To think he should NEVER be released - HORRIFIC STORY WARNING ***warning reiterated by MNHQ - disturbing content***

[ShockedandOutraged]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6457161/Hes-bad-Ian-Brady.html#article-6457161

After committing a crime like this, it can never be guaranteed that this man is not a risk to society. What parameters do the Parole Board use to determine this? He has not been around to lose his temper/in a position to kill children while inside.

The reports details a network of 'friends' that this fiend has as support when he's out. Who on earth could be friends with something like this?

How can he even want to be released? If he had any remorse he'd have killed himself before now.

The poor parents of these children. Is there anyway they can fight against this?

What is (almost) certain is that not one person here knows or understands any of the facts that have driven the parole board's decision.

We can only know what’s stated in the board document referenced in the news articles:

it said McGreavy now has "a considerable understanding of the problems that he has had and what caused them".
"The psychologist identified a number of factors which make it less likely that Mr McGreavy will reoffend in future," it said.
"These included his improved self-control and the fact that Mr McGreavy has learnt to remain calm in stressful situations.”

As multiple of the ‘savages’ you’re criticising have said, this seems to accept his stated motive for the crime (‘snapping’ due to stress), something which was not examined in any depth at his original trial and something which seems to not match up with the details of what he actually did.

I don’t think he should face the death penalty or torture or any other inhumane treatment. But, no, I don’t think he should be released based on being able to ‘remain calm in stressful situations’ now.

I don't believe people like this can be rehabilitated, to be honest, and I don't think we should put anyone at risk by trying to find. Maybe I'm too cynical, but I suspect most of these offenders minimise what they did, blame the victim, blame the rest of society, etc. If this man felt any true remorse, he wouldn't be able to live with what he did and would have killed himself by now. Be honest: would you be able to look at yourself in the mirror knowing you had murdered three children, even decades later? No one with a conscience would.

I remember reading once that the issue of Myra Hindley's release from prison was a catch-22, because if she ever felt remorse, she wouldn't want to be released.

People like that never have to worry about something like that happening. They’re invariably middle class lefties who own their own homes in nice areas who know the chances of a bail hostel appearing in their road or a criminal being housed there is nil.

And they’ll scoff at working class people on council estates who worry about things like this, ridiculing them for “intolerance” and “ignorance” and being driven by emotion. But they’re the people who have to put up with this stuff, they’re the ones who might have them rehoused next door when they can’t move away and can’t afford non-social housing so they’re trapped their.

It’s very easy to be kind and charitable when it’s other people who have to take the risks to facilitate it.

I think there's a lot of truth to this.

By that strict standard, I suspect most people support the death penalty.

It’s not a “strict” standard. You either support the death penalty for all or anyone or you don’t.

People who don’t, don’t support it for anyone. That doesn’t mean they don’t think some crimes are deplorable, just that they don’t believe killing someone as a punishment is the sign of civilised society.

I agree he should never be released. Some crimes are just too terrible to ever allow that person out again - plus you take three little lives like that - you should forfeit you own freedom forever for that. We don't have the death penalty here, but for crimes such as this I think a whole life tariff is completely appropriate. This horrible, sick individual has no right whatsoever to ever walk free.

It's not just that he killed them-but what he then did with the bodies.

Some crimes are so sickening that I don't think the perpetrators deserve to ever be free.

"A number of factors that make it less likely"-that's hardly reassuring is it?

I mean let's face it, most of us aren't ever likely to do what he did-no matter how pissed off we were!

mental health issues are complex. He may well understand what was/is wrong with him. That may have been a contributing factor to the crime he committed. He might well understand why he violently killed three innocent children.

However, controlling mental health issues whilst in prison while you have an officer making sure you take your meds every day, is very different to controlling mental health issues in the real world where you don't have anyone looking after you.

People can suffer with mental health issues after leaving prison because the change in environment is so severe.

Can this man be trusted to continue to "manage" his mental health issues without someone forcing meds down his throat every day? Can he be trusted not to drink considering he had a drinking problem?

its all well and good saying that the risk of him doing it again is low, but that's whilst he's been in prison. IMO its not comparable to him being in the real world.

I also think, and I will probably get flamed for this, that mental health issues do not excuse you from being punished for a crime you committed whilst you were struggling with them. I also appreciate that mental health issues were not recognised half as much when he committed this crime, but I still think he cannot use them exclusively as a reason for killing children.

People posting on this thread aren’t ‘a baying mob’. They’re justifiably outraged and appalled. Virtue signalling of the highest order. Do you want this man to stay in prison, to prevent potential irrevocable harm, or do you want the warm, fuzzy satisfaction of feeing like a nice, forgiving person? I know what I prefer.

Andthesaw I totally agree we can’t!

We have a legal system, procedures etc in place. If we feel these are flawed, is an entirely separate issue,

the warm, fuzzy satisfaction of feeing like a nice, forgiving person

That’s not the reason why parole boards exist. How naive.

for all those saying the parole board know best....

would you be happy with this man being near you or your children?

happy that you might unknowingly befriend him, live next door to him?

That’s not the reason why parole boards exist.

www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/may/11/topstories3.ukcrime

"But Mr Bridges said the failures in the Rice case had been exacerbated by two instances where parole and probation staff had allowed human rights considerations to undermine the importance of public protection."

@empmalswa apologies I thought the picture of him in the Fail link was taken recently, didn’t see the 2006 underneath it. Was still feeling queasy reading about what he did.

reflectant

Where in that article does it any the parole board acted out of a desire to have the “warm, fuzzy satisfaction of feeling like a nice, forgiving person”?

Or is that what you think human rights means?

Murderers often get let out of prison
And even when the murder is as bad ANS as shocking as this one
We have to trust the parole board here 🤷🏻‍♀️

Trust a parole board? 😂😂😂😂 Have you ever had reason to work with them and suffer their utter incompetence in many cases? I don't trust them at all.

for all those saying the parole board know best....

No I would not be ecstatic . But he won’t go anonymous (despite trying ) and will probably get done in a vigilante attack . And hopefully killed hence saving tax payers money

does someone like that deserve human rights though?

he took three children's lives away, I think that kind of affords you some of your rights.

are a murderers human rights more important than the rights of the children who will have to live near this disgusting man?

If what is meant by that is that he had/has a psychiatric disorder (as seems likely, given what he did) then without question more is known and understood about that, and its relationship with violent offending, than would have been possible in 1973.

Psychiatric disorders don’t necessarily reduce culpability. Personality disorders such as being a psychopath frequently involve people who know the difference between right and wrong but just don’t care. Not all psychiatric disorders are mitigating factors.

does someone like that deserve human rights though?

Choosing who is allowed to have their human rights respected and who isn’t does not have good precedence in history.

I've rather lost faith in the Parole Board after they initially approved Warboys for release.

To successfully prevent repeat crimes, I think there are two main mechanisms. The first is to change the person so that they find the crime as repugnant as anyone else would. Various people in this thread have already said they're not sure this degree of change is possible for a man like this.

The second would be the fear of getting caught.

In this case, what strikes me is that he committed those horrific murders in such an obvious fashion. He didn't seem to fear getting caught then at all. Has he come to value long-term freedom over his desire to kill?

I think he should never have been allowed to live.

Choosing who is allowed to have their human rights respected and who isn’t does not have good precedence in history.

That's an easy cop out. The judicial process inevitably gives fewer rights (of liberty, free association and others) to people who are convicted of serious crimes than those who are not. You are presumably not arguing that society cannot imprison anyone. The debate is then over the way in which we decide who to imprison and for how long. The fact that someone is held in prison, potentially until death, has been repeatedly found to be compliant with human rights legislation.

I've rather lost faith in the Parole Board after they initially approved Warboys for release.

Indeed. For the people saying "the parole board have spoken, shut up everyone else": do you think John Warboys should be released? The Parole Board say "yes", and then later "no". Which of their decisions is correct?

aliens killing children does not have good precedence in history either though does it.

This is not deciding he has no human rights based on the colour of his skin, his religion or which country he was born in.

HE. KILLED. THREE. CHILDREN.

I cannot and will not every have any kind of sympathy for this man, I will never believe he deserves a "normal life". He doesn't deserve to be treated like a civilised human being if he cannot fucking well behave like one.