to be bemused that an unreptentant woman killer can be rleased.

[paulinespeaksmanylanguages]

Ian Simms who murdered Helen McCourt is about to be released.

There was an appeal to keep him in prison because he refuses to reveal where her body is but it failed.

Am I being unreasonable to think that a lot of publicity should be given to whoever signed off on this? Front page, not tucked away somewhere.

How about the fact that that POS Aaron Campbell aged 16 when he murdered Aleisha MacPhail aged 6 or 7 got his sentence dropped from 27 years to 24! Wtf is wrong with these judges?! He will be aged 40 in 24 years if he gets out and he will be more dangerous than ever and I bet some dogooding dipshit psychiatrist will say that he’s okay to get out when in reality, he should have ‘never to be released’ stamped on his file, this countries idea of justice really makes me fucking angry, it’s a disgrace and so are lots of judges.

The issue is that Simms has always insisted that he is innocent, and thus does not know where the body is.

It would be different if he confessed to the murder and then refused to disclose the body's location

Don’t killers do this though as a form of control? When they are in jail then they have zero control over their life therefore not disclosing the location of the body is the only control they have.

Let’s not forget murderers aren’t nice people and telling Mrs McCourt where her daughters body is would be doing her a favour in his eyes and so he won’t.

I personally think he is guilty and perhaps he doesn’t want the authorities and everyone else to know exactly what he did to Helen.

Will he be allowed to go back and live in the same area do you think?

Another vote for whole life terms for anyone who doesn't disclose where they have buried their victims.

If they don't they clearly are unrepentant and, from reading some of the literature out there, likely to remain at higher risk of doing it again.

You can only sentence people based on the actual evidence you have.

You cannot make a prisoners release conditional on them revealing certain information because there is almost always a chance, however remote, that they may be innocent and may not have that information. I hope we all agree that it would be wrong in the extreme to keep an innocent party locked up indefinitely for not providing information they don't have.

Just look at the recent scandals in the US where innocent men had been locked up for over 20 years for a murder they didn't commit.

In no way should his release be conditional on providing more information - it would set such a dangerous precedent.

Yes innocent people get locked up but most aren’t innocent.

You sound like your on the side of the killer Lockheart? I’m sure you would feel differently if this was your daughter that he murdered.

I've seen that argument before, Persephone, but I can't see how it's relevant. Surely the point is he was convicted in a court of law, and there's substantial DNA evidence that he did it. Her blood was found in his car and in his flat. Her earring and fibres from her trousers were found in his car boot. The law is working on the basis that he is guilty. If anything, his refusal to admit to it should work against him. How can he be seen as repentant or changed when he hasn't even admitted what he's done?

Yes @Inappropriatefemale, because I have more than a knee jerk reaction to what is a supremely complex legal issue I must be on the side of the convicted. There's no other explanation at all.

How can women murderers and rapists "display that they are no longer a threat" when in prison, away from women?

This is just fucking awful

No doubt he will receive a new identity too

You sound like your on the side of the killer Lockheart?

How on earth are concerns about the effects on wrongly convicted people the same as being on the side of a murderer? I have the same concerns about unintended consequences, but as far as this person is concerned, it seems clear he did commit the crime he was found guilty of and imo probably should stay in prison, but I recognise I don't have all the facts and dunt know why this decision has been made.

Sorry I was thinking that you had wrote the other stuff too about murderers not always knowing where the body was, sorry!

I believe the Government is looking at brining in this rule - that non disclosure of a body means no release on parole. Lots of victims groups have called for it.

Agree with @Awwlookatmybabyspider completely.

Think the whole situation is disgusting and shocking. Makes a mockery of the justice system and can't believe it's just being swept under the carpet.

I must admit my consumption of crime documentaries makes me hesitate on this. Lots of people are indeed in prison for crimes they didn't commit. If a condition of release is showing remorse, then they're admitting to something they didn't do.

I can't imagine the pain the victims family have been through, and I fully understand why it matters so much for them.

I'm just not sure it's a black and white issue in a broader sense.

www.theguardian.com/law/2019/nov/21/helen-mccourt-killer-due-to-be-freed-despite-refusing-to-reveal-body

This article is relevant. If Helen's Law does eventually go through, it will mean that the parole board should consider the convicted killer's withholding of information when deciding whether to release him. Unfortunately, it won't help the family of the woman it is named for.

If Helen's Law is passed, it will mean that the parole board will have an obligation to consider the fact the convicted will not release the location of the body. They can already do this, so it is unlikely to make a huge change in parole releases. Indeed, sentences for murder passed by a judge can already take into account this factor and may be higher.

However I very much doubt that they would be able to refuse parole solely on the basis of the fact that a prisoner will not release the location of his victims body. I say very much doubt because of course it will have to be tested in court, should Helen's Law pass and someone be denied parole solely for this reason and they appeal.

I've been following this for years. Her poor mother, it's so totally wrong

I've read this and I know I'm speculating and I don't have any evidence.

But my tin foil hat theory is he won't tell them because Helen is not all they will find there b

Yes innocent people get locked up but most aren’t innocent. No, but being convicted of a murder we didn't commit could in theory happen to any of us. Would you be happy for your son or partner to be locked up for life because they couldn't reveal the whereabouts of the body of a person they didn't murder?

There's always a balance between wrongly punishing the innocent and being mistakenly lenient to the guilty. I prefer that balance to more toward reducing the chance of an innocent person being wrongly punished.

Blimey, have you read this:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Helen_McCourt

I‘m usually cautious as I listen to a lot of podcasts about wrongful convictions but there doesn’t seem to be much which could be said in the face of the physical evidence listed here, never mind the DNA.

It’s terrible for her family that all the farting about with elections has meant his case was heard by the parole board before the law could be rubber-stamped. Yes there has to be a process and rules but it‘s heartbreaking that someone can’t intervene here.

Ian Simms is guilty though and so I stand by what I say. Most people in jail are guilty, it’s a very similar type of argument when people are protesting about a women’s right to choose abortion, people for abortion will say ‘look at all the women that get raped and fall pregnant’, most women don’t get raped and so we have to go with the majority.

It’s also similar to the argument where people say that women get pregnant on purpose to trap a man and then some will say ‘but I did take the pill and it failed’ whilst this is true for some people then most women that ‘accidentally’ get pregnant haven’t been taking their pill for a few days/weeks or at all, again the majority argument must come first.

Even if he is guilty, what is being suggested here isn’t right: continued, arbitrary detention based on public opinion. If you are sentenced to life in 1988 and 30-odd years later you are considered to have served what is treated as life for all other prisoners, you would have a case under Human Rights Act that you should be released.

people for abortion will say ‘look at all the women that get raped and fall pregnant’, most women don’t get raped and so we have to go with the majority.

What? I mean...what??

@Inappropriatefemale you've described the minimum punishment part of the sentence, thankfully the judge said at the time that it would be unlikely that he would ever be released...

Most people in jail are guilty, it’s a very similar type of argument when people are protesting about a women’s right to choose abortion, people for abortion will say ‘look at all the women that get raped and fall pregnant’, most women don’t get raped and so we have to go with the majority.

I mean, I guess at least that makes it clear where you're coming from. A minority of innocent people being punished over and above the norm because of their innocence is fair collateral damage, and abortion should be withheld from rape victims because most women can just choose to not have sex.

I suppose at least that's an honest answer, albeit morally reprehensible.