Kyle Clifford - does it make you think the death penalty in some cases might be right?

[mids2019]

Read about Kyle Clifford's crimes and although for most of my life objected to the death penalty actually found it difficult to find reasons in this case not to have it. I really just couldn't think of justification for keeping the guy alive as there. Is no hope of redemption, reformation or education leading to a man being able to renenter scoiety. We would be in a position of keeping someone alive for pets face it the ideological reasons we don't believe it is rig h for the state to forcibly take a life.

Maybe my mind might change but reading about that blokes crimes I think sometimes you do forfeit the right to life.

The conditions in women's prisons are wildly different to those of men's prisons. Men's prisons are hugely overcrowded for a start, that's why so many recent CSA image offenders have been given non-custodial sentences in recent years: no room in the men's jails.

That’s fine and your opinion. As a disabled woman I disagree. I think Kyle Clifford is a despicable person for what he put his victims through. The world would be better and safer without him in it. He isn’t my priority.

Juries shouldn't be convicting on circumstantial evidence alone. You clearly don't understand the proof standards that juries work to. Have a diagram to explain it.

Levi Bellfield was.

You aren't wrong that the world would be better without him. Where you are wrong is in your belief that the State should be allowed to kill him.

If the State can kill him because reasons, it can make reasons to kill you and me as well.

And this is why we acknowledge that juries can make mistakes.

Were they mistaken when they convicted of him of kidnapping and killing Milly Dowler?

The Assisted Dying Bill is not a government bill. It is very likely to fail now, anyway, because of its flaws.

I know what you mean OP. It's such a tricky subject. Ideally, I don't want to pay for their upkeep, if there's no hope of rehabilitation.

I disagree. I think it’s like abortion - people said if we introduced it, then where would the line end up, and surely we would end up terminating full term babies and killing newborns… that hasn’t happened.

All the debate about people living comfortably in prisons etc is why I believe that the prison institution itself is the problem. Prison - especially for the most violent offenders - has to be the worst place they will live in. And actually, if you are homeless/squatting/sofa surfing/living in squalor - as things stand - it might not be. Yes your freedom is taken away, but you are warm, fed, able to form friendships, learn new skills (great for lesser/young offenders) too much of a privilege for some though.

The prison system needs reform.
We need fixed prison categories that are universally equipped or not equipped accordingly.
The public needs to be au fait with them and understand that if they are convicted of certain crimes, they will find themselves in a Cat 1 institution with no hope of moving, and that means that they will spend their lives in those conditions, which (to restate ny previous post) should be:

• basic cell - no personalisation
• no tv/no pool table - limited books/art supplies/writing materials
• actual hard labour that is productive to society
• minimal socialisting with no opportunity to become 'top dog' / form friendships/create cliques/be part of any meaningful kind of relationship (think this is so important)
• Yard exercise - no football/no gym/weights with mates etc
• Bland food
• Miserable, boring routine, hoepless and MEANINGLESS existence for ever. With no hope of change.

And then for lesser offenders, you have perhaps the same but with opportunity to earn your right to a Cat 2 prison with slightly less ridgid living

And so on.

I don't believe in the death penalty, but I don't believe our prison system is deterrent enough for many.

Also: Separate issue. Kyle Clifford refused to attend his rape trial. Excuse me now? It disgusts (and baffled me) that prisoners are still allowed to 'refuse' to come to court. Or the dock to hear victim statements/receive sentencing etc. Fuck That! It should not be optional. And for those asking 'how do you propose forcing them?' - my answer would be, I don't care. Handcuff them and drag them - I really really don't give a fuck.

@selffellatingouroborosofhate that has to be one of the vilest thing I've read on here and there have been some corkers over the years. I wouldn't be without my sons.

There is always a slim chance that they might have been.

I was thinking of cases like Sally Clark, where circumstantial evidence coupled with flawed expert evidence meant that a mother was jailed after an unsafe conviction. I imagine that people wanted the death penalty for her too, as people really don't like child killers.

What is your proposal to end male violence against women? For every "I wouldn't be without my sons", there's a woman looking at her daughter thinking "should I really have brought her into this with these violent men around?" Why do your sons matter more than other people's daughters?

But I just said, I wouldn’t implement it if the only evidence was circumstantial. The threshold would have to be very high - serial or multiple murders, or child killers. I wouldn’t just introduce the death penalty for murder as I acknowledge a very tiny minority of people are capable of rehabilitation and to me, things like gang related violence are different - they never stood a chance probably. Plus I wouldn’t want battered women who snap and kill their abuser to be punished in this way. It would have to be for the worst of the worst - Kyle Clifford, Ian Huntley, Levi Bellfield (multiple killings) and so on.

You can’t end it. It’s a false idea. It can be limited, but never ended.

Yes I agree with all of this. They should be dragged from their cell and made to attend their trial or sentence.

So basically, "boys will be boys and women will have to put up with being second-class citizens forever"? And I'm supposedly the "vile" one for suggesting a solution that cuts off the problem before it starts with no pain to the male embryos?

Tell me that you value male embryos over born, feeling women and girls without telling me...

Yeah, that’s exactly what I said.

Not.

And you know it.

There are some right old empty vessels on this thread 😂

Agree there is no point to their lives, and money could be spent on other things.

Actually, convicting on circumstantial evidence alone is perfectly legal and occurs in a wide range of cases, including the most serious.

I agree that defendants should be compelled to attend trial. He should be made to face the court with what he has done.

His refusal is part of his contempt for women. Attending court would mean acknowledging that a man forcing his dick into a woman is a crime called rape, and he will not acknowledge that such a crime exists because his "teacher" Tate says that women have no right to refuse so rape of women cannot exist as a crime. By refusing to attend court, he refuses to accept the legitimacy of rape as a crime that he can be tried for.

I should have said "shouldn't", not "don't". And it goes wrong, which is why we have an appeals system and don't have the death penalty. It's why quite a few people now suspect that the Letby conviction may be unsafe.

Can't be that bad, they ate overcrowded.
Bring back breaking rocks, hard labour's, no visitors, see if they so keen.