Colin Pitchfork - can be released from prison

[Buce]

 

The murder rate is actually quite stable from one decade to the next and has shown no increase since capital punishment, which suggests no deterrent effect.

 

In America, since it was mentioned, the murder rate is higher in States that have the death penalty than in those that do not:

 

https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-and-research/murder-rates/murder-rate-of-death-penalty-states-compared-to-non-death-penalty-states

 

https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/48000/act500062008en.pdf

 

https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/centres-institutes/centre-criminology/blog/2015/04/theres-no-evidence-death-penalty-acts-deterrent

Edited 15 July 2021 by Buce

[nnfox]

40 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

I don't think many people committing a murder expects to be caught, so it doesn't really matter to them what the punishment is if they don't think it will ever apply. 

I think it's more the case that murderers become murderers in the spur of the moment, when a situation gets out of control.  Most murders happen in an instant, without a huge degree of planning, hence why there is a low proportion of murders that go unsolved.

 

The death penalty would have very little effect on the murder rate because in the majority of murders, at the time of the offence there is no thought to getting caught or not getting caught, or the potential punishment.

[Robo61]

1 hour ago, Countryfox said:

Yep I know they have the death penalty over there and I know they have a high murder rate …. but I think a lot of that is due to the fact they are all allowed to wander around with military style weapons on their person …. and their attitude is very different to ours.   I am not saying I’m actually in favour of the death penalty for all the obvious ‘what if you’re wrong’ reasons …. however ..  imo I’m confident that if there was a death penalty in this country it would have an impact on the murder rate ..  how much I’ve no idea …. but I’ve no doubt some sad b@stards aren’t really fazed by a cosy life behind bars …. being put down like a rabid dog though  …. a different matter. 

Then why do an awful lot of those that commit murder,  also finish themselves off before they are caught.  I have no doubt that it would not have made a difference to Pitchfork as he believed he'd never be caught and he was very nearly right.

[Guest Col city fan]

I used to cycle up the path that he committed the murders on, on my way to work.

Sends shivers to think he’s going to be released. Life should mean life.

[leicsmac]

7 hours ago, DennisNedry said:

I fully take the argument that the problem of executing wrongly convicted criminals is (or rather, was) a huge and insurmountable one.

 

However, technology and policing has moved on hugely since 1965.

 

In cases like Pitchfork, we can be 100% certain that he committed the murders due to DNA evidence. Some murders are even filmed by the perpetrators these days! In cases such as these where you can be absolutely certain of guilt, I can't see the logic in not just executing them. Saves the cost of prison, saves the parole heartache etc but more importantly for me it just feels like the only fitting punishment.

I'm sorry, but this isn't right - not the 100% part, anyway.

 

Perhaps this is semantic, but it is possible (though extremely unlikely) that in the case of any conviction, given sufficient effort, that all evidence can be faked, all witnesses can be coerced or lying, and all confessions can be boastful fantasies. I'll say again - unlikely to the point of being nearly impossible, but not impossible. Think of it as 99.9999%, rather than 100% - a small but significant distinction given enough cases.

 

That's the reason why conviction is always "beyond a reasonable doubt" rather than beyond any doubt at all and why I'll always be leery of absolute punishments that cannot be reversed like the death penalty.

[Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot]

All you saying death penalty should apply in this instance give your a head a wobble. It's never the right thing. The cock up here is letting a monster like this out, should be locked up for life, no doubt, for what he did. 

[The Fox Covert]

6 hours ago, Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot said:

All you saying death penalty should apply in this instance give your a head a wobble. It's never the right thing. The cock up here is letting a monster like this out, should be locked up for life, no doubt, for what he did. 

Has anyone looked at the countries which still have the death penalty. Apart from the USA the other nine are pretty nasty places. Like North Korea and China to start with. Anyone who is still a supporter of Priti Patel take note because that is where she wants to take us.

[Fox92]

As if it couldn't get worse

 

 

[LiberalFox]

.

Edited 18 July 2021 by LiberalFox

[LiberalFox]

.

Edited 18 July 2021 by LiberalFox
.

[Wasyls Pec Deck]

I know if you can’t rehab and release people it doesn’t give people hope of being free again… but, in my view, if someone takes away the freedom of others (and particularly heinous that it was 2 young girls) through such gruesome acts then they don’t deserve their freedom and are a danger to others. And god knows what the victims families think.

 

I don’t believe in capital punishment either, though I can understand the argument - including money. Why should the tax payer foot the bill to let these people live and be housed at significant cost. Let the buggers suffer in prison - for life. And I mean suffer, no sky, no nice food etc.

[LiberalFox]

Personally think he should remain in an open prison until he's really old. Now I don't know what state his health is in, but 61 for a lot of people isn't that old. That's already pretty lenient given what he did. 

[foxile5]

1 hour ago, Fox92 said:

As if it couldn't get worse

 

 

That's just incomprehensible. What possible reason is there for not putting him on there? 

[Wasyls Pec Deck]

Is he going to live under an assumed name? Because it was a distinctive name before he raped and murdered young women.

[Jimothy]

.

Edited 18 July 2021 by Facecloth

[Milo]

There was a good article on this on Woman’s Hour on R4 this week. 
 

Tough listen, but well worth it. 

[rico]

MoJ apologize for sex offenders register error

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-57920167

[Trumpet]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-58408210
 

Released among us.

[MPH]

On 15/07/2021 at 14:26, nnfox said:

I think it's more the case that murderers become murderers in the spur of the moment, when a situation gets out of control.  Most murders happen in an instant, without a huge degree of planning, hence why there is a low proportion of murders that go unsolved.

 

The death penalty would have very little effect on the murder rate because in the majority of murders, at the time of the offence there is no thought to getting caught or not getting caught, or the potential punishment.

 

 

I think that’s a very bold and sweeping statement.

 

 

 

i think one of the main reasons most murderers  get caught is the resources that go into catching them, plus the advancements in DNA technology  basically mean you leave a trace whatever  room you go in.  We are so traceable electronically also, so it’s easy to put someone in the area of a crime..

Edited 1 September 2021 by MPH

[nnfox]

33 minutes ago, MPH said:

 

 

I think that’s a very bold and sweeping statement.

 

 

 

i think one of the main reasons most murderers  get caught is the resources that go into catching them, plus the advancements in DNA technology  basically mean you leave a trace whatever  room you go in.  We are so traceable electronically also, so it’s easy to put someone in the area of a crime..

I stand by my comment.

 

Most murderers don't wake up in the morning thinking that they will kill someone later that day.  The vast majority of murders happen in the spur of the moment, with very poor planning leaving DNA and electronic evidence all over the place.  With enormous resources available, it's only a matter of time before most murderers are locked up.  

 

Of the relatively few murders that go unsolved, my guess is that they go unsolved due to one of three reasons.

 

1. An incompetent criminal "got lucky" with the unique circumstances of the crime.

2. A forensically aware criminal carefully planned the crime.

3. Police made errors with the investigation.

 

[oxford blue]

Just reading through the latter part of this thread, there are two different issues as I see it:

1. The initial sentence, whether the death penalty, whole-life tariff or a life sentence with a minimum term. We can argue which should be the law or which the sentence the judge imposed, but in Pitchfork's case 30 years was the minimum term for his whole life sentence.
2. It is 34 years that he has been on remand. in prison, so if the parole board have decided he can be released, I have no problem with their decision, (which a judge concluded was 'not irrational.) In other words, he had met the grounds on which he can be released, which is subject to many conditions.

I don't necessarily disagree with those who say he should never be released, and ifhe  had committed similar today, he may have got a whole life sentence. However, a sentence cannot be changed after the initial short period for a review which is allowed.

 

'.

[Parafox]

4 hours ago, nnfox said:

Most murderers don't wake up in the morning thinking that they will kill someone later that day.  The vast majority of murders happen in the spur of the moment,

Not the case, and that's why we have manslaughter as a charge. Generally, murder is a planned action although it can a chargeable offence if there was intent to cause serious harm to another. Manslaughter is causing the death of another without actual intent to kill or cause serious harm:

 

Murder vs manslaughter

Murder and manslaughter both fall under the banner of homicide because they both involve the death of a human being. Yet the two crimes are slightly different. The law is very nuanced, but ultimately, it all comes down to the issues of intent and responsibility. The key questions that must be asked are:

Did the accused intend to kill?

Can the accused be held responsible for their actions?

If the answer to either question is ‘no’, then it amounts to manslaughter.

What is murder?

Murder is when a person of sound mind unlawfully kills another human, with the intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (GBH).

So, let us imagine that you assault a man. You do not necessarily set out with the intention of ending his life, but you are intent on inflicting serious physical damage – which in legal terms is known as grievous bodily harm (GBH). The man later dies of his injuries. In this instance, you would be charged with murder. This is because the intention to cause serious harm was there and your actions led to the victim’s death.

Edited 1 September 2021 by Parafox

[nnfox]

1 hour ago, Parafox said:

Not the case, and that's why we have manslaughter as a charge. Generally, murder is a planned action although it can a chargeable offence if there was intent to cause serious harm to another. Manslaughter is causing the death of another without actual intent to kill or cause serious harm:

 

Murder vs manslaughter

Murder and manslaughter both fall under the banner of homicide because they both involve the death of a human being. Yet the two crimes are slightly different. The law is very nuanced, but ultimately, it all comes down to the issues of intent and responsibility. The key questions that must be asked are:

Did the accused intend to kill?

Can the accused be held responsible for their actions?

If the answer to either question is ‘no’, then it amounts to manslaughter.

What is murder?

Murder is when a person of sound mind unlawfully kills another human, with the intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (GBH).

So, let us imagine that you assault a man. You do not necessarily set out with the intention of ending his life, but you are intent on inflicting serious physical damage – which in legal terms is known as grievous bodily harm (GBH). The man later dies of his injuries. In this instance, you would be charged with murder. This is because the intention to cause serious harm was there and your actions led to the victim’s death.

I am actually talking about murder.  Not manslaughter.  I know the difference and that punching someone in the face who falls over and cracks their skull is not likely to be murder. 

 

I'm talking about drug dealers who stab each other.  They have "beef" with each other, have a fight and one pulls a knife and plunges it into the victim's chest.  The offender didn't turn up wanting to kill them particularly, they turned up to "teach them a lesson" and look hard in front of their mates.  It gets out of hand, they panic and the action of consciously stabbing the victim in that split second constitutes murder.

 

I'm talking about the husband and wife who constantly fight and one night the husband, in a moment of rage, takes a knife from the kitchen drawer and stabs his wife.

 

Murders that are planned definitely do happen, where someone hatches a plan to kill another person and follows it through, there's no denying that, but they are the exception rather than the rule.

[stripeyfox]

Arrested and recalled to prison, according to BBC News

 

[RoboFox]

Perhaps wasn’t such a good idea after all.