Spotted by Paul O in The Independent:
Is it time to set Peter Sutcliffe free?
Yes...
* The rules are that if you have killed more than once, with pre-meditation or with sexual or sadistic motives, then life will mean life
* He is yet to convince a mental health tribunal that he is not still mad
* Some 85 per cent of applications for parole from people with indeterminate life sentences are refused
No...
* Next year he will have served the 30-year sentence his trial judge recommended as a minimum
* His psychiatrist says that with medication his delusions can be controlled
* At 63 he is fat, diabetic and almost blind. That means he is no longer a danger to the public.
Elevate their cause?
1 hour ago
14 comments:
he is fat, diabetic and almost blind. That means he is no longer a danger to the public.
Could apply to Captain Queeg Brown, but HE is still a danger to the public.
So we're looking at the purpose(s) of imprisonment. My version:
1) Protection of the public - while the criminal is in jail, he's unable to commit further offences.
2) Deterrence - if potential criminals are aware that the wages of sin is 10 years as a guest of Her Majesty, they may be less inclined to criminality (with the caveat that those 10 years should not be preferable to 10 years outside).
3) Retribution - or just "punishment", for the sake of it. "We told you this was wrong but you did it anyway."
In Sutcliffe's case, his alleged mental condition changes the rules a bit. If he was really mentally ill when he committed the offences, only item 1 applies, but it could be rather convenient to claim that he was, then to say "but he's better now". And it's quite a short step to suggest that anyone committing a crime must be mentally ill, otherwise he wouldn't have done it (for details, see "Soviet Union" etc.)
Did anyone else notice that the quality journalist at the Independent got the "yes" and "no" sections the wrong way around?
"yes he should be freed because he is yes to convince a mental health tribunal that he is not still mad"
Ha.
Ian Bennett,
What leads me to believe that he's mentally ill is that there's no rational motive for his crimes (unlike say, a man killing his nagging wife so he can shack up with his mistress without alimony).
That said, are we going to risk Sutcliffe forgetting his medication? This isn't a man who just got a bit violent - he's a bloody serial killer.
In Sutcliffe's case, his alleged mental condition changes the rules a bit.
My opinion is that for crimes such as those committed by Sutcliffe, his mental condition should be irrelevant. There is no justifiable and legal reason for a sane person to commit the acts in question, so conviction and punishment should be based upon what was done, not why. Why is irrelevant to the victims.
I also wonder about the motivation of those trying to "cure" people like Sutcliffe. Mental health is underfunded in this country generally, and looking around the world there are millions of innocent people traumatised by conflicts in Iraq, Congo, Balkans etc, so there is no shortage of more worthy patients.
I would also add a fourth reason to Ian's list: Cost. The cost of keeping someone like Sutcliffe in a suitably secure but otherwise austere prison for the rest of his life will be less than the cost of protecting, housing, feeding and supervising him in public for the rest of his life.
Joseph, I think you might be in danger of establishing a "convenient" definition of mental illness.
Ed, I accept that Sutcliffe's mental condition has no bearing on his conviction, but it does on the rationale for his imprisonment. Assuming that he actually is (or was, at the time) mad, he must still be locked up to protect the public (in the same way as we quarantine potentially rabid dogs), but he should not be locked up to deter others (for reasons that should be obvious), and he should not be locked up as a punishment (because we don't punish people for having measles).
Well, yes, I agree with all of that (IMHO he should stay locked up forever), but Andy was the only one who spotted the original mistake (the clue was in the post title).
Ed, I accept that Sutcliffe's mental condition has no bearing on his conviction, but it does on the rationale for his imprisonment.
Yes, that is what I'm worried about. This implies that if he has been cured, and is no longer a danger to the public, then he should be released. I don't think that should happen, any more than a sane mass murderer who genuinely repents should be freed early.
Mark, the post could easily have been read as "Here's the question; if you answer yes, consider this...[points 1 to 3]. If you answer no, consider this...[points 1 to 3]" (Disclaimer: that's how I read it anyway.)
Ed, if his actions were genuinely the result of mental illness, and if that illness has been permanently cured, surely there's no reason for continued imprisonment. (I'll grant that those are both pretty big "if"s.) In fact, given the first "if", the 30 year tariff was judicially faulty; it should have been "until cured". Of course, if he either was feigning mental illness at his trial (to get a lenient decision), or is feigning a lack of it now (so he can be released as "cured"), we should throw the key away.
IB, indeed. Paul emailed me it and it took me about three minutes to spot the mistake.
@ IB: IMHO, the only valid reason for imprisoning people is 1. The C18th, when you could be hanged for almost anything, including "wilfully damaging Westminster Bridge", showed that 2. doesn't work and there are better and cheaper ways of punishing wrongdoers (3.) than imprisonment.
"Is it time to set Peter Sutcliffe free?"
Most definitely YES!
If by free you mean dangling by the neck at the end of a short rope?
'Well, yes, I agree with all of that (IMHO he should stay locked up forever), but Andy was the only one who spotted the original mistake (the clue was in the post title)'.
But no but no. But no but.
I do not expect to read the referenced because I expect a summary and to say the rules now mean I have to read said summary via a headline contradicts my reason for being here.
Whence you issue a daily crossword(sometimes, folks, I wish I did not succumb to his bait)I will decide whether or not to do them but to latterly reference a non-existent quiz, with no foreknowledge of tet rules is expectant of a level of intelligence that I can only aspire to.
STB.
p.s. as to Sutcliffe, were he as sane now as he was then, keep him locked up. If he is now cured of his insanity he will have no objection to being locked up for the rest of his life because he will be the first to understand that anyone who did his doings cannot be forgiven. But 'why not' say the progressives? Simples. He changed his mind once, he can do it again...That's how I would think in his position.
I could be wrong but I am not willing to take that chance.
Are you?
STB.
STB: "I could be wrong but I am not willing to take that chance. Are you?"
No of course not.
Post a Comment