Ripper visits father's ashes site

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Nugget

However, why should he be denied a basic right, just because some people don't agree with it

I think you'll find that it is not a basic right and that is what is annoying everyone so much.

And that he has done nothing to "earn" his visit.

[STONEISLAND]

Originally Posted by Pierre

I think you'll find that it is not a basic right and that is what is annoying everyone so much.

And that he has done nothing to "earn" his visit.

At last and I thought for a minute I was going mad

[gazzae]

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?

I may be wrong, but I don't think he did bury them, I thought he killed them and then ran off.

[Nugget]

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.

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?

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
____________

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?

[gazzae]

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.

I think he did show some remorse, although we do not know if this remorse was heartfelt or if he thought it was the right thing to do.

This is a quote from one of his confessions

"The next one I did I still feel terrible about, it was the young girl Jayne MacDonald. I read recently about her father dying of a broken heart and it brought it all back to me. I realised what sort of a monster I had become."
[...]
"When I saw in the papers that MacDonald was so young and not a prostitute, I felt like someone inhuman and I realised that it was a devil driving me against my will and that I was a beast.

I do hope that he knows what he has done and does have remorse, as this will means that he will suffer with this for the rest of his life.

[Stuart]

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 and send them to the gallows on conviction rather than locking them up for decades. If, on the other hand, we believe in rehabilitation alongside punishment, then it is our duty to allow even those who have committed the foulest crimes some basic human dignities such as a single visit to the last resting place of a parent. I see nothing wrong in Sutcliffe being allowed to make this visit.

Agreed.

[STONEISLAND]

Originally Posted by scastle

Agreed.

Well lets just hope the next serial killer gets this treatment I'm sure the world will be a much better place.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by skunk4u

Well lets just hope the next serial killer gets this treatment I'm sure the world will be a much better place.

The responses I have seen to this thread (yours included) are exactly why I agree with Chris T. You cannot allow emotion to interfere with Justice. People tend to judge criminals on how they would react rather than the facts of the case. I'll accept that inevitably emotion has some effect on our current system (Judges and Jurors are human after all, so they are not immune to the effect).

There seems to be a certain "String 'em up" element on this forum.

Well, Killing serial killers does not work. I have read a little about this, and basically, as I understand it, the primary reason a lot of Serial Killers (including the Yorkshire Ripper) kill is to generate publicity. If you kill them, then the amount of publicity that generates would be a huge reward for them. The really bad ones also consider their own death to be a bonus.

Another way to look at it: They have the death penalty in a lot of states in America, yet they still have serial killers.

I am all for locking serial killers up, don't get me wrong. I don't agree that they should be treated differently to any other prisoners though, In fact, if it is true that they do it for publicity, then treating them exactly the same as other prisoners (and denying them access to the media) will be a better punishment.

[AndrewJ]

Originally Posted by scastle

The responses I have seen to this thread (yours included) are exactly why I agree with Chris T. You cannot allow emotion to interfere with Justice. People tend to judge criminals on how they would react rather than the facts of the case. I'll accept that inevitably emotion has some effect on our current system (Judges and Jurors are human after all, so they are not immune to the effect).

There seems to be a certain "String 'em up" element on this forum.

Well, Killing serial killers does not work. I have read a little about this, and basically, as I understand it, the primary reason a lot of Serial Killers (including the Yorkshire Ripper) kill is to generate publicity. If you kill them, then the amount of publicity that generates would be a huge reward for them. The really bad ones also consider their own death to be a bonus.

Another way to look at it: They have the death penalty in a lot of states in America, yet they still have serial killers.

I am all for locking serial killers up, don't get me wrong. I don't agree that they should be treated differently to any other prisoners though, In fact, if it is true that they do it for publicity, then treating them exactly the same as other prisoners (and denying them access to the media) will be a better punishment.

Well said , although I understand him under guard seeing his fathers resting place, your point drives home the truths .

[STONEISLAND]

Originally Posted by scastle

The responses I have seen to this thread (yours included) are exactly why I agree with Chris T. You cannot allow emotion to interfere with Justice. People tend to judge criminals on how they would react rather than the facts of the case. I'll accept that inevitably emotion has some effect on our current system (Judges and Jurors are human after all, so they are not immune to the effect).

There seems to be a certain "String 'em up" element on this forum.

To be honest quiet the opposite it seem to be my view only. Are we living in a soft society. I know it wont make are world a better place by "String 'em up" element but would save a whole load of cash on cells = Tax.
I have no time for killers Rapest pedos. But i'm drifting

Originally Posted by scastle

Well, Killing serial killers does not work. I have read a little about this, and basically, as I understand it, the primary reason a lot of Serial Killers (including the Yorkshire Ripper) kill is to generate publicity. If you kill them, then the amount of publicity that generates would be a huge reward for them. The really bad ones also consider their own death to be a bonus.

Another way to look at it: They have the death penalty in a lot of states in America, yet they still have serial killers.

I am all for locking serial killers up, don't get me wrong. I don't agree that they should be treated differently to any other prisoners though, In fact, if it is true that they do it for publicity, then treating them exactly the same as other prisoners (and denying them access to the media) will be a better punishment.

[Salu]

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.

I believe he was sentenced to "life" with a minimum recommendation of 30years. He could potentially be freed in a few years.......

What will our thread be like then??

http://www.bbc.co.uk/crime/caseclose...eripper1.shtml

[Nugget]

Originally Posted by Salu

I believe he was sentenced to "life" with a minimum recommendation of 30years. He could potentially be freed in a few years.......

What will our thread be like then??

http://www.bbc.co.uk/crime/caseclose...eripper1.shtml

I agree that there's the potential but, in all likelihood, he won't be released (somewhat like Myra Hindley), although I am prepared to be proved wrong.

[AndrewJ]

The Public outcry would be immense, and hopefully if they DID they would include some form of GPS tracking on him which is monitored 24hours a day 7 days a week 365days a year ( 366 on a leap ).


Soon as he breaks curfew he is back behind bars. Unless his Microsoft car crashes and he has to find Ctrl+Alt+Del. Then he can have BSOD for rest of his life while trying to get out of the car.

Originally Posted by skunk4u

The victims why should we show compasion??????

Because we are (or should be) better than him.

If we practice an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,
soon the whole world will be blind and toothless. - Mahatma Gandhi.

[Sarah_77]

Originally Posted by Graham

If we practice an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,
soon the whole world will be blind and toothless. - Mahatma Gandhi.

If it was the case of an eye for an eye that would mean he would have been put to the death. Its a case of killing 13 innocent women and nearly killing countless others and ruining their lives. Some of whom probably feel like prisoners as they are too scared to ever trust anyone or go out alone . He should have no privelidges.

I was a child when he was on the loose and I remember the fear all women had of this nutter