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

[Freakbro]

That seems rather backwards... I even gave examples of murderers who might have more "sane" reasons to have murdered. Murdering your own kids is rather extreme and is something plenty of more "normal" murderers likely wouldn't contemplate doing.

I don't think that's backwards. The example you gave of revenge on someone who had wronged them is something that can randomly happen again, rather than killing your own children,. So the murderer in your example is a much greater threat to general society.

By the question wasn't about whether you think it is lenient or not the question is why even take the risk in the extreme cases?

Because if the point of life time incarceration is to protect the public [why take the risk?] and not just because she needs punishment, I'm questioning why, apart from emotive reasons, this murderer requires it rather than others.

 

[BowdonUK]

Not all psychopaths are evil murderers that need rehabilitation and I'm not saying psycopaths can be rehabilitated, but I'm not against her having the ability to parole after what is a long sentence in prison. If she's a psycopath, and shows no rehabilitation, then I'm perfectly comfortable with her spending life behind bars

I know they aren't all evil. I've had the interesting experience of knowing a diagnosed female psychopath for about 5 years. She wasn't an evil person. But she was very self centered in her mind. She would go out of her way to help others if it benefited her. But if it didn't then you were gone from her life. They have a unique way of thinking.

This woman in the story killed those kids because they got in her way. It's that simple.

The only thing parole will do is give her the chance to convince them shes suddenly found a heart. She'll mimic emotion. Plus her being a woman society finds it harder to accept that a woman can do this sort of crime.

I'm not against parole per se. But it would have to be done many years in to the sentence, and not just to free up a prison cell space.

 

[dowie]

What is extreme and what is not? Isn't a murderer not just what it says on the tin, a murderer?

Yes a murderer is a murderer. That is rather circular.

As for what is extreme, do you think killing your own kids is the same as say punching someone in a nightclub after an argument and then being charged with murder because they fell and hit their head and died?

 

[Wizzfizz]

Yes a murderer is a murderer. That is rather circular.

As for what is extreme, do you think killing your own kids is the same as say punching someone in a nightclub after an argument and then being charged with murder because they fell and hit their head and died?

Well yes, we all get that.

Probably not no, but wouldn't that be manslaughter and not murder?

 

[Freakbro]

Yes a murderer is a murderer. That is rather circular.

As for what is extreme, do you think killing your own kids is the same as say punching someone in a nightclub after an argument and then being charged with murder because they fell and hit their head and died?

That would be manslaughter

 

[dowie]

I don't think that's backwards. The example you gave of revenge on someone who had wronged them is something that can randomly happen again, rather than killing your own children,. So the murderer in your example is a much greater threat to general society.

I didn't just mean bumping into them in Tesco... the point was a higher threshold than simply killing your kids because their a nuisance. I also gave the example of her elderly relatives say or people close to them or indeed anyone close to them. Why assume only her children are a threat?

Because if the point of life time incarceration is to protect the public [why take the risk?] and not just because she needs punishment, I'm questioning why, apart from emotive reasons, this murderer requires it rather than others.

Because it is a rather extreme form of murder. Like I said I think some cases are extreme enough that I'd be fine with them being locked up for the rest of their lives.

 

[dowie]

Well yes, we all get that.

Well what are you asking then?

Probably not no, but would what not be manslaughter and not murder?

That would be manslaughter

Not necessarily, they can (and often are) charged with murder but prosecutors do seem to accept a guilty plea for manslaughter.

I deliberately chose that as the lower extreme... clearly you seem to agree that it is given you're both to say it is manslaughter.

 

[Freakbro]

I didn't just mean bumping into them in Tesco... the point was a higher threshold than simply killing your kids because their a nuisance. I also gave the example of her elderly relatives say or people close to them or indeed anyone close to them. Why assume only her children are a threat?

Because [afawk] there's no evidence of anything else?

You still seem to be going down the 'what if' road

 

[Wizzfizz]

Of course you did..

So what is it then, murder or manslaughter? Do you work in law?

You seem to have an answer for everything, to the flavour of your own choice.

 

[Hotwired]

I'd happily pay for her to live a very long and horrid life. Forget this crappy one way easy ticket. Break her then break her again until she bleeds all her emotions into herself and make her relive a living hell, not a fantasy based one.

You want to know what a fantasy is.

Imagining there's something worse than death.

You don't get to do anything once your body dies, "you" don't even exist once your brain dies. Despite what assorted fantasies suggest.

So what's the point in torturing someone you already have control over. This will teach them not to do what they never will be able to do again?

Or is it some kind of example to the other human beings as if that will stop people who are broken enough to cause major intentional harm.

If it's neither of the above then its simply playing out some wonky eye for an eye sadism with your name on it. I mean if someone is broken enough to strangle their kids and you torture them as punishment then what exactly are you doing except imitating a broken person yourself...

Accept that someone is irredeemable and remove them from society in whatever way you can stomach. The important point is to remove them from society.

Getting into cruel and unusual punishment only dishonours yourself.

 

[dowie]

Because [afawk] there's no evidence of anything else?

You still seem to be going down the 'what if' road

There is evidence that she is prepared to kill even the closest of people to her, the fact that she did so. You've instead seemingly decided that this risk only applies to her kids as if she's completely normal now and wouldn't kill say an elderly mother or some other vulnerable person if they proved to be inconvenient for her.

Going down the road of what if? So are you - that is literally what is being discussed, that there is a risk associated with releasing people and why should we bother even taking any risk in the most extreme cases.

Of course you did..

So what is it then, murder or manslaughter? Do you work in law?

You seem to have an answer for everything.

Well you're asking about my opinions/my post, of course I have an answer to questions about what I've posted, I'm more than happy to explain my pov or to provide clarification. It was simply a hypothetical example of a less serious incident. Substitute in an attack where someone reaches for a glass or goes too far kicking someone repeatedly in the head on the floor or something if you like. no I don't work in law - why do you need to work in law to have an opinion about whether or not society should take a risk in letting these sorts of people free?

Regardless - back to the point I'm still not clear what your point is here? You were questioning whether some murders are more extreme than others right?

 

[Freakbro]

This woman in the story killed those kids because they got in her way. It's that simple.

Which is why she got a min of 32 years

The only thing parole will do is give her the chance to convince them shes suddenly found a heart. She'll mimic emotion.

Why would that be any different to anyone else trying to fake reform. You don't think parole officers realise this happens?

Plus her being a woman society finds it harder to accept that a woman can do this sort of crime.

Not really since she got a minimum of 32 years

I'm not against parole per se. But it would have to be done many years in to the sentence, and not just to free up a prison cell space.

I don't think they plan cell occupancy 32 years in advance and I'm not sure what basis you're thinking parole officers take that into account?

 

[Wizzfizz]

@dowie

Explain everything please and provide everything with it.

I do respect your posting(s), to a certain or windy way. You just come across as a jack of all trades and master of none in how you put your positively self across

 

[azazl187]

Of course you did..

So what is it then, murder or manslaughter? Do you work in law?

You seem to have an answer for everything, to the flavour of your own choice.

You don't create almost 40,000 posts because you are bad at arguing on the OCUK forums

 

[Freakbro]

There is evidence that she is prepared to kill even the closest of people to her, the fact that she did so. You've instead seemingly decided that this risk only applies to her kids as if she's completely normal now and wouldn't kill say an elderly mother or some other vulnerable person if they proved to be inconvenient for her.

And in 32 [36, 44, 51?] years of being in prison what vulnerable people will she have in her control on release? And even if remotely possible you dont think the parole board would take that into account? You are really grasping at straws with that one.

 

[dowie]

And in 32 [36, 44, 51?] years of being in prison what vulnerable people will she have in her control on release?

She doesn't have to have anyone "in her control"... if her parents are still alive and haven't disowned her then they'd be vulnerable... I have already given that as an example!

But then again given that she's happy to murder her own children then why not an elderly neighbour?

And even if remotely possible you dont think the parole board would take that into account? You are really grasping at straws with that one.

I'm grasping at straws to state that a murderer who has already murdered her kids might still pose a risk to society and therefore why bother taking the risk?

Where did I say I don't think a parole board would take into account the possibility of people reoffending... if you want to play silly games like that then:

Do you think that no one re-offends after being released on parole?

 

[StriderX]

Regardless lets look at who she is, a low-life narcissist, a death sentence is decidedly too compassionate, if the local psycho/socio's can't see the moral/lawful/financial arguments, you can at least respect one that achieves the most retribution.

Nothing destroys a narcissist more than a lack of facade.

 

[Freakbro]

The question still stands - why take the risk?

Because that's exactly what the parole boards job is, to assess the persons rehabilitation and likelihood to reoffend, so unless you want to abandon the principle of the parole system entirely, I dont see what makes this case exempt compared to the other examples of murder you gave, in the context of protecting society.

 

[dowie]

Because that's exactly what the parole boards job is, to assess the persons rehabilitation and likelihood to reoffend, so unless you want to abandon the principle of the parole system, I dont see what makes this case exempt compared to the other examples of murder you gave, in the context of protecting society.

I wasn't asking what the parole board's job is, I'm asking why should the rest of society have to take any risk with these people?

Yes, in extreme murder cases, I do want to abandon parole, that was my point all along... I don't see why we need or they deserve us taking a chance on them.

What is the benefit? Why is it useful to society to later release a woman who killed her own kids in this way and for the apparent reasons given?

 

[Freakbro]

I wasn't asking what the parole board's job is, I'm asking why should the rest of us take any risk with these people?

Yes, in extreme murder cases, I do want to abandon parole, that was my point all along... I don't see why we need or they deserve us taking a chance on them.

What is the benefit?

Your perceived risk is greater than mine in this case, to the degree that I wouldn't refuse the ability for parole and you would.

Seems my view is more in line with the way our system currently works than yours.