Mother killed her kids because they got in the way of her sex life is jailed for life.

[StriderX]

I would use a baseball bat.
But a 25c bullet will do.

So much anger, unbefitting and rather barbaric, tell me, were you there when she "did it"? How can you know for sure, you must have to trust the state for that information, no? For the former to be true, the latter has to be true, now do you trust the state implicitly and would you trust it under someone like Corbyn?

Hmm?

How about trying to espouse the values millions died for, rather than ******* on it for some emotionally sociopathic need to bludgeon someone.

 

[deuse]

So much anger, unbefitting and rather barbaric, tell me, were you there when she "did it"? How can you know for sure, you must have to trust the state for that information, no? For the former to be true, the latter has to be true, now do you trust the state implicitly and would you trust it under someone like Corbyn?

Hmm?

How about trying to espouse the values millions died for, rather than ******* on it for some emotionally sociopathic need to bludgeon someone.

I have no anger what so ever. I n fact. I'm so calm and cool that zaphod beeblebrox would be proud of me.
Mind you the liberals pee me off a bit.

 

[RoboCod]

This rehabilitation crap does my head in. She may be able to be 'rehabilitated', but she doesn't even deserve the chance. She murdered her own children. What right does she have to a second chance? She forfeited that the moment she wrapped her hands around the throat of her daughter, and compounded it even further with the suffocation of her baby. There must not be any second chance for her. Society would in no way benefit of ever having this creature among us again.

Hindley, Brady, Sutcliffe, Wests, Shipman, this thing and many more. There's a long list of people who have lost all right to a second chance with the sheer callousness and cruelty of their crimes. The one's I have listed all died in prison or will die in prison. I truly hope she joins them and we don't hear any more of this nonsense claptrap about rehabilitation.

I have pretty much the same viewpoint, but than I accept that the civilian perspective may generally differ from my perspective that your enemies should simply be removed. In this instance, this enemy to society is on a par as an enemy to the state, as it were. To lock them up forever is as much torture as it is waterboarding them. Simply remove them from existence, they don't deserve that.

 

[Angilion]

I mean, I'm all well and good to entertain your sarcasm and dull input here,

The sentence is life imprisonment. Making it longer would require keeping a corpse in a cell. That's not sarcasm. That is what is required for a prison sentence longer than life - the corpse of the person would have to be kept in a cell for however long you wanted the sentence to be.

but in all seriousness I don't believe she will be in prison until she dies. She could be out before she does.

Or not. She has been sentenced to life imprisonment. There's no automatic early release on that.

I believe the sentencing should specifically state "jailed until death".

Whole life tariff is very rarely (a few dozen cases) used in the UK and still allows for release before death. The power of the state includes the power to free a prisoner of the state.

 

[Hotwired]

Whole life tariff is very rarely (a few dozen cases) used in the UK and still allows for release before death. The power of the state includes the power to free a prisoner of the state.

Well at some point of physical and mental degradation which comes with age you should be able to agree society is not at risk.

Otherwise you're not sponsoring imprisonment for the safety of society and are doing it for less honourable reasons.

 

[drunkenmaster]

Well at some point of physical and mental degradation which comes with age you should be able to agree society is not at risk.

Otherwise you're not sponsoring imprisonment for the safety of society and are doing it for less honourable reasons.

People are rather silly about this age vs risk thing. Being old doesn't stop people being a risk. A 77 yr old or something was released in the states because they deemed him too old to be dangerous, he immediately murdered someone by stabbing them to death.

The only real thing you need to cause harm, is intent. It doesn't take any real strength to put a knife into someone, or, less often here, shoot someone. The thing that primarily puts people in danger of murder/attack, is being unwilling to hurt people vs the people who do harm being willing to hurt people. Strength doesn't usually come into it. An old geezer is still plenty strong enough to kill most people because most people don't go around prepared to be killed, keeping everyone 10m+ away from them, being armed, protected and ready to prevent themselves being hurt. Most people walk around as if almost everyone they'll ever see has no intent to hurt them and thus have nothing to fear and no reason to behave defensively. As such the people who want to hurt people mostly just need to walk up to who they want to kill and bam... game over.

What makes violent evil people capable of killing doesn't just go away with age, it goes away only from learning, teaching, therapy and even then you can only make a best judgement and can't be sure. Being old is a terrible reason for believing people aren't dangerous any more.

 

[arc@css]

Heartbreaking seeing the pictures of those little girls. RIP.

 

[Hotwired]

People are rather silly about this age vs risk thing. Being old doesn't stop people being a risk. A 77 yr old or something was released in the states because they deemed him too old to be dangerous, he immediately murdered someone by stabbing them to death.

The only real thing you need to cause harm, is intent. It doesn't take any real strength to put a knife into someone, or, less often here, shoot someone. The thing that primarily puts people in danger of murder/attack, is being unwilling to hurt people vs the people who do harm being willing to hurt people. Strength doesn't usually come into it. An old geezer is still plenty strong enough to kill most people because most people don't go around prepared to be killed, keeping everyone 10m+ away from them, being armed, protected and ready to prevent themselves being hurt. Most people walk around as if almost everyone they'll ever see has no intent to hurt them and thus have nothing to fear and no reason to behave defensively. As such the people who want to hurt people mostly just need to walk up to who they want to kill and bam... game over.

What makes violent evil people capable of killing doesn't just go away with age, it goes away only from learning, teaching, therapy and even then you can only make a best judgement and can't be sure. Being old is a terrible reason for believing people aren't dangerous any more.

?

You skipped over what I said and went straight to a monologue on the failure of letting people out simply by the measure of being "old". Which wasn't what I said.

The value of keeping someone in jail til death is only there if they are able to retain a functional mind and body the entire way.

Therefore, at some point of someone ceasing to be a functional human being, without actually being dead, it ceases to make sense having them in a prison.

 

[Freakbro]

Evidence for what exactly? that doesn't make any sense in this context. You're essentially asking for evidence for having different values or a different opinion to you.

No I'm not, it is you not understanding. The "evidence" I am talking about is the assessments of the inmate during their time in prison to provide evidence of their risk.

No, I say why take *any* risk.

I don't, you're still not following the argument. Why take *any* risk?

Yes, I know. But just because your level of risk tolerance in this case is zero, this does not preclude the ability of the parole board to make an assessment. They may even come out and say the risk to the public is zero.

Why should I have to want to treat say a shoplifter in the same way? that all or nothing position makes no sense IMO.

Strawman, since I said violent offender and we are talking in context of prisoners who are killers. Sure, shoplifters can be violent and killers, and it would be that part of the crime rather than the stealing that would be the pertinent part.

Releasing a violent criminal poses a risk to society, we do take on some risk after a punishment of a violent individual and we hope that the parole board has got it right, we hope they can become valuable members of society. In some cases though, the crimes are so extreme that I'm not sure that person deserves it, why should we take any risk with them given what they did?

Exactly, you are using personal emotive reasons (it's one of the "worst" crimes) to make a judgement that someone doesn't deserve a second chance, rather than the assessment of their actual risk.

I have no problem with her receiving a life sentence, with a min term of 32 years and do I think she will "rehabilitate" enough to be released? Probably not, especially with our inadequate services in the prison system, i'm just against the pov that says she shouldn't even have the opportunity.

But there isn't a full proof system of rehabilitation.

No of course not, but its a silly argument to use to try and justify selective application.

So she can perhaps go work in B&Q for a while, enjoy some freedom and the collect a pension? While posing a non-zero risk to other people close to her. Screw that, I don't think she deserves to have that chance given the nature of her offence.

Exactly, you don't think she deserves a second chance based on your subjective feeling that it's a 'worst crime' whereas I would rather base it on what risk she actually poses to society, once she has served the punishment element of the sentence.

 

[Freakbro]

Hindley, Brady, Sutcliffe, Wests, Shipman,

Whereas I see those as totally different ctimes. Those people were serial killers who murdered random members of the public for their own pleasure (Shipman being different again to the others) which is totally different in this case. That's my point, they are a totally different factor of risk to the public at large for the issue of parole.

There's a long list of people who have lost all right to a second chance with the sheer callousness and cruelty of their crimes.

And that to me is where you stray into vengeance based on emotion rather than justice. I'm not saying she has the right to be released, or even should be released, i'm just saying she has the right to be assessed for parole.

And it's not often that the known lefty liberal limp wristed Caracus2k and I are on the same page, but it shows very unlikely things can happen

Even the most heinous of criminals should eventually be eligible* for parole.

*note I said eligible which doesn't mean it should alway be granted.

Subject to the circumstances of the crime and their actions since.


A young person who commits a hideous murder of a child or children in their care is not likely to pose much of a risk 40 old years later under intense supervision conditions and requirements.

 

[dowie]

No I'm not, it is you not understanding. The "evidence" I am talking about is the assessments of the inmate during their time in prison to provide evidence of their risk.

It is my position, I understand my own position thanks, you apparently don't if you're asking misplaced questions like that, my position doesn't rely on an assessment, my position, again, is why take any risk.

Yes, I know. But just because your level of risk tolerance in this case is zero, this does not preclude the ability of the parole board to make an assessment. They may even come out and say the risk to the public is zero.

Well that would just be silly, they don't know that an they have no ability to determine that beyond say her being almost completely disabled or incredibly frail.

Strawman, since I said violent offender and we are talking in context of prisoners who are killers. Sure, shoplifters can be violent and killers, and it would be that part of the crime rather than the stealing that would be the pertinent part.

Substitute in a minor violent crime then and the point still stands, not all crimes are equal.

Exactly, you are using personal emotive reasons (it's one of the "worst" crimes) to make a judgement that someone doesn't deserve a second chance, rather than the assessment of their actual risk.

I have no problem with her receiving a life sentence, with a min term of 32 years and do I think she will "rehabilitate" enough to be released? Probably not, especially with our inadequate services in the prison system, i'm just against the pov that says she shouldn't even have the opportunity.
[/quote]

It isn't an emotive reason, no more than your position that someone should be allowed a chance. Just because that then extends to there needing to be some criteria by which you give them a chance doesn't make your poison/opinion inherently better or somehow. My position is that some people should never be given the chance in the first place, you is seemingly that everyone should have that chance. That is your own moral judgement etc..

No of course not, but its a silly argument to use to try and justify selective application.

No it isn't, it is perfectly valid to ask "why take the risk"?

Exactly, you don't think she deserves a second chance based on your subjective feeling that it's a 'worst crime' whereas I would rather base it on what risk she actually poses to society, once she has served the punishment element of the sentence.

It isn't entirely subjective, you could create some objective criteria and it would probably be up there IMO. You think everyone deserves a second chance based on your personal opinion/feeling.

 

[elmarko]

It's not an either or argument

It's not a case of,

1. Support death penalty
2. Support rehabilitation & eventual release.

There are plenty of other options, for example

3. Disagree with the death penalty but also disagree with the prospect of rehabilitation & eventual release.

Some people should be left to rot in prisons until the day they die, less funding should be directed at prisoners we consider 'unworthy' for rehabilitation (no point trying to fix somebody who from a risk perspective, you can't let out and protect the public). That frees up additional funding to put towards criminals of a less extreme nature where we can rehabilitate them. But the death penalty is a no goer, it costs more & mistakes will be made.

With life in prison at least you can let them out if you ever uncover an error in the system. You can't resurrect somebody.

 

[ttaskmaster]

NVM

 

[StriderX]

No-one has any rights.
Get rid of her... preferably in a fashion that generates power for something. Might as well find a more wholesome use for her.

no one has any rights? What?

 

[ZXSpectrum]

Poor little kiddies that did nothing to deserve that monster of a mother. For someone to even consider committing such an evil act to 2 innocent babies is incomprehensible. RIP little ones..

 

[dowie]

It's not an either or argument

It's not a case of,

1. Support death penalty
2. Support rehabilitation & eventual release.

Just to clarify, you realise the post above yours is discussing life in prison without parole vs possibility of parole, it isn't about the death penalty.

 

[Moley]

no one has any rights? What?

Rights are an abstract concept, no one has rights that cannot be taken away.

 

[ttaskmaster]

NVM