The question isn't about perception of risk - my position is why take any risk with someone like that?
Well given that you're defending the status quo and I'm questioning it that is rather obvious by default.
Mother killed her kids because they got in the way of her sex life is jailed for life.
- Thread starter RoboCod
- Start date
The question isn't about perception of risk - my position is why take any risk with someone like that?
Well given that you're defending the status quo and I'm questioning it that is rather obvious by default.
Of course it is about perception of risk, what else is it? We're assessing how dangerous this person is to society and whether they should be incarcerated for life without consideration or assessed at some later point to what threat they still pose.
Soldato
I think you're a bit overly confident in the abilities of the parole board to asses risk. Regardless, no, my position again is why should we take *any* risk with murderers in extreme cases such as this?
I personally think someone like this seems rather more dangerous than most, you seem to have taken the opposite position on the perceived risk from someone like this... regardless of that perception of risk my position is that in these extreme cases I don't think we should take any risk.
When they've done something so extreme/evil why should they deserve that chance? What is the benefit to society?
This isn't some young teenager who made a mistake, got caught up in a gang, got pressured by older peers/adults, gets caught up in a murder that happened in the heat of the moment, very rapidly regrets it, is sent down under a joint venture conviction... later in his 40s wants to turn his life around etc..
This is someone who killed her own kids in a premeditated murder, was laughing about it in a funeral parlour, was arranging some dates not long after, described as emotionless by prosecutors etc..
And I have repeatedly said this is obviously a very broken person, and as such I wouldn't actually expect them to reform, I'm just willing to give them the chance to prove they can, you aren't. Which seems to be because you think this type of murderer is a greater threat to society than other types of murderers, I don't.
Until one of us can be arsed to try and find any data to back our viewpoint, we'll just have to disagree
And I have repeatedly said this is obviously a very broken person, and as such I wouldn't actually expect them to reform, I'm just willing to give them the chance to prove they can, you aren't. Which seems to be because you think this type of murderer is a greater threat to society than other types of murderers, I don't.
Until one of us can be arsed to try and find any data to back our viewpoint, we'll just have to disagree
Well no, you've not read my post properly in that case, again:
That doesn't require any data to back up the position that I don't think that we should take *any* risk with someone like that. I think we both agree that someone who has murdered poses some risk right? Yes I do disagree with you re: personal perceptions of the risk of someone like this... however I'm again pointing out that regardless of that I don't see why we should take *any* risk. do you understand my position now? If not please ask rather than reply as though I've not taken the time yet again to clarify.
Yep. Rotting until she expires. No chance of enjoying a life outside.
I mean, I'm all well and good to entertain your sarcasm and dull input here, but in all seriousness I don't believe she will be in prison until she dies. She could be out before she does. I believe the sentencing should specifically state "jailed until death".
Caporegime
Then a lot of people would commit suicide in prison. Why would you put yourself through it? Whether that's good or bad depends on your pov.
I understood your position, it's just you seem to be arbitrarily applying a zero risk tolerance to a case like this, and unless you are maintaing a stance that no criminal who posesses any form of risk to society should be eligible for parole, and thus dismissing any notion of rehabilitation in the justice system, then it just seems to be being applied for emotive reasons, which isn't a basis for justice.
To be honest, I'm in favour of hanging these people anyway, but that system is not in place. So from my pov, what you posted is good. We execute people in other countries for their heinous crimes. Look at Jihadi John, he deserved nothing less than simply being removed from here, people like that don't deserve to exist. Fortunately for us, he kept himself in a location where we could administer that punishment, rather than have him come back to the UK where his "human rights" would clearly be fought for and the limp wristed would see to it that he'd continue to live.
Maybe we should just deport the likes of this woman, to countries where we can use them for target practice instead (yes, that's a tongue in cheek comment, before any dullard loses their ****).
Wow you're so cool, so alpha.
If you hate rights so much, why live here? You hate the idea of Iran and yet want to emulate it, **** me that's hilarious. Having no respect for what makes our country better than elsewhere is distinctly unpatriotic.
Last edited:
So alpha? What a silly post. I admire your ability to want to protect the rights of mass murdering terrorists as well. You out of everyone here, hates this country more than anyone, you love a bit of self deprecation.
Go away, come back to the discussion when you've calmed down a little.
Soldato
Mmmm.... Dropping Europe’s “problematic persons” in the middle of a civil war far away does sound worthy of further investigation.
No, it isn't an emotive argument, certainly no more than your argument that "it doesn't sit right" that some people shouldn't be allowed parole. I'm not sure why it requires an all or nothing approach either.
You've not really answered the questions though - why take the risk in these extreme cases? What is the benefit to society?
Soldato
Well, that's not quite what I said was it, since you are one for debating exactly what someone says it would help if you could stick to your own principles. I said it didn't sit right with me that you would dismiss any idea of rehabilitation. ie: That even if the person had rehabilitated then you would not see them fit for parole.
I have no problem with certain individuals, who it is shown would be a continued threat to society to have no possibility of parole. But that's the nub, I want evidence to make these decisions, you want to apply it to cases that you think warrant it, irrespective of any evidence. Which seems emotive retribution to me rather than justice.
It doesn't have to be, I just would like to see an evidence based approach rather than an emotional one.
And here we go again, you say it's not about the perception of risk, then talk about why take the risk. How do you know what risk she poses if you don't do the assessment? And why is *any* risk of re-offending enough for you dismiss the possibility of parole in this case but not in others, unless like I said, you want to take a zero tolerance attitude to risk across the board and not let any violent offender out of prison ever again.
Where, how and why do you get define what is an "extreme case" and why is that the criteria of your risk aversion rather than an assessment of the individual to calculate their specific risk.
And if she does rehabilitate, then the benefit to society is having a functioning member back out of prison and not costing money being incarcerated.
Caporegime
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.
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.
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 say why take *any* risk.
I don't, you're still not following the argument. Why take *any* risk?
Why should I have to want to treat say a shoplifter in the same way? that all or nothing position makes no sense IMO.
That is somewhat subjective but you could certainly give objective guidelines for it. As for why it is the criteria, well because they've committed among the worst crimes, they're not deserving of a second chance IMO, this isn't someone who made a mistake who you might want to let go after they've done their time and are deemed to be a low risk.
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?
But there isn't a full proof system of rehabilitation. She's going to be in her 50s and she's demonstrated that she's prepared to kill, not in the heat of the moment, not after some conflict or feud etc.. but to kill her own small children simply because they inconvenienced her lifestyle... and she showed no emption about it at all.
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.
Permabanned
Whilst those proponents of rehabilitation are no doubt well meant, to me prison is mainly a means of segregating those that pose a danger to ones' possessions, finances or physical well being from us. If rehabilitation is achieved that's marvellous, but I draw a firm line against having a demonstrably fickle and liberal parole board deciding the likes of this woman should freed under an assumed identity, (which is the only way such notorious killers are able to function upon release in a society that may take the law into their own hands). She is then assimilated unidentified into society ignorant of her proclivity to murder her own children simply due to perceiving them limiting her desire to be sexually rampant.
We currently have one of the Bulger killers on release under an assumed identity where he has subsequently been found deviantly interested in child pornography. Killers of the worst kind such as these should never be released, if capital punishment remains of the statute book, then they MUST remain under total lock and key, and not become the liberal experiment of those like Francis Aungier Pakenham (The Earl of Longford) who live or lived privileged lifestyles "doing good works" thrusting callous and deviant murderers on the unwitting hoi polloi to give themselves a warm Christian / liberal feeling.
We currently have one of the Bulger killers on release under an assumed identity where he has subsequently been found deviantly interested in child pornography. Killers of the worst kind such as these should never be released, if capital punishment remains of the statute book, then they MUST remain under total lock and key, and not become the liberal experiment of those like Francis Aungier Pakenham (The Earl of Longford) who live or lived privileged lifestyles "doing good works" thrusting callous and deviant murderers on the unwitting hoi polloi to give themselves a warm Christian / liberal feeling.