer poses a significant risk" - this means he still poses a risk. The parole board are playing with peoples lives, it's as simple as that. Their confidence level means diddly-squat given the mistakes they've made in the past.

 

[enkoda]

Because countries/states with the death penalty *don't* have lower murder rates than those without. In fact, they have marginally higher ones.

That's because they don't do it properly - trial, guilty verdict, straight outside for public execution.

 

[Roar87]

Perhaps we could put him on a ship and send him to Australia?

 

[enkoda]

Perhaps we could put him on a ship and send him to Australia?

Only if the ship is a one man dinghy and the navy are allowed to use it as target practice....

 

[Ergates]

No, the words were "he no longer poses a significant risk" - this means he still poses a risk. The parole board are playing with peoples lives, it's as simple as that. Their confidence level means diddly-squat given the mistakes they've made in the past.

So, he poses an insignificant risk then.

That's because they don't do it properly - trial, guilty verdict, straight outside for public execution.

Right, and your evidence for how that makes it better is....?

 

[StriderX]

decisions like this are easy to make

Is the parole board willing to let him babysit theirs or a close relatives young children for 3 hours each night for a week without any supervision?
If the answer is NO he stays locked up.
If the answer is YES we see how he handles these circumstances and will at the end know if he is reformed and no longer a danger to the general public.

You can bet your left ass cheek they would never agree though! but it's okay when it's a strangers risk right?!?!?!?!

Same thing should go for any offenders.

Want to parole a thief? let him stay at your house for the first few nights...
Want to parole a rapist? let him stay in the same home as the parole boards wives and make sure he has access to alcohol


whens charles bronsons parole? hes less of a danger than this creep child killer.

I'd happily let charles bronson live in my house for a week, sure no risk of him

That's a loaded question though, why should they assume he'd ever be allowed to babysit in the first place? or even want to?

He clearly didn't like kids for whatever reason, there's zero reason to believe he's suddenly changed to want to babysit them, farcical.

/REKT. next pls

 

[enkoda]

So, he poses an insignificant risk then.

Or it could mean he poses a risk that is greater than moderate, but not as high as significant.

Right, and your evidence for how that makes it better is....?

Well for starters it means that a convicted murderer can't ever kill again.

I'll be honest with you, I haven't conducted a thorough review of the process yet - it's almost as if I've reached a decision contrary to what is best for society (a bit like some parole board decisions), so innocent people may get killed by mistake (a bit like some parole board decisions), plus if someone innocent does get executed I can hide behind a secret wall of anonymity (a bit like some parole board decisions)....

 

[B&W]

Life for life, for people saying the parole board is right you are part of the problem with society.

Extreme left wing loonies are just as bad as the right wing ones.

How can you have compassion for an animal like this? Surely it's the mother that deserves it, why should one single step be taken to help this beast?

For a society to do this, to ignore basic human justice and empathize with a child murderer shows it's going down.

If he is released I hope his location is leaked by someone in the justice system and then he is tortured and murdered slowly to death over a matter of days.

I will happily pay for this.

 

[StriderX]

Life for life, for people saying the parole board is right you are part of the problem with society.

Extreme left wing loonies are just as bad as the right wing ones.

How can you have compassion for an animal like this? Surely it's the mother that deserves it, why should one single step be taken to help this beast?

For a society to do this, to ignore basic human justice and empathize with a child murderer shows it's going down.

If he is released I hope his location is leaked by someone in the justice system and then he is tortured and murdered slowly to death over a matter of days.

I will happily pay for this.

Alright you pay for his entire board, then, cool.

 

[B&W]

Nobody can *ever* be considered to be "no risk" - unless they're in a persistent vegetative state - including you. Should we lock you up too? Because you *do* represent a greater-than-zero risk to the public.

"He will either offend or he won't" is a truism. In the absence of a working crystal ball, nobody can tell if he *will or won't* re-offend, all the parole board can do it look at the evidence and determine what they believe the risk to be. In this case, they believed the risk to be low enough to warrant releasing him from prison. Do you have any additional information or insights that weren't available to the parole board that might have influenced their decision?

What is justice? Who is it for? How will this sick **** being released serve justice?

Or is his feelings more important then the safety of civilians?

 

[B&W]

Alright you pay for his entire board, then, cool.

Anything useful to say?

 

[Gixer]

But you can't have 2 sets of rules that get applied according to some arbitrary distinction made at the point of sentencing. Murder vs Really Bad Murder? The system we already have in place can keep people locked up for life if they are deemed to be a significant risk to the public - they just don't get parole.
I'm not averse to people spending the rest of their lives in jail. What I am against is some kind of *automatic* full life sentence, and the judgement of "Person has done X they should never be released" as opposed to an approach that assess the risk posed by the individual prisoner at the point they are up for parole. If McGreavy no longer poses a threat, there is nothing to be gained from keeping him in prison - other than the bill for keeping him there (prison is hellishly expensive). Releasing him from prison doesn't undo what he's done. It doesn't mean we've forgiven him and he's our best mate now. It just means "We're confident this person isn't going to murder anyone else". Whilst it's possible to argue that confidence is misplaced, doing so when the only information you have available is gleaned from a short newspaper article is largely futile because you are arguing from a position of ignorance.

In rather extreme cases like this focus should be on how all of those affected by the murders will feel and react on McGreavy's release. Is it OK to release McGreavy if it were to bring on PTSD, anxiety, stress etc to several others? In my opinion it is not. It isn't and shouldn't be just about if the individual is a risk to the general public. I have no qualms with him staying locked up for life if it means those affected can live without what I mention. There will be the odd case where some will forgive and forget though I expect a much higher % would say throw away the key. I'm also sorry, and maybe I have trust issues, but after someone kills three kids and hangs them out on a fence to dry I would never be able to trust they weren't going to murder anyone again. That is far too screwed up in the head to ever be sorted. People's opinions on this will vary however that is mine. As I've said if you are confident he wouldn't kill you would be happy leaving your child with him, if not they you are not. He will not be able to be watched 100% of the time, there will be points in time when he will be alone with children. I really hope this doesn't end in yet another murder however there is a way that this can be 100% guaranteed. He blew his chance at life already, I feel no pain or guilt if he were left to live the rest of his years behind bars.

 

[Orionaut]

Because countries/states with the death penalty *don't* have lower murder rates than those without. In fact, they have marginally higher ones.

that isn't a particularly good proof since we dont know what those countries would be like if they didn't have capital punishment on the books.

To establish a proof we would need two identical societies and see what would happen with and without (As it were)

Unfortunately, this isn't possible

What we do know however is that in the years after capital punishment in the UK was ended, Homicide rates rose. Quite sharply really, And the rising trend started almost immediately.

Today the "effective" homicide rate is many times what it was in 1964.

(I say "effective" since not only is the homicide rate far higher than it was in 1964, in addition, people today survive murderous attacks that would have killed them 55 years ago. If you are going to make a fair comparison between then and now, you cant discount todays cases where victims of "Murderous Assaults" survive injuries that they wouldn't have survived 55 years ago because they had better doctors)

 

[enkoda]

In rather extreme cases like this focus should be on how all of those affected by the murders will feel and react on McGreavy's release. Is it OK to release McGreavy if it were to bring on PTSD, anxiety, stress etc to several others? In my opinion it is not. It isn't and shouldn't be just about if the individual is a risk to the general public. I have no qualms with him staying locked up for life if it means those affected can live without what I mention. There will be the odd case where some will forgive and forget though I expect a much higher % would say throw away the key. I'm also sorry, and maybe I have trust issues, but after someone kills three kids and hangs them out on a fence to dry I would never be able to trust they weren't going to murder anyone again. That is far too screwed up in the head to ever be sorted. People's opinions on this will vary however that is mine. As I've said if you are confident he wouldn't kill you would be happy leaving your child with him, if not they you are not. He will not be able to be watched 100% of the time, there will be points in time when he will be alone with children. I really hope this doesn't end in yet another murder however there is a way that this can be 100% guaranteed. He blew his chance at life already, I feel no pain or guilt if he were left to live the rest of his years behind bars.

It's quite apparent from this case that the parole board are clueless. The mitigating factor in McGreavy's case was drinking too much alcohol, something that the board have literally no idea how he will react when exposed to it again in a stressful situation. Their decision has no more solid foundation than pure guesswork.