The Yorkshire Ripper question?

Well it would cost a hell of a lot less if they weren't housed in luxury. A concrete cell with no tv, no games consoles or a comfortable mattress, One hour of exercise and 2 library books a week would cost much less.

cancel the cheque people please lol - drop the 11 million or billion and carry on about the rest - i am fascinated

I thought i was pro death penalty in 100% proof of multiple cases of murder but now I realise there's no such guarantee and I am re thinking

not that anyone will read this and notice anything but the billion million comment lol

There was no doubt in this case and that goes for the vast majority of cases. Huge advances in forensics, DNA testing, almost blanket CCTV, ring door bells, texts and videos on mobile phones etc have made it almost impossible to be wrongly convicted. This will become ever more so as the years progress. Prisons are overcrowded and the country is broke. They're letting convicts out for god's sake. Given all of that I think we should have the death penality where the evidence is irrefutable. I also think we should increase sentencing for drunk/drug drivers and re-examine the definition of manslaughter.

So you are going to manage the prisoners on death row then?? You'd happily work in that environment? Manage these men who have nothing to lose? Supervise them and move them around the prison regime when our riding are NOTHING like the US ones set up for this??

No...didn't think so...very flippant comment

Bring back the death sentence IMO. Especially more mass murderers like Sutcliffe.

If The Daily Mail state it, then it must be true....

I cannot put a price to living in a society where the state can't murder me. So yeah, it's worth every penny.

Of course it’s sad that Sutcliffe was a parasite as well as a killer.

Ewww.

Revenge by society would be worse, probably.

^ This, exactly.

Yeah capital punishment has done so much to lower the murder rate in america. Oh wait it hasn't.

At least the state I live in doesn't practice the barbaric money wasting practice. And our murder rate is much lower than states that do execute criminals. Natural life in prison is the way to go. Sorry to disappoint the bloodthirsty.

I agree with this.

I recommend "The Secret Barrister" as a fascinating insight into the pros and cons of our legal system.

You're proud of your ignorance and the spreading of misinformation? As long as you feel happy hun, I'm sure that everything will be OK.

In fairness to the OP, the DailyFail article did say 11 billion
Ex-Broadmoor nurse recalls chilling detail about Yorkshire Ripper Peter Sutcliffe that 'frightened' him | Daily Mail Online

But even if it was 11 billion I still wouldn't support the death penalty.

OP, if you do the maths, £11m over 39 years = works out at just under £300k a year. Currently it costs around £90K to house high security prisoners in places like Broadmoor. The amount quoted would include the cost of the police operations and court costs to bring him to justice.

He was in Broadmoor (a hospital for the mentally insane) for years then a prison. At no time in recent history, would someone certified insane, as he was, for years, had suffered capital punishment.

Long sentences are expensive. 🤷‍♀️

If a dog bites ppl are quick to say it cannot adjust to normal life so end its suffering. So I think in bad cases like the ripper they should be kind, and end his suffering. The NHS is on its knees spend the money there to help ppl.

Peter Sutcliffe was in Broadmoor for most of his incarceration. Thats a hospital not a prison. Regardless, most of the 11m reflects costs we would still have incurred in order to have a high security hospital and to have high security prisons. Whether he was in them or not.

If he was executed or if he disappeared in a puff of smoke society would still need to spend most of the 11m to protect us from criminally insane people. Most of that cost is infrastructure and guards. Most of it is a fixed cost.

If we want to save money on prison and secure hospitals we need to reduce the number of people being sent there who could otherwise be kept out if we prevented them falling into crime and poor MH or both. These are going to be low level offenders and people who could be easily helped if we spent money on MH services.

we should have that debate not the one about a dead man who needed to be locked up.

They shouldn't qualify under any circumstances regardless of whether the laws around assisted dying are changed

But you simply cannot pick and choose in this way and have different sentences purely according to the sex of the perpetrator or victim. It doesn't take long to work out that that would be potentially disastrous. It's a truism that hard cases make bad law.

That would be dreadfully unfair on the penguins.

😂not twelvety?

Unless they had an incurable serious illness they wouldn't qualify on the basis of current proposals.