Colin Pitchfork - can be released from prison

[Guest Cujek]

54 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

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.

Why should we have to pay for these people to be kept?

 

Why should any of my hard earned money, go to make the likes of Colin Pitchforks lives any better.

 

Prisons do create jobs and opportunities for the people that work and run them, so i would'nt say get rid of them all together.

 

But people like this guy should just be hung, no messing about, straight out the court room, onto the gallows, feed the body to the pigs.

 

 We are far far to lenient, we see pedo's get 2 year suspended sentences and the like, again just hang them, be done with it.

 

if someone can offer society nothing but grief and pain, why are they allowed in society?

 

Often the victims of crime go on to suffer that crime for the rest of their lives in one way or another, whilst the perpetrator does his time, has his 3 meals a day all provided by the state, whilst watching their TV's that the BBC dont come knocking on the door if you dont pay their subscription service.

 

There is victim support but they cant actually do anything, they provide advocacy, if you actually need that great, but otherwise they just say aww dont worry it will get better, time is a great healer etc etc.

 

Fuzzy Wuzzy liberals are ruining this country and have been for a long time, banging on about human rights and all that blah blah.

 

well people like this guy gave up their human rights when they decided to act outside the bounds of basic human morality, how can we class people like this as human is beyond me, therefore they have no rights as far as im concerned.

[Buce]

51 minutes ago, silebyboy said:

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. 

 

It has been shown time and time again that capital punishment is not a deterent, and it is more costly to execute prisoners than to imprison them.

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, Cujek said:

Why should we have to pay for these people to be kept?

 

Why should any of my hard earned money, go to make the likes of Colin Pitchforks lives any better.

 

Prisons do create jobs and opportunities for the people that work and run them, so i would'nt say get rid of them all together.

 

But people like this guy should just be hung, no messing about, straight out the court room, onto the gallows, feed the body to the pigs.

 

 We are far far to lenient, we see pedo's get 2 year suspended sentences and the like, again just hang them, be done with it.

 

if someone can offer society nothing but grief and pain, why are they allowed in society?

 

Often the victims of crime go on to suffer that crime for the rest of their lives in one way or another, whilst the perpetrator does his time, has his 3 meals a day all provided by the state, whilst watching their TV's that the BBC dont come knocking on the door if you dont pay their subscription service.

 

There is victim support but they cant actually do anything, they provide advocacy, if you actually need that great, but otherwise they just say aww dont worry it will get better, time is a great healer etc etc.

 

Fuzzy Wuzzy liberals are ruining this country and have been for a long time, banging on about human rights and all that blah blah.

 

well people like this guy gave up their human rights when they decided to act outside the bounds of basic human morality, how can we class people like this as human is beyond me, therefore they have no rights as far as im concerned.

This:

 

1 hour 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.

and this:

 

4 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?

is why.

 

If there is an argument against the above that doesn't require accepting the death of innocent people at the hands of the state (or even an admission that such collateral damage is acceptable) then please, feel free.

[Captain...]

21 minutes ago, Babylon said:

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

But a fair number of them have been quashed or overturned on appeal. There are still various appeals with the courts over the legality of them and it has already changed the definition to include a review every 25 years. Interestingly most of the ones that have been quashed are for IRA terrorists. Is killing people for a politi

 

Any way, I have no problem with keeping people behind bars to rot, if they have shown no element of remorse or display that they are still a menace to society. 

[Strokes]

15 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

It has been shown time and time again that capital punishment is not a deterent, and it is more costly to execute prisoners than to imprison them.

Only if you allow it to be costly, the act of tying a rope around a persons neck and pulling a lever isn’t costly.

[Guest Cujek]

Just now, leicsmac said:

This:

 

and this:

 

is why.

 

If there is an argument against the above that doesn't require accepting the death of innocent people at the hands of the state (or even an admission that such collateral damage is acceptable) then please, feel free.

he isnt innocent though is he?

 

Neither are the thousands of other people who are convicted of the worst crimes.

 

Leftists and liberals always make the argument "what about the innocents?!?!" 

 

its a good argument because there is no answer that does not make you look like an absolute idiot.

 

on the one hand, you can say that you dont care about whether innocnet people are executed as long as we get some guilty ones in there.

 

that makes you look like a complete lunatic.

 

or you can just back down from your argument and say that oh yeah, actually we shouldnt execute anyone, just incase.

 

which makes you look like you have no idea what you talking about.

 

Well, i can take a third avenue on it and say that is not my responsibility if the jurors do return a guilty verdict on someone who isnt guilty then thats on them, and at the time they considered all evidence and it was strong enough to return the guilty verdict.

 

when the vicitims and the victims families are suffering their whole entire lives in some cases, thats who i care about, not the person committing the acts.

[nnfox]

2 minutes ago, Captain... said:

Any way, I have no problem with keeping people behind bars to rot, if they have shown no element of remorse or display that they are still a menace to society. 

Out of interest, is this your stance on people who are convicted once for the very worst crimes (such as serial killers) or does it apply to career criminals (minor offences in comparison) who go to prison, come out reoffend again and again.  It's what they do.  No remorse, no interest in rehabilitation, just go out and commit crime until they get caught again.  Should they, being a menace to society, rot behind bars too? 

 

I don't know the answer, just curious.

[Buce]

11 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Only if you allow it to be costly, the act of tying a rope around a persons neck and pulling a lever isn’t costly.

 

It's the process that leads to that event which is costly.

 

I wouldn't want to live in a society that thinks summary execution is acceptable.

 

I don't think you would either.

Edited 8 June 2021 by Buce

[nnfox]

7 minutes ago, Cujek said:

Well, i can take a third avenue on it and say that is not my responsibility if the jurors do return a guilty verdict on someone who isnt guilty then thats on them, and at the time they considered all evidence and it was strong enough to return the guilty verdict.

So my stance is that I don't agree with the death penalty, but not because I'm particularly concerned about miscarriages of justice, but I see it as an easy way out.  I'd much rather see them live out their natural lives in prison and when they die, get buried there too.

 

Your particular comment here though seems to abdicate responsibility.  If the verdict is wrong, that's on the jury... What if you were selected for jury service and had to give a verdict on someone, who, if found guilty, could be sentenced to death.  Would you be ok with the prospect of getting it wrong?

[Benguin]

23 minutes ago, Countryfox said:

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. 

The short answer is maybe, I don't know the facts. I'd be concerned to based on what I said previously and the forgiveness doesn't necessarily mean releasing him. Likewise if my partner commited sexual infidelity I would try and forgive but that doesn't mean staying with her, just that I no longer hold it against her.

 

From a Christian perspective: 

 

I believe that we are all sinners (total depravity) and the only way to receive forgiveness of sin is through faith in the lord Jesus Christ and repentance.

 

I also believe that Christians  should forgive one and other however we as humans aren't capable of the kind of grace God bestows on those he loves.

 

For me personally (and I realise this will be foreign to most people) I would release him if I saw biblical signs that he had put his trust in Jesus and repented of his sins and only in that circumstance.

 

 

 

[leicsmac]

13 minutes ago, Cujek said:

he isnt innocent though is he?

 

Neither are the thousands of other people who are convicted of the worst crimes.

 

Leftists and liberals always make the argument "what about the innocents?!?!" 

 

its a good argument because there is no answer that does not make you look like an absolute idiot.

 

on the one hand, you can say that you dont care about whether innocnet people are executed as long as we get some guilty ones in there.

 

that makes you look like a complete lunatic.

 

or you can just back down from your argument and say that oh yeah, actually we shouldnt execute anyone, just incase.

 

which makes you look like you have no idea what you talking about.

 

Well, i can take a third avenue on it and say that is not my responsibility if the jurors do return a guilty verdict on someone who isnt guilty then thats on them, and at the time they considered all evidence and it was strong enough to return the guilty verdict.

 

when the vicitims and the victims families are suffering their whole entire lives in some cases, thats who i care about, not the person committing the acts.

Yes, it's an almost bulletproof argument, which is why I have stood by it.

 

And with respect, that third option still plays into the idea of being OK with innocent people being executed, for two reasons: firstly, that jury wouldn't be qualified to give a death sentence without the consent of Parliament, which would require a vote of elected officials or a referendum, both of which imply voter responsibility, and secondly, simply agreeing with the idea of a DP in a fallible justice system implies that the death of people wrongly convicted, however unlikely, is acceptable. That's a logical conclusion.

[Guest Cujek]

2 minutes ago, nnfox said:

So my stance is that I don't agree with the death penalty, but not because I'm particularly concerned about miscarriages of justice, but I see it as an easy way out.  I'd much rather see them live out their natural lives in prison and when they die, get buried there too.

 

Your particular comment here though seems to abdicate responsibility.  If the verdict is wrong, that's on the jury... What if you were selected for jury service and had to give a verdict on someone, who, if found guilty, could be sentenced to death.  Would you be ok with the prospect of getting it wrong?

Then, i would consider the evidence and make my decision, if thats wrong, then i only had what i was presented at the time to go on.

 

But i wouldnt be afraid to make a decision.

[Captain...]

21 minutes ago, nnfox said:

Out of interest, is this your stance on people who are convicted once for the very worst crimes (such as serial killers) or does it apply to career criminals (minor offences in comparison) who go to prison, come out reoffend again and again.  It's what they do.  No remorse, no interest in rehabilitation, just go out and commit crime until they get caught again.  Should they, being a menace to society, rot behind bars too? 

 

I don't know the answer, just curious.

I don't know, it really depends what environment people are being released back into. 

 

In a hypothetical world what is a greater threat to society a kid who has committed a few petty crimes with no remorse and is 99% likely to commit more crimes or a 60 year old rapist/murderer who has been in jail for 30 years, satisfied all parole hearings that he is a reformed character knows he is going to be heavily monitored for the rest of his life and is 99% likely to never commit another crime.

 

I'm just glad I don't have to make these decisions and can just chat about them objectively on a message board rather than ever have to make a decision like that on somebody's life.

[Strokes]

1 hour ago, Buce said:

 

It's the process that leads to that event which is costly.

 

I wouldn't want to live in a society that thinks summary execution is acceptable.

 

I don't think you would either.

Probably not, I’m not that keen on living in this society tbh.

[Blarmy]

2 hours ago, Benguin said:

I would release him if I saw biblical signs that he had put his trust in Jesus and repented of his sins and only in that circumstance.

 

 

 

I’m very, very happy you’re not calling the shots…

[Babylon]

2 hours ago, Captain... said:

In a hypothetical world what is a greater threat to society a kid who has committed a few petty crimes with no remorse and is 99% likely to commit more crimes or a 60 year old rapist/murderer who has been in jail for 30 years, satisfied all parole hearings that he is a reformed character knows he is going to be heavily monitored for the rest of his life and is 99% likely to never commit another crime.

You deal with what you know, the petty criminal will be out very quickly anyway, because his crimes were... well, petty. He doesn't need to show a great to of remorse to satisfy anyone, he's coming out. You can bet your life they would be much more likely to show remorse, whether meant to faked facing his entire life in prison. Which is why, you can't trust a serial liar, murderer, rapist to mean a word he says. 

[worth_the_wait]

2 hours ago, Buce said:

It's the process that leads to that event which is costly.

I wouldn't want to live in a society that thinks summary execution is acceptable.

I don't think you would either.

We're talking about execution after a Crown Court jury has returned a 12-0 unanimous guilty verdict.  Not quite summary execution !

[snoopy87]

A man who indecently exposed himself to over 1000 women, murdered and raped two schoolgirls with a three year gap, a man who the sentencing judge said "From the point of view of the safety of the public I doubt if he should ever be released," is being let out on parole.

 

A man who who deceived the investigating officers all the way through the investigation, committed one of the crimes while his son was waiting in the car, is now not a danger to the public?

 

He's what, 60 now? Spent most of his adult life in prison, is deceitful and a bloody psychopath, do not be surprised to see his name in the headlines again having committed the same crime in a year or two. People like him do not change

[SpacedX]

As the longest serving female inmate in California's 'correctional system', the case of Patricia Krenwinkle is particularly interesting. Having been sentenced to death in 1971, a year later the California death penalty was ruled unconstitutional and her sentence was commuted to life. Now 73 years old, she has been in a women’s prison in Riverside County for 47 years, longer than any other woman in the state. From memory she has had 14 appearances before a parole board who have recognised her exemplary behaviour, commended her for a clean disciplinary record, her study for a bachelor’s degree and her work training service dogs and counseling fellow inmates. Krenwinkel has two key factors working in her favor both revolving around age. Because she was 21 at the time of the Manson murders, she is considered a youthful offender under a law that came into effect in 2016. Also, commissioners must recognise the elderly have a lower risk of future violence.

 

Although the severity of the crime is justifiably and duly taken into account, it does not predict her future risk to public safety. That’s why some argue the law requires her release. To me, it's one of the best examples of the way in which public outcry can completely eviscerate and override someone’s constitutional rights. In spite of the severity if the crime and the contention that in the case of something so utterly heinous you forfeit your right to fair treatment - but that’s not how the law works. It's precisely the same for Van Houten and Davis (the Tex Watson situation is arguably far more serious). The infamy and horror of the Manson Family killings were permanently and indelibly etched upon American society and sentiment which is why when she becomes eligible for yet another parole hearing next year, she is likely to remain incarcerated. 

 

Last year Van Houten, now 71, qualified last July for release from a state prison, but California law gives the governor final say over whether an inmate is suitable for parole. She was not present at the Tate murders but participated in the La Bianca homicide. There are many many killers that have committed far graver acts but have served far shorter sentences (such as Pitchfork) - and have been released. Van Houten is being judged on the stigma of her Manson association and the high profile crimes which have become cultural lore - as opposed to her individual role and actions within that. Gov. Gavin Newsom, has twice overruled the parole board’s decision, characterizing Van Houten as a “danger” where there is no evidence to support that reversal. Very simply, he fears the attention that this attracts and the public outrage and backlash and does not want to be associated with it. Decisions concerning less publicised cases go unnoticed. Ultimately though, to the relatives of the victims, they don't - irrespective of the case - and they are all consigned to their own personal torment. If I was impacted by the Manson crimes, I would understandably never want the perpetrators to see the light of day...but the law does not - or should not - work like that. 

[FoxesDeb]

3 hours ago, Cujek said:

Then, i would consider the evidence and make my decision, if thats wrong, then i only had what i was presented at the time to go on.

 

But i wouldnt be afraid to make a decision.

So based on that you'd be OK with killing someone who is innocent, because you didn't know any better? 

[Parafox]

Just to add something... A colleague of mine in the ambulance service discovered one of the girls bodies on his way to Narborough ambulance station via the "Black Pad". He told me he thought it was a pile of clothing dumped in the hedge, then he saw a girls face amongst it...

He called the police...

Haunted him for years.

[Parafox]

7 hours ago, snoopy87 said:

A man who indecently exposed himself to over 1000 women, murdered and raped two schoolgirls with a three year gap, a man who the sentencing judge said "From the point of view of the safety of the public I doubt if he should ever be released," is being let out on parole.

 

A man who who deceived the investigating officers all the way through the investigation, committed one of the crimes while his son was waiting in the car, is now not a danger to the public?

 

He's what, 60 now? Spent most of his adult life in prison, is deceitful and a bloody psychopath, do not be surprised to see his name in the headlines again having committed the same crime in a year or two. People like him do not change

But they are heavily monitored and controlled. Not saying he should be out, but he's not the only despicable criminal to be out and monitored. Only the future will tell. 

Edited 8 June 2021 by Parafox

[adam1]

17 hours ago, Strokes said:

Only if you allow it to be costly, the act of tying a rope around a persons neck and pulling a lever isn’t costly.

And if you get it wrong?

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Evans

 

 

[Footballwipe]

14 hours ago, FoxesDeb said:

So based on that you'd be OK with killing someone who is innocent, because you didn't know any better? 

He would. If we're going down the "fuzzy wuzzy liberal" argument then we also need to go down the "right wing nutter" argument. Action first, shrug off the consequences later.

 

If someone turned out to be innocent, they'd kill the guilty person and just shrug off the dead innocent as "well we thought he was at the time. Nevermind eh." It's just the way it goes.

 

We're also talking about Fuzzy Wuzzy Liberals™ as if the death penalty has just been abolished under a hard left government. The death penalty was abolished in 1965? A series of right-wing Tory governments have been in charge since, and luckily they haven't let the mob have their way.

 

Again, Portchfork shouldn't be released. The strongest possible solitary for the rest of his days. If he's so rehabilitated, then surely the greatest punishment is making him live out the rest of those years with no human interaction, no luxuries, no freedom. Suffering in that prison cell for the rest of his days thinking about what he's done. Tick tock, tick tock. Every day lasting an eternity, yearning to be free but never, ever having the chance. Think of the agony he'd be in.

[Countryfox]

Many people involved with the case that do not normally comment have now come out and said that this man should not be released ...   a cunning deceitful manipulative monster as well as being a psychopath, for which, apparently, there is no cure ...   I'm already feeling sorrow and dread for the poor 15 year old girl who doesn't realise she hasn't got much longer to live and will meet an horrific end to her life ... and the ruined lives of the family she will leave behind. 

 

One question though ...    and not relevant to the above ...    I'd love to know how the fvck someone decided to reduce his sentence from 30 years to 28  !??!!  ...  because ????   ....   because ??? ....   I just don't get it.