If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
In the Bulger case for example, many people believe that they should have remained locked up for good. I agree that what they did was terrible but if there's a chance that they could be rehabilitated, then is what must be done! It doesn't do society any good to lock away people for life when they blatently arn't going to do any more damage. The best way they can serve society in view, is by getting on with their lives going to work having children etc. One life has aready been destroyed why ruin another 2? They were ypung and so there was even more of a chance to change the course of their lives, and hopefully get them reinstated into normal society.
Of course there are cases where people can not, and never will be rehabilitated, these people should remain incarcerated for life, but it should not be for the general public to judge. In too many cases, scentances for ciminals often reflect the public mood to the case, which in my view is totally wrong. Only those with all the information and experience should make the decision on what happens to those convicted of serious crimes. Although revenge is important for the victims and their families, it isn't what imprisonment should all be about. Mainly, punishments should serve as a warning to other's who have the capacity to commit these crime's, and also to help rehabilitate the criminal and help them back into society.
nice work Skive; the judicial system should be in place to make sure criminals responsible for even the most heinous of crimes are helped, and not regarded as lost cases-otherwise the whole workings are in place to spite felons. The question as to how to distinguish between those that can be helped and those who refuse to be rehabilitated is surely one for professional psychologists and not for people who do not understand such matters to comment on?
And yet you don't mind analysing and criticising a criminal justice system from a layman's persepctive, since no one I'm aware here is a lawyer, or a judge?
Interesting...
Idea number two is remove a limb, release them 20 years later. That'd fuck them right off.
Fair point but I didn't say that anyone wasn't allowed an opinion-I wouldn't be expected to be consulted on the subject of criminal psycosis nor would I be expecting a call from Derry Irvine on the state of play in justice system. I was attempting to point out that those who shout the loudest shouldn't have any advantage over qualified people-I feel that armchair pundits should not create an atmosphere that clouds any rational governmental policy. Thats why I don't go out and whip up a lynch mob to hunt down paedophiles or scalp the local magistrate for a judgement that seems unsuitable.
That's well said.
What I think is obvious is that no matter how rational we appear to be, the instinctive reaction to "child-in-danger" is one of the strongest and noblest of our baser instincts. No parent can forgive their child's killers, no society can accept the murder of a child as if they were an elderly member of society. Whether you argue that it is "sick" to kill a child, or merely that there is far greater unfulfilled potential in a child's life than an adults is irrelevant, really. Murder is murder.
But still, the red mist descends when a child is threatened or killed. And, in the cold light of day, an armchair jurist can say that revenge is contra to the beliefs and appropriate behaviour of society. And an armchair jurist can argue for the rehabilitation of those concerned.
Were they my own children, then I would not wish to see the tax payers money wasted on trying to get inside their heads, understand them, and rehabilitate them. I would want to see one thing inside their heads, and this one thing only; a 9mm bullet entering at high velocity. And, more than that, I'll pull the trigger, if you don't mind.
Now, I am aware that I sound like a gung-ho vigilante. I am aware also, that I would not wish to descend to that level, and I pray that someone would stop me, and tell me that it wasn't worth it. I'm not cut out for that guilt, my soul could not take it. But damn, it would feel good, it would feel right, and it would feel like justice had been served.
I am embarrassed of my own semi-homicidal tendencies. I think that I should be the bigger person, rise above, and forgive. But, I work with children regularly (I'm a swimming teacher) - and the concept of someone hurting them deliberately is too awful to comprehend. And I could well understand the cries for the death penalty, for revenge, retribution et al. I don't think we should. But for a moment, they would feel right.
Moving this on slightly; let's imagine that I am the parent of one of the girls. For argument's sake, I can find out where these people are being held. And I can access a rifle. I wait, and premeditated, I kill them. You're on the jury; convict or acquit?
I think by keeping these people alive and trying to understand them, what makes them do such things is more use than simply extinguishing their lives. For a life sentence is that, life (even if untimately released, which a child killer would not be, they would no doubt get several life sentences), and these people have to live with being themelsves for the rest of their lives, if eventually they understand and feel the guilt then that is punishment enough.
Thankfully for most of us this is something we will never have to comprehend or deal with at a personal level, so although we can speculate and theorise (I include myself in this), we don't know. Humans are capable of the most awful things and also the most beautiful things and it's a shame that events like this bring out both sides of human nature.
Its a very thorny issue-i can't begin to imagine the loss felt by those who have had children ripped away. That said, there can't be different laws for different people:as you point out murder is murder. If judges were obliged to throw out these sort of cases then perhaps the perpetrators of the crime should receive a sentence tailored to their own experience as well, viz what motivated them to do it, for example maybe they were exposed to abuse early in life. Of course even the most screwed up murderer should not be allowed to roam free because of a disturbing past but many will have extenuating circumstances, rather like the bereved parents. Where would you draw the line?-thats just the dilemma faced presently.
I agree, murder is murder the justice system does in its sentencing guidelines allow for the different elements and severity of the crime to be taken into consideration.
The judge him/herself can and does recommend a minimum term that the offender should serve. The offender cannot be considered for release by the parole board until that time is past.
The parole board is made up of judges, psychiatrists, eminent criminologists in the cases of lifers,they must earn their freedom.
If the judge says life means life that is that, end of the road, west, hindley etc will not be realeased, judges have decided. Other lifers it has been decided, can be rehabilitated and are suitable for release.
There is nothing the great british public can do however angry they are.Judges are appointed to act for the public/crown.
There are people who after perpetrating murder go on to live safely in the community.
When considering the sentencing of lifers people who insit life should mean life need to look at individual cases.Should someone who raped and killed a small child be sentenced in the same way for instance as the mother who after years of abuse to her and her children killed her partner( and as she permeditated the crime and the issue of provocation was not seen as the overriding factor to mitigate )
Just something to ponder for you all.Things are never ever as clear as the tabloid press like to make out.Eacg case is individual and needs to be examined on the facts and not on the hysteria printed in the press.
Let's imagine that you're acquitted of that killing on some basis. Then imagine that it later comes to light that that wasn't the person that killed your child. What happens then?
This is the problem with the punishment system, it's prone to error. All you can do is try to reduce the element of error, which is somewhat helped by having the jury trials. You can then reduce the element of personal involvement, which is why a judge sets the sentance and not people related to the victims.
Comedy genuis Sir, LOL!