Ripper visits father's ashes site

[AndrewJ]

I am Wiccan of origin, and I see nothing wrong with this, in fact I see it as a positive thing, he still is a human being, just one who has done things which require his removal from society for the greater good and safety of others.


But being able to visit his fathers grave, is something I could not refuse, it would just have to be at the prisons own time. And of course under heavy supervision to make sure he didnt scarper.

[STONEISLAND]

Originally Posted by Chris T

:peaceman: - of course.

Glad to hear you're a Christian ... in which case, don't you think John 8 3-11 is the right pattern to follow when dealing with people whose crimes might be seen as deserving a death sentence?

Hey I'm a Christian but no full on Bible hunting preacher. I'm not into the verse thing

John 8 3-11

????
I believe in an eye for an eye if evidence is perfect for a conviction.
And you being a Christian will except my views.

I hate getting into an argument with you. You scare me

[AndrewJ]

In reply to thought, of the familes who was affected by his crimes, they would be informed and assured that he would be under heavy guard.

Such a heavy guard should ensure while he has peace to visit the grave, he is under heavy guard.

I could not refuse anyone the right to pay his respects, or go church, but like I stated above it would be at the prisons own time.

Originally Posted by Chris T

If we believe that convicted criminals have no human rights left at all, then we should have done with it [...] I see nothing wrong in Sutcliffe being allowed to make this visit.

I agree entirely.
____________

Originally Posted by skunk4u

You tell that to the families of the murder victims and see what they would say.

And yet again I have to point out in a thread that this is *WHY* we have an independant judiciary because there are too many people who cannot disassociate their emotions from the facts.

The families will no doubt say that he should be strung up/ left to rot/ whatever, but they cannot (nor should we expect them to) look at this from an impartial point of view.

Regrettably, however there are also those who aren't family members who think the same way.

If we want to think that we *are* "better" than Peter Sutcliffe, we need to *prove* that by, for instance, showing compassion where he didn't.

PS I'm an atheist...!!

Originally Posted by skunk4u

Hey I'm a Christian but no full on Bible hunting preacher. I'm not into the verse thing ????
I believe in an eye for an eye if evidence is perfect for a conviction.
And you being a Christian will except my views.

I hate getting into an argument with you. You scare me

Hey, I'm not a preacher either ... well, not often, anyway.

As a Christian, I respect your right to your views, but I also have the right to say if I think you're wrong. Some words from Jesus: "You have heard it said, 'an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth' - but I say to you, don't resist an evil person, but if someone hits you on your right cheek, turn to him your left cheek as well."

But I shall say no more on this that would turn the discussion into a religious thread.

I hope I scare you in a good way ...

[STONEISLAND]

Originally Posted by Graham

The families will no doubt say that he should be strung up/ left to rot/ whatever, but they cannot (nor should we expect them to) look at this from an impartial point of view.

Originally Posted by Graham

Regrettably, however there are also those who aren't family members who think the same way.

Why regret? I'm not a family member but I know if I was I would think the same as I think now, with me not being a family member. I'm a little confused on that 1

Originally Posted by Graham

If we want to think that we *are* "better" than Peter Sutcliffe, we need to *prove* that by, for instance, showing compassion where he didn't.

Hey i dont think I'am better I am better

I dont need to prove nothing! never been arrested never murdered and never raped. And never will. I don't need to show Compassion. I show compassion for the families who are far more important in my eyes than Sutclife

Originally Posted by Graham

PS I'm an atheist...!!

Good on you.

Originally Posted by skunk4u

Why regret? I'm not a family member but I know if I was I would think the same as I think now, with me not being a family member. I'm a little confused on that 1

Yes, it's evident that you haven't thought this through.

Hey i dont think I'am better I am better

I dont need to prove nothing! never been arrested never murdered and never raped. And never will. I don't need to show Compassion. I show compassion for the families who are far more important in my eyes than Sutclife

By implication considering one person to be "more important" than another means that another is *less* important or less worthy and that is how *he* considered his victims.

If we are *better* than him we must consider *everyone* to be of equal worth, *NO MATTER* what our personal, emotional, opinions may be of what they have done.

There are plenty of examples of atrocities committed in this world when one group has decided that another is "less than human" or "less worthy" etc. Do you *really* think that is a good way of dealing justice??

[STONEISLAND]

I give in

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Graham

I agree entirely.
____________



And yet again I have to point out in a thread that this is *WHY* we have an independant judiciary because there are too many people who cannot disassociate their emotions from the facts.

The families will no doubt say that he should be strung up/ left to rot/ whatever, but they cannot (nor should we expect them to) look at this from an impartial point of view.

Regrettably, however there are also those who aren't family members who think the same way.

If we want to think that we *are* "better" than Peter Sutcliffe, we need to *prove* that by, for instance, showing compassion where he didn't.

PS I'm an atheist...!!

I wouldn't argue with any of that,

But, and this is only a suggestion, maybe he should have visited the graves of his many victims first, and asked for some forgiveness before visiting his fathers.

PS I was born into catholicism, and got out as soon as I could. I now worship the almighty dollar.

Originally Posted by Pierre

I wouldn't argue with any of that,

Thank you.

But, and this is only a suggestion, maybe he should have visited the graves of his many victims first, and asked for some forgiveness before visiting his fathers.

Are you *KIDDING*???

Can you imagine how the Tabloids would likely play that?

"Can they NEVER rest in peace?"

"Ripper is freed to visit victims' graves - Families distraught"

"This man should never have been let out," said one grief stricken relative. "To let him visit my sister's grave is like allowing him to desecrate it"...

etc etc with much foaming at the mouth.

[Pierre]

Well it was only a suggestion.

The reason I made it was, letting him out to visit his fathers grave was an act of compassion by the authorities that a) they did not have to do and b) he did not deserve.

I just thought the pill may be sugared a bit if it shown that in order to earn his visit he had to show similar compassion for his victims.

The tabloids may have played it

"Can they NEVER rest in peace?"

and some relatives may have been abhorred by it, but I would be interested to know wha the families would really have thought if he had done that.

[STONEISLAND]

<LI>30 Oct 1975: Wilma McCann, 28, Leeds
<LI>20 Jan 1976: Emily Jackson, 42, Leeds
<LI>5 Feb 1977: Irene Richardson, 28, Leeds
<LI>23 Apr 1977: Patricia Atkinson, 32, Bradford
<LI>26 Jun 1977: Jayne MacDonald, 16, Leeds
<LI>1 Oct 1977: Jean Jordan, 20, Manchester
<LI>21 Jan 1978: Yvonne Pearson, 21, Bradford
<LI>31 Jan 1978: Helen Rytka, 18, Huddersfield
<LI>16 May 1978: Vera Millward, 40, Manchester
<LI>4 Apr 1979: Josephine Whitaker, 19, Halifax
<LI>2 Sep 1979: Barbara Leach, 20, Bradford
<LI>20 Aug 1980: Marguerite Walls, 47, Leeds
17 Nov 1980: Jacqueline Hill, 20, Leeds
The victims why should we show compasion??????

[Nugget]

Originally Posted by skunk4u

<LI>30 Oct 1975: Wilma McCann, 28, Leeds
<LI>20 Jan 1976: Emily Jackson, 42, Leeds
<LI>5 Feb 1977: Irene Richardson, 28, Leeds
<LI>23 Apr 1977: Patricia Atkinson, 32, Bradford
<LI>26 Jun 1977: Jayne MacDonald, 16, Leeds
<LI>1 Oct 1977: Jean Jordan, 20, Manchester
<LI>21 Jan 1978: Yvonne Pearson, 21, Bradford
<LI>31 Jan 1978: Helen Rytka, 18, Huddersfield
<LI>16 May 1978: Vera Millward, 40, Manchester
<LI>4 Apr 1979: Josephine Whitaker, 19, Halifax
<LI>2 Sep 1979: Barbara Leach, 20, Bradford
<LI>20 Aug 1980: Marguerite Walls, 47, Leeds
17 Nov 1980: Jacqueline Hill, 20, Leeds
The victims why should we show compasion??????

Because Sutcliffe has been in prison for over 20 years and, as has already said, deserves the basic human right of being allowed to visit his fathers grave / ashes. regardless of the crime she committed.

At the end of the day, there is no risk to the public for a number of reason - security will be very tight, he was almost blinded by a fellow inmate a few years ago, and he is fully aware that there is very little chance of him ever being released.

Producing a list of the women that he killed is somewhat pointless - everyone is aware of 'The Yorkshire Ripper' and what he did. However, why should he be denied a basic right, just because some people don't agree with it - we might not like it but, ultimately, it will make no difference.

[STONEISLAND]

Originally Posted by Nugget

Because Sutcliffe has been in prison for over 20 years and, as has already said, deserves the basic human right of being allowed to visit his fathers grave / ashes. regardless of the crime she committed.

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.

Originally Posted by Nugget

At the end of the day, there is no risk to the public for a number of reason - security will be very tight, he was almost blinded by a fellow inmate a few years ago, and he is fully aware that there is very little chance of him ever being released.

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.

Originally Posted by Nugget

Producing a list of the women that he killed is somewhat pointless - everyone is aware of 'The Yorkshire Ripper' and what he did. However, why should he be denied a basic right, just because some people don't agree with it - we might not like it but, ultimately, it will make no difference.

That much is true but never the less in my view still very very wrong

[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?