To wonder why murderers are released?

[malificent7]

I just don't get why any kind of murderer deserves to be freed. Just seen another case where a killer has been released days before the anniversary of the victim's death having refused to disclose the whereabouts of her remains.
Plus why has a terroist recently been released only to reoffend? Aibu to feel that if someone kills a life sentence is appropriate and should mean life.

Prof "Pity the hangperson who has to calculate the drop for a 4 stone 9 year old."

it's the hangperson who is my main argument against capital punishment.

anyway, leaving children out of it...as I said upthread, I think we have new precedents now for both mercy killings and killing your abuser.

going to back to "I killed my neighbour for snoring" or "The man killed someone for looking at him funny" - I still can't see an argument why either of us should be let out - apart from cost. And there might be a way to manage that.

it's the hangperson who is my main argument against capital punishment.

Not sure why ? Semi-skilled job. Keeps people off the streets. And who knows, we might be able to export it to our new friends in Saudi Arabia if they can wean themselves off their obssesion with decapitation and stonings. Or China, who we need to be friends with. Although I believe they still charge the prisoners family ? Might be some profit in it.

My Mum’s best friend was murdered when I was a child. She had her throat slit and as she was struggling for breath, he threw a set of keys down her windpipe.

He was convicted of manslaughter rather than murder and only sentenced to seven years, he served half.

Absolutely disgraceful imo and in no way was that ever justice. Poor woman and sadly that is not an isolated case, it happens more than you’d think.

Prof

yes, but like sex "work", I don't feel right that anyone could potentially face being told "this is the only work available and we'll stop your benefits if you don't take it".

if it's medicalised, it's a bit different because then it could be more like medical professionals refusing to do certain types of work.

I'm also against it because it seems like it's too easy a way out for the criminal. And mistakes etc.

but yes, the situation of the hangperson worries me. Call me a weirdo.

Basically this is a case by case situation. Cut backs and a lack of prison cells are playing a factor. But if it wasn't about that and was about the crime. I think we can all at least agree.

Sexual predators/rapist's/ peadophiles should be kept in. But then there's the issue of two drunk people having sex. Girl can't remember or didn't consent. The guy should of asked and was too drunk and stupid to take a hint. In this case hopefully they can be rehabilitated. If it's a pull down an ally and force sex situation etc then there's a higher risk of reoffending.

As with murder. Domestic violence/self defence cases. If they did it after being out through abuse they can be supported. If they just lost there temper or choose a random person to kill then then they are a huge danger to the public.

If someone harms children in any shape or form then they are a huge risk to the public. They should not be released. I do understand people are wrongly accused. But there are many clear cases when it's undeniable.

What doesn't sit well with me is Jon venables getting a new identity every time he fucks up. It's a fact he will be living near a family with children etc. Nobody deserves to not know he's on their street or walking past the park.

It's never going to be a one rule for all.

I just feel certain proven cases like Beverley allitt are an absolute waste of air and money. She did those crimes. She's never expressed any remorse. She can't come out and live a normal life. So therefore why keep her alive? She's rotten to the core.

Urkiddingright why was it manslaughter and not murder please?

3.5 years for that. I can't do emojis on this computer but just picture me unleashing a plague on whoever let him out.

It costs a fortune to keep someone in prison.

When people get old they often need personal care and / or their mobility needs met.

If you are prepared for taxes to go up to provide those services on top of prison costs then maybe life could mean life for more people. Personally I can think of better uses for taxes.

@Curiouschlo "Basically this is a case by case situation"

Well yes of course it is. That's why each case is heard on its individual merits in its own court.

How exactly do you think the justice system currently works?

@BuzzShitbagBobbly indeed, looking at the alternatives I’m not sure where’s better. Nordic States?

I feel like it's also worth remembering that we do have whole life prison sentences in this country. The law says that in rare and truly horrific cases, some people can never be released - Rose West, for example, or Jeremy Bamber. But the law also rightfully sets a very high standard for those kind of whole life orders.

I read about that case too. The police had some evidence but no body and he has consistently denied murdering the young woman.

Her family are of course very upset that he is out but I think the parole board considered he would not murder anyone again, he's getting on and not particularly well. Not a serial killer, this was a one off - plus there's always been a question mark over his guilt (depending on what you read).

I was at university with a mature student who, half way through the course, was revealed in the local press to have been a convicted & time-served murderer.
The university were aware of this but the students were not. This man went on to become a Church of Scotland minister.
Personally I'd like to think that most people can be rehabilitated.
I do accept that people who engage in the 'more severe' cases of murder (thinking of the likes of Ian Brady & Myra Hindley) are behaving in a way that is so far from societal norms that release would probably never be appropriate.

“ I was at university with a mature student who, half way through the course, was revealed in the local press to have been a convicted & time-served murderer.”

Should be a register. Imagine if you asked that guy to babysit.

Should be a register. Imagine if you asked that guy to babysit.

I agree. A murder conviction would come up in a DBS check, so a time-served murderer wouldn't be able to work with children (unless it was a mercy killing or other extenuating circumstances. But he wouldn't be able to hide it at least.

Babysitting is different in that parents arrange it privately and wouldn't know. And agencies can be very lax unfortunately.

I was recently asked for a DBS check to sign with a new agency. I don’t work with children or anyone vulnerable. I was puzzled but is this the only way to make sure you’re not employing someone who is utterly inhuman?

Also just imagine you made friends with that guy!

Just as we have to take our chances with released convicts, they should go on a register and have to take their chances too.

In my opinion some offenders should be given a lethal injection.

If they are cold blooded killers / terrorists / rapists etc, why the fuck do we keep them alive at the tax payers expense? And then release them, just keeping our fingers crossed that they don't re offend? Basically placing the public at risk.

I always think it's ultra dangerous to release rapists. I mean, here is a guy, who when he was free in the community (and able to have sex regularly), he still chose to rape....so we put him away with no access to women and sex, for say 5 years, and then act all surprised that after a 5 year dry spell the first thing he wants is sex and he thinks it's fine to just take it. Doh! Lethal injection or castration.

I also think that if an offender is released, and he then commits another terrible crime, the staff who deemed him fit for release should face some consequences.

But yeah, I'd just bring back the death penalty mostly.

Husky if you castrate them, they’ll just commit a different violent crime.

But yeah, I'd just bring back the death penalty mostly.

and your answer to the families of people wrongly hanged would be ?

why was it manslaughter and not murder please?

Murder as a legal term has a very specific meaning. It's not just a synonym for "kill". It requires intent and for that intent to be demonstrated o a jury beyond reasonably doubt. Indeed it's usually the problems surrounding proving the intent which make it a rarer charge than manslaughter.

Of course, you could simply rewrite the law to remove the need for intent to be proven. But that just means anyone who causes someones death is a murderer. Which would lead to far more public outrage than the current situation.

Professor with respect, I didn't ask you that question.

so a time-served murderer wouldn't be able to work with children
I'd tend to assume that in his Scottish parish he worked with children.

Also just imagine you made friends with that guy
I did - he also later married a fellow student.

Professor with respect, I didn't ask you that question.

So ignore my answer. Someone else reading this thread might have wondered something similar. Or indeed no one at all.

Grumpy fair enough.

so you're not in favour of a register then?!

I would be distraught if I thought my kids were looked after by that person. Do the parish know - I presume it must be public info?

This was a good few years back - l believe he got a parish in 1986 and e died in 2005.
I understand the parish were aware of his conviction.
It's all in the public domain - search for James Nelson Church of Scotland if interested.