Quote:
|
Originally Posted by skunk4u
He has shown no remorse what so ever for the families involved he does not even care about the familes, or anyone for that matter. He is evil its not as if he killed one person he killed 'VICTIMS : 13 dead, 7 survivors.' what is wrong with you people? If it happend in the US he would have been dead by now and we would not even be having this debate.
|
But it didn't happen in the US, so that sort of conjecture really is pointless.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by skunk4u
True but why reward him? Yes security was very tight but how much did that cost the tax payer (you as well as me) i rather have given the cost to thfamiles as compo. To glade he was all most blinded by an inmate shame he did not kill him for the above reason. Hoorar he has little chance of being released. The guys a killer.
|
So you would condone another inmate receiving an increased sentence for killing Sutcliffe? This suggests a certain conflict - you think that Sutcliffe should be killed, but would you be the one to do it, and then spend the rest of your life in prison?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by skunk4u
That much is true but never the less in my view still very very wrong  |
I understand your view, but I just don't agree with it
____________
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by trebor
(Somebody correct me if I have the facts wrong here)
Didn't peter sutcliffe refuse to tell the police and victims families where he had buried his victims, therefor refusing them the right to grieve for their loved ones at a grave.
shouldn't Peter Sutcliffe have been given the same answer?
|
Actually, I could be wrong but wasn't that Brady and Hindley?