Colin Pitchfork - can be released from prison

[Gerard]

20 hours ago, Stuntman_Mike said:

I'm all for rehabilitation and for people having second chances, but not when the risk is this great and especially with the offences he committed. 

 

I actually went to the same school as these girls, one was a year older and one a year younger I think.

 

He's raped and murdered two girls under the age of 16. If he had done it once I could probably accept his release but doing it twice means he would have done it 100 times by now if he was never caught. Once you do the second one then you're a serial killer in my book and he should never be free again if for no other reason that to keep society as safe as possible. 

 

 

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, promised land said:

But according to a lot on here he deserves a second chance

 

To all those who think he’s changed and has a right to be free again I put this to you, those 2 15 year old school girls that were raped and murdered by him, innocent girls, do they not deserve a second chance for something they did not do?

 

But you’re all saying a convicted murderer who has served 30 years has changed and does.

 

People go on about capital punishment being wrong and miscarriage of justice but you’re totally forgetting the victims lost their lives through no fault of their owns and ones like him are guilty of the crime. Yet he will be walking the streets in a matter of weeks.

And this is likewise forgetting the innocent victims executed incorrectly by the state. Which, in a fallible justice system, is a matter of inevitability.

 

Which is worse?

[Zear0]

Echo the thoughts of many here. There were three years between these murders so he's clearly an extremely sick individual. I get the rehabilitation argument for criminals who's lives have been aligned to gang, drugs etc. where I can see if their lives had played out differently they might not have offended in the first place. That's not the case for Pitchfork who committed horrific offences for his own gratification. Given the stories about how calmly he carried out his domestic duties after his acts, he's almost textbook psychopath. 

 

I've got nil experience of parole processes so no idea how it's developed over the years but the fact that both Whiting and Huntley were registered sex offenders before they committed their respective murders shows, on occasion, there are fairly major shortfalls on assessing offenders risks. Granted you can't and shouldn't lock everyone away for every crime, just making a point even when people are convicted and assessed, it sometimes falls way short. Wonder if the parole board members would be happy to let him be near their children? I wouldn't.

 

Don't agree with the death penalty (to merge two hot topics) but believe he should serve his life behind bars for punishment for what he did, justice for the family of the victims (who were absolutely distraught at his previously denied parole hearing and) and for the protection of the public (not worth the risk)..

 

 

Edited 8 June 2021 by Zear0
Typo

[Gerard]

18 hours ago, promised land said:

It still gives me the creeps whenever I drive through Narborough now, should rot behind bars.

 

Maybe he will get his comeuppance when he is released. 
 

It is no different really to Huntley being released in another 15 or so years, yet no way on this planet would that happen so why Pitchfork?

 

You could actually argue he's worse than Huntley.

 

Both are double murderers and rapists of young girls but Pitchfork did his separately over a three year break in between. Do it once and maybe you could make a flimsy excuse that it was out of character, moment of madness, etc. Do it twice over a three year period makes it your modus operandi and it's highly likely if he was never caught he would have started doing it again more frequently or more brazen. 

 

You can maybe understand a murder if there is some gain into doing it but this bastard done it for kicks and pleasure and no doubt didn't give a second thought about taking life from someone who had another 70 years of living in front of them and the devastation it caused their families. 

 

Once you do something like that a second time then parole should never be considered, why should he get to live out the rest of his days living normally when he is still a danger of doing this again. Would anyone be surprised if he had one last hurrah even though he knows he would be caught?

[Strokes]

1 hour ago, Captain... said:

I think you're missing the point. Nobody has said Colin Pitchfork definitely deserves to be freed. 

 

Nobody here would be campaigning for his release had he been denied parole. The only thing I or anyone else has said us that everyone deserves the chance to be rehabilitated and it is a blanket belief on all people and all crimes. That doesn't mean every rapist and murderer should be released, that doesn't mean Colin Pitchfork should be released. It just means we believe that as a principle of a civilised society all people can be rehabilitated. We should attempt to rehabilitate all people, but we should never ever release someone who still poses a threat to the public. I have no basis to say Pitchfork does or doesn't and neither does anyone else, so I have to trust the judgements of those trained in making those decisions and not my gut reaction, which is he should have been castrated and publicly hung 30 years ago.

Do you mean castrated or hung? Surely it would be a waste of time and money doing one, if you then go on to do the other.

[Paninistickers]

22 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Do you mean castrated or hung? Surely it would be a waste of time and money doing one, if you then go on to do the other.

I'd imagine it'd be hard work castrating a man who is well hung

[nnfox]

58 minutes ago, Gerard said:

 

You could actually argue he's worse than Huntley.

 

Both are double murderers and rapists of young girls but Pitchfork did his separately over a three year break in between. Do it once and maybe you could make a flimsy excuse that it was out of character, moment of madness, etc. Do it twice over a three year period makes it your modus operandi and it's highly likely if he was never caught he would have started doing it again more frequently or more brazen. 

 

You can maybe understand a murder if there is some gain into doing it but this bastard done it for kicks and pleasure and no doubt didn't give a second thought about taking life from someone who had another 70 years of living in front of them and the devastation it caused their families. 

 

Once you do something like that a second time then parole should never be considered, why should he get to live out the rest of his days living normally when he is still a danger of doing this again. Would anyone be surprised if he had one last hurrah even though he knows he would be caught?

Worse than Huntley?  I respect your opinion, but will disagree, maybe because I know a bit more about the Soham case.  Both of them are unquestionably right up there as being amongst the most despicable examples of humanity, but at least Pitchfork, in the end, admitted his crime.

 

Nobody knows exactly what happened to those two primary school children in Soham, mainly because Huntley has never spoken any truth about it.  Together with his attempt to control the media and get in front of the camera at every opportunity in the immediate aftermath, and the lengths he went to dispose of their bodies, makes him worse, for me at least.

 

Huntley has never been convicted of rape, but was evidently a risk to children by the number of reports of sexual offences.  His lack of criminal convictions allowed him to slip under the radar and gain employment at a school despite previous allegations of sexual relationships with 15 year old girls (including fathering a child). 

[Captain...]

24 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Do you mean castrated or hung? Surely it would be a waste of time and money doing one, if you then go on to do the other.

Hang him by his dick until he dies. That's the point though, it's easier to say he should be punished than rehabilitated.

[Strokes]

2 minutes ago, Captain... said:

Hang him by his dick until he dies. That's the point though, it's easier to say he should be punished than rehabilitated.

It’s so emotive, I don’t know what the right answer is and I’m sure as hell most people don’t.

The current system doesn’t work effectively as a deterrent but then what would? I’m not sure. 
Would capital punishment offer the victims better justice? Probably not, it doesn’t bring them back or erase the crimes.

 

I think if you are going to keep them in prison for a significant amount of time and not execute them then they should at least try to rehabilitate them but I’d also support capital punishment. Life behind bars is pointless.

[Captain...]

4 minutes ago, nnfox said:

at least Pitchfork, in the end, admitted his crime.

That will always be a huge factor in their assessment of rehabilitation. I'm pretty sure parole is never granted to someone who cannot admit their guilt. 

 

(This isn't proof of rehabilitation or that he is a nice guy really, it's just one of many factors in assessing someone's suitability for release).

[Babylon]

2 hours ago, Captain... said:

I think you're missing the point. Nobody has said Colin Pitchfork definitely deserves to be freed. 

 

Nobody here would be campaigning for his release had he been denied parole. The only thing I or anyone else has said us that everyone deserves the chance to be rehabilitated and it is a blanket belief on all people and all crimes. That doesn't mean every rapist and murderer should be released, that doesn't mean Colin Pitchfork should be released. It just means we believe that as a principle of a civilised society all people can be rehabilitated. We should attempt to rehabilitate all people, but we should never ever release someone who still poses a threat to the public. I have no basis to say Pitchfork does or doesn't and neither does anyone else, so I have to trust the judgements of those trained in making those decisions and not my gut reaction, which is he should have been castrated and publicly hung 30 years ago.

How do you know they are rehabilitated?
 

I’m afraid there are certain crimes which fall  under the category of too risky to take the chances. Multiple rapes of murders of young girls, would for me fall into that category. 

 

Should Fred West have been able to get parole because he acted all nice as pie in prison and ticked the right boxes? 
 

And don’t forget, that often when these people are caught, many people who knew them personally, would come out with the old “oh he was just a normal bloke, helped out grannies across the road” etc. They often purposely disguise what they are from the people who know them.

[Guest Cujek]

Should have been hung.

 

The poor families having to read that he can be released.

 

And we all have to pick up his bill, the prison bill, the bill to get him a new identity and a house, that he most likely never leave, whilst being delivered his shopping and takeaways etc.

 

 

[Stuntman_Mike]

2 hours ago, Gerard said:

 

I actually went to the same school as these girls, one was a year older and one a year younger I think.

 

He's raped and murdered two girls under the age of 16. If he had done it once I could probably accept his release but doing it twice means he would have done it 100 times by now if he was never caught. Once you do the second one then you're a serial killer in my book and he should never be free again if for no other reason that to keep society as safe as possible. 

 

 

Completely agree. There was a 3 year gap between the offences he was charged for which is chilling really.

 

 

[Captain...]

5 minutes ago, Babylon said:

How do you know they are rehabilitated?
 

I don't and have never said he is.

 

How do you know he isn't? 

 

You don't and that's the whole point.

 

That's why you have to trust the people that make these decisions, there is always going to be an element of risk in releasing any prisoner for any crime, but the alternative is never releasing anyone.

 

How do you know the kid charged for possession of cannabis isn't going to become a smack addict and kill an old woman for her pension money? Do you lock up that kid just in case?

 

It is never going to be an easy decision to release a convicted rapist murderer, and thought of getting it wrong must weigh heavy on the minds of those that make these decisions. Let's hope they are right, but they are more likely to be wrong if he is hounded and harassed everywhere he goes.

 

[Babylon]

4 minutes ago, Captain... said:

I don't and have never said he is.

 

How do you know he isn't? 

 

You don't and that's the whole point.

 

That's why you have to trust the people that make these decisions, there is always going to be an element of risk in releasing any prisoner for any crime, but the alternative is never releasing anyone.

 

How do you know the kid charged for possession of cannabis isn't going to become a smack addict and kill an old woman for her pension money? Do you lock up that kid just in case?

 

It is never going to be an easy decision to release a convicted rapist murderer, and thought of getting it wrong must weigh heavy on the minds of those that make these decisions. Let's hope they are right, but they are more likely to be wrong if he is hounded and harassed everywhere he goes.

 

I’m sorry but that’s just ridiculous, you cannot compare someone selling cannabis to a mass murderer / rapist, just because they might commit a totally unrelated crime.

 

No “expert” knows if he’s rehabilitated, it’s guess work. And the people they are judging are proven liars who successfully hid the most heinous of crimes from those around them.

 

The alternative isn’t not releasing anyone, the alternative is not releasing mass rapist / murderers of children. 
 

Commit the very worst of crimes, not once, but twice and years apart, I’m sorry you are in the very top bracket of scum who should never see the light of day, whilst physically capable of doing the same again. 

 

[worth_the_wait]

5 hours ago, leicsmac said:

...."potential"?

 

Yeah, I suppose that could be said.

I'm glad you agree with me! 

[promised land]

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

And this is likewise forgetting the innocent victims executed incorrectly by the state. Which, in a fallible justice system, is a matter of inevitability.

 

Which is worse?

Totally understand where you’re coming from but with all the forensic and video evidence these days plus phone tracking if it’s a unanimous decision that they 100% committed it or they admitted it then why not?

 

The days of innocent victims being hanged is back pre 1960 now, crime investigation has moved on a fair bit since then.

[leicsmac]

21 minutes ago, worth_the_wait said:

I'm glad you agree with me! 

 

3 minutes ago, promised land said:

Totally understand where you’re coming from but with all the forensic and video evidence these days plus phone tracking if it’s a unanimous decision that they 100% committed it or they admitted it then why not?

 

The days of innocent victims being hanged is back pre 1960 now, crime investigation has moved on a fair bit since then.

This has been talked about in the other thread a bit, but I'll just rehash it quickly here: even with all the tech we have today it's still possible to get it wrong (either through incompetence or a simple set-up), and it does happen. As long as that risk exists, I can't get onboard with the idea of capital punishment when the possibility, however small, exists of innocent people being executed along with the guilty.

[Captain...]

23 minutes ago, Babylon said:

I’m sorry but that’s just ridiculous, you cannot compare someone selling cannabis to a mass murderer / rapist, just because they might commit a totally unrelated crime.

 

No “expert” knows if he’s rehabilitated, it’s guess work. And the people they are judging are proven liars who successfully hid the most heinous of crimes from those around them.

 

The alternative isn’t not releasing anyone, the alternative is not releasing mass rapist / murderers of children. 
 

Commit the very worst of crimes, not once, but twice and years apart, I’m sorry you are in the very top bracket of scum who should never see the light of day, whilst physically capable of doing the same again. 

 

But the point is it is a scale, as a society we believe in rehabilitation. That means believing that everyone can be rehabilitated. That doesn't mean everyone will, but it does mean that even in committing the most heinous crimes there is a path to rehabilitation.

 

I don't know the physical state of Pitchfork or the mental for that matter, at 61 he might not have the physical capacity to attack anyone, that might have been a factor in their decision. I don't know. When is someone too weak to attack? 60? 70? 80? Should we really be releasing people only because they can't not because they have 0 desire to?

 

Like I said I believe that everyone has the right to a path to rehabilitation for even the most horrendous crimes, you either believe in the capacity to be rehabilitated or not.

[promised land]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

 

This has been talked about in the other thread a bit, but I'll just rehash it quickly here: even with all the tech we have today it's still possible to get it wrong (either through incompetence or a simple set-up), and it does happen. As long as that risk exists, I can't get onboard with the idea of capital punishment when the possibility, however small, exists of innocent people being executed along with the guilty.

If that’s the case then life should mean life for the truly sick perpetrators that commit rape and murder, and not a cushy Cat C or D prison, proper brick celled prison with one hour exercise a day maximum. No point in courses to rehabilitate as they’d never be allowed out.

Parole board letting rapists and murderers free, do they ever make mistakes as well and the convict reoffends?

 

Which is worse?

 

 

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, promised land said:

If that’s the case then life should mean life for the truly sick perpetrators that commit rape and murder, and not a cushy Cat C or D prison, proper brick celled prison with one hour exercise a day maximum. No point in courses to rehabilitate as they’d never be allowed out.

Parole board letting rapists and murderers free, do they ever make mistakes as well and the convict reoffends?

 

Which is worse?

 

 

I would certainly agree with whole life sentences. Think that rehabilitation has a place even if someone isn't getting out, if only to attempt to make them a more manageable inmate, though.

 

Edit: and just in case the jury did get it wrong.

Edited 8 June 2021 by leicsmac

[silebyboy]

20 hours ago, KrefelderFox666 said:

I have always been of the mindset that a death sentence is less punishment than life in prison with no parole. Look at all those who commit suicide while being sentenced or in prison, they know they can't face being locked up for however many years only to die in prison, they would rather die now. Let them suffer behind bars for the remainder of their life.

Perhaps the death sentence would deter others from similar crimes, although perhaps not. At the very least it would save wasting tax payers money on these people. 

[Babylon]

32 minutes ago, Captain... said:

But the point is it is a scale, as a society we believe in rehabilitation. That means believing that everyone can be rehabilitated. That doesn't mean everyone will, but it does mean that even in committing the most heinous crimes there is a path to rehabilitation.

 

I don't know the physical state of Pitchfork or the mental for that matter, at 61 he might not have the physical capacity to attack anyone, that might have been a factor in their decision. I don't know. When is someone too weak to attack? 60? 70? 80? Should we really be releasing people only because they can't not because they have 0 desire to?

 

Like I said I believe that everyone has the right to a path to rehabilitation for even the most horrendous crimes, you either believe in the capacity to be rehabilitated or not.

And yet over 100 whole life orders have been passed, that means they are never getting out and not eligible for parole. 

[Benguin]

As a Christian, I believe that forgiveness is one of the most important things. However that doesn't mean you can't still hold someone accountable for something. 

 

One thing that really concerns me is that there was a significant amount of time between the murders. That must mean that it wasn't a terrible mistake to him and he wasn't burdened with guilt as he willingly did it again after some time.  

[Countryfox]

26 minutes ago, Benguin said:

As a Christian, I believe that forgiveness is one of the most important things. However that doesn't mean you can't still hold someone accountable for something. 

 

One thing that really concerns me is that there was a significant amount of time between the murders. That must mean that it wasn't a terrible mistake to him and he wasn't burdened with guilt as he willingly did it again after some time.  

Would you have recommended his release if you were on the panel ? ..  don’t worry it’s not a catch question ..  just interested to know what your take on it would be as a forgiving Christian. 
And I know you don’t know all the facts but based on what we have read ..  model prisoner, done a few courses etc.