Is release feasible ?

[channa]

Doctors have recently reached the conclusion that Peter Sutcliffe ( the Yorkshire Ripper ) no longer poses a threat.

It would appear that Sutcliffe will be integrated back into the regular prison system, At which stage he is eligible after a formal tarrif has been set and his time in Broadmoor taken into account possible parole.

On the basis murderers are released weekly, and trying to ignore the notoriety of this mans crimes Should he ever be considered for release?

If the doctors are correct and he doesnt pose a threat, and we are told the crimes were committed whilst under the influence of a mental illness, should He be given a second chance ? when we consider the idea of prison is to rehabilitate offenders ?

your thoughts ?

Channa

[ozzmare]

As long as he has been castrated i dont see a problem.....

[scotsrick]

Noooooooooo.

I was under the impression a prison sentence was a punishment with rehabilitation a secondary consideration.


Lock him up for the rest of his life.

[fatboyjim154]

As long as he has been castrated i dont see a problem.....


Rape isn't a sex crime, spuds or not they still get their jollies through the power of it all.


Jim

[ozzmare]

Rape isn't a sex crime, spuds or not they still get their jollies through the power of it all.


Jim
Well if you want my true and honest opinion....hanging isn't good enough for him....leave him in Broadmoor until he rots...then hang him just to make sure he is really dead.

[Bex]

erm, how about noooooooooooooooo

[Tiffany]

He's evil. I'd keep him inside forever and I'd torture the bas*ard.

[Mickey]

He's evil. I'd keep him inside forever and I'd torture the bas*ard.


Say it like it is Tiff lol

As for my two penneths worth perhaps i have no compassion atall in my body i say hang the rotten expletive too!!!!!

[Tiffany]

Mickey, I think hanging is too for for him, I'd make the rest of his life a living hell. I'd want to make him squeal like a pig:twisted:

[Mickey]

Mickey, I think hanging is too for for him, I'd make the rest of his life a living hell. I'd want to make him squeal like a pig:twisted:

The only trouble here though Tiff is that our so called british justice system would then thrown upon us the so called good guys that only want the correct level of justice and give this guy a pat on the back, sorry to all those in the so called justice system but my view on it is simple, their is no real justice in the system today, you only have to watch all the road wars, traffic cops, soho nights and bla bla bla to discover there aint no real justice!!!!!


At the the end of these programmes they tell you just how lenient the justice system has been and how many get away with it through so called lack of evidence, clearly the judges have not seen the tv programme or they have darn good soilicitors, ooooh it makes me so mad!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:bang::bang::bang:

[channa]

Some interesting and predictable responses so far ( I am still to give my opinion btw). But please let me share what I find interesting.

If Peter Sutcliffe committed his atrocities whilst suffering mental illness ( bi polar schizophrenia) and It can be argued that he had a seriously flawed perception of responsibility when the crimes were committed due to his mental disorder. Then how responsible of his actions was he ? How much in control ? And how much should we penalise an indvidual where all the experts agree he was not of sound mind ?

Furthermore

Through treatment his schizophrenia is now managed and not one but a panel of doctors has deduced he no longer poses a threat , Should he be treated any different to anyone else who has murdered ? re release back into society?

Indeed, consider this perhaps Murderers today released were fully aware of there actions ( actuallly as I understand this is important for the charge to stick) Yet this man patently had an illness ?. a diminished responsibility so in a 'sense' less guilty than someone of sound mind that murdered.

FWIW I believe and can accept that his crimes were committed whilst not of 'sound mind' unlike some that are released daily having done their stir. I personally am of the opinion that his defect in character is so entrenched that release in the normal sense would not be a wise idea. Just before someone gets the bright idea I am trying to start a fan club.

If you read carefully, I hope I make sense when you remove the emotive elements.

Channa

[oldcodger]

get away with it through so called lack of evidence Don't worry about it, all this tiresome need for proof is being done away with. More than half of all cases are now "sentenced" by a police officer or a CPS prosecutor. No need to go to court, no need to produce a witness who can be tested by cross examination - all quick and easy.

In the near future a police officer will be able to impose up to 9 points for careless driving, and may even be able to disqualify you. This is so much cheaper and easier than going to court who would be really difficult about it and insist that the officer proves his case beyond reasonable doubt.

[oldcodger]

Doctors have recently reached the conclusion that Peter Sutcliffe ( the Yorkshire Ripper ) no longer poses a threat. When someone is detained in a secure hospital under the Mental Health Act they can only continue to be detained as long as they meet the mental health criteria. If the staff at Broadmoor find that he presents a level of risk which can be adequately managed elsewhere they have no legal grounds on which to detain him. In that case he will go back to jail, or possibly a medium secure hospital to continue his sentence.



would appear that Sutcliffe will be integrated back into the regular prison system, At which stage he is eligible after a formal tarrif has been set and his time in Broadmoor taken into account possible parole. His tariff is 30 years. That means he must serve a total of 30 years before he can be considered for parole. The Parole Board will use their own definition of risk - that of how dangerous would he be in the community with minimum supervision - when deciding whether or not to release him. I don't think anybody needs to worry just yet.

[Mickey]

Indeed, consider this perhaps Murderers today released were fully aware of there actions ( actuallly as I understand this is important for the charge to stick) Yet this man patently had an illness ?. a diminished responsibility so in a 'sense' less guilty than someone of sound mind that murdered.



Channa

The trouble is how many times do we read in the media or see it on the news that these type of people whom have been given the so callled all clear then come out and wait for it............ REOFFEND !!

[Mickey]

Don't worry about it, all this tiresome need for proof is being done away with. More than half of all cases are now "sentenced" by a police officer or a CPS prosecutor. No need to go to court, no need to produce a witness who can be tested by cross examination - all quick and easy.

In the near future a police officer will be able to impose up to 9 points for careless driving, and may even be able to disqualify you. This is so much cheaper and easier than going to court who would be really difficult about it and insist that the officer proves his case beyond reasonable doubt.

This is interesting perhaps just perhaps things are on the up and perhaps the government are starting to realise that treating everyone with kid gloves is just not working, thanks oc for the post.

[ozzmare]

Having worked in a home for adults with learning difficulties (I know not the same thing at all) it was very quickly evident that having been institutionalised for so long these residents knew how to work the system to their advantage...especially when the boss wasn't around....they could wrap the 'newbie' staff around their little fingers...and butter wouldn't melt in the mouth when the boss was there! If they can fool people..why can't Sutcliffe?

[oldcodger]

The trouble is how many times do we read in the media or see it on the news that these type of people whom have been given the so callled all clear then come out and wait for it............ REOFFEND !! The press report the bad stuff. the vast majority of lifers on licence cause no trouble at all. But that doesn't get reported.

[oldcodger]

Having worked in a home for adults with learning difficulties (I know not the same thing at all) it was very quickly evident that having been institutionalised for so long these residents knew how to work the system to their advantage...especially when the boss wasn't around....they could wrap the 'newbie' staff around their little fingers...and butter wouldn't melt in the mouth when the boss was there! If they can fool people..why can't Sutcliffe? With all due respect to those who work in the LD field, the Parole Board are rather better trained.

[oldcodger]

This is interesting perhaps just perhaps things are on the up and perhaps the government are starting to realise that treating everyone with kid gloves is just not workingI hope you feel the same way if you get 9 points at the roadside for something you are sure you didn't do.

[channa]

I think my point is starting to be given consideration

fwiw motoring offences and points incurred I personally see has no relevance.

forgetting that the subject is Peter Sutcliffe for a moment.(if that is possible)

If an individual commits a crime and a collective team of experts identify that the culprit was not of sound mind at the time of the offence. And the same experts after time elasped are of the opinion the offender no longer poses a risk despite notoriety.should that offender not be allowed rehabiltate into society.

Fwiw I am looking for a logical argument as why they shouldnt (suppressing emotional feelings)

As much as peeps want the retribution of castration , hanging etc ( which I can sympathise with ) ..I am trying to be more objective ......How realistically ...is this situation dealt with ?
channa

[fatboyjim154]

The press report the bad stuff. the vast majority of lifers on licence cause no trouble at all. But that doesn't get reported.


I can agree confrim that. I nicked a life licence for shoplifting from 7-11 at 3am. He did a runner with a pork pie worth 70 pence and a bottle of coke worth 80 pence. He was out with work colleagues who started to fight with staff and all he thought of was "get out of here now, you have a family". Only thing was he still had the pie and coke in his hand.
I chased him and I did the STOP NOW shouty bit and he did.
Which to be honest completely threw me off guard.:D

CCTV with sound confirmed his story he was released NFA and shop staff were arrested for Racially agg Affray.

People make the silliest of mistakes costing both sides a lot, they have to live with it for a long time. Once they have done their time that's it leave 'em be.

However having typed that, I wouldn't trust Sutcliffe as far as i could throw him.

He has been inside long enough to play the system and possibly fool the latest post graduate trick-cyclist.

[channa]

He has been inside long enough to play the system and possibly fool the latest post graduate trick-cyclist.

And your grounds for this observation?

What are your qualifications to reach this conclusion ?

Sorry I dont want to appear obnoxious but if I were to question your integrity as a police officer, you may well be upset.

Are the 'trick cyclists' not professional too ? , moreover more experienced to pass judgement on an individuals state of mind ?

Jim before you get too upset ..I am trying to introrduce rationality to the topic remove emotions and establish how individuals are dealt with like this in a rational manner...I hope you can appreciate where I am batting from

Channa

[Mickey]

I hope you feel the same way if you get 9 points at the roadside for something you are sure you didn't do.

Would be most unlikely but i take your point on board

[oldcodger]

The Sutcliffe case is very unusual and doesn't make a good example. His defence produced FOUR reports from different psychiatrists which showed that he was seriously mentally ill. The trial judge rejected those reports - although he has no psychiatric training and no reports were produced to say that Sutcliffe was sane - and insisted on a jury trial. Sutcliffes pleas of guilty to manslaughter (which would be correct for someone who killed while so mentally ill they were incapable of reasoning properly) were rejected and he was found guilty of murder. After some time in jail he was re-examined and found to be mentally ill, exactly as diagnosed before his trial.


In most cases things are very different.
If someone is diagnosed as mentally ill to an extent which impaired their reasoning so that they were not responsible for their actions the court will either find they did the actions of which they were accused (technically not the same as guilty) and confine them to hospital or accept a guilty plea to (for example) manslaughter where a charge of murder would otherwise be appropriate. For minor offences the control of the person then passes to the hospital who can discharge them or detain them under section for as long as justified by their mental state. For serious offences they are considered as "restricted" patients which means they can't usually be released by the hospital without permission from the secretary of state for justice.

If somebody is not mentally ill at trial, is jailed and later becomes ill they are transferred to hospital for treatment and, if they recover before the end of their sentence, returned to jail. if they are still unwell at the end of the sentence they will be detained in hospital under the mental health act until fit for release.



There have been some recent changes to the Mental Health Act but |I don't think that any of the above procedures were changed in the new act.

[fatboyjim154]

And your grounds for this observation?

What are your qualifications to reach this conclusion ?

Sorry I dont want to appear obnoxious but if I were to question your integrity as a police officer, you may well be upset.

Are the 'trick cyclists' not professional too ? , moreover more experienced to pass judgement on an individuals state of mind ?

Jim before you get too upset ..I am trying to introrduce rationality to the topic remove emotions and establish how individuals are dealt with like this in a rational manner...I hope you can appreciate where I am batting from

Channa


Qualifications? None that are worth the paper they're not written on.

See the PM I've sent you, remember that application I'm going for, lets just say there is a unit within the Department of Professional standards that watches forums. One of my colleagues have been sanctioned for voicing a non contraversial opinion on an apparently failing section at work.

Jim

[Mickey]

lets just say there is a unit within the Department of Professional standards that watches forums.


Jim

Now why does this not surprise me!!!! Hence i believe why lots of the feds on here dont reply to certain threads :rolleyes:

[Bex]

I can imagine a lot of people after him if he does get released.

Just kill the sod, after a nice long session of torture!