Ian Huntley.

57 posts / 0 new
Last post
Ian Huntley.

Is there any point in keeping him alive?

controversy alert - I'll go with yes but what you're really asking is - should the death penalty be an option - and I'll say no. As he's expected to survive not "keeping him alive" would be tantamount to murder, or at least execution.
Um, what an odd question. Do we really have the choice to 'keep someone alive'...? If someone is alive, they are alive... whether we have the right to keep that way or not is open to some consternation. I don't like the idea of the moral majority, whoever they might be, deciding who is worthy of life or not. The death penalty is a really weird thing. Somebody has lived against the laws of the land and so they do not deserve to live at all. Horrible. And it doesn't achieve anything.
Fred West killed himself, Ian Huntley made a serious suicide attempt proving that keeping someone alive in prison is a harsher punishment. How can you punish a dead person? I do have a problem with the ludicrous costs of keeping prisoners in this country. Prisons should be places of compulsary hard labour that pays towards the prison's costs and into the criminal injuries compensation board. I'd feel happier knowing that Huntley or indeed any murderer had the rest of their lives to break their backs with a shovel whilst they contemplate what they've done. Death on the other hand is easy. The death penalty makes me chill for all the reasons Ferg mentioned as well as the fact that executing innocent people however rare is inevitable. jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

 

Much as I like Jude I don't tend to agree with the above - people end up in prison for all kinds of things, non-payment of fines, contempt of court, self-defence, etc and I think we misuse prison. Keep seriously dangerous people out of circulation for longer, for ever if need be, but don't use prison vindictively.
In the olden days wasn't there a distinction between crimes for the purpose of sentencing to hard labour? The work in prisons currently is largely internal (eg- packing lunch bags for other prisons) and voluntary. I think you have to work a minimum of 3 shifts a week if you are able bodied and of working age and you get 'paid' for your work with a increase in your allowance to spend in the prison shop. (I have this information from Lord Archer's Prison diaries so accuracy questioned!). This strikes me as being more of a punishment for the taxpayer who forks out a staggering £38,000 per prisoner per year. A prison system should be more about keeping dangerous people locked up and reforming people. There has to be an element of punishment surely (much as I reciprocate the liking Neil!) jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

 

Huntley, as vile as he is, should be in a secure hospital being observed and studied. We should be learning from him. The suggestion from doctors who studied him that he's not insane is insane itself. Someone who has commited that type of crime has something wrong with them, no doubt about it. Prison itself should be a last resort, it doesn't work, of that, as a society, we pretty much know already. What alternative? I dunno maybe community punishment for low level offenders, which is cheaper and more productive. It's more of a hinderance, prison you're there, it may get in the way of your life but there's shit you can do about it. Enforced community type sentences means more interuption to your life, because you're actually seeing it happen. While in prison you may know you're missing out, but actually being there and seeing it all go on is worse. Also on the plus side would be the money saved could be used to fund a prison service that actually reforms. Alongside other things this could all maybe break the cycle, costing less in the long-run. Prisons will never pay for themselves. At one time most of the produce used to keep a prison running day by day, food stuffs etc were produced by convicts, it became cheaper to buy outside products. The rural income already relies on government subsisies, it's cheaper to import, but that's just the way it is. What else can prisoners do? Part of the problem is many of the prisoners are under-educated and also have lack of job skills. Maybe train them in something for a start? Costs money though, solution, see afore mentioned community work ideas. What exactly are they going to contribute to keep the costs down, speculate to accumulate. If they don't the problem will only get worse. (sorry for the rant, it's a subject I feel strongly about). nobody
'In the olden days wasn't there a distinction between crimes for the purpose of sentencing to hard labour?' Yes - and Oscar Wilde went to prison for 2 year's hard labour. And children who stole bread in Victorian times went to prison for hard labour. Hmmm. Sounds like a great idea. You go to a prison and see exactly why people are there - lack of education, a life of poverty, abuse, etc. One day, I believe, humanity will look back at prisons and wonder what on earth we were doing in these dark ages.
Thanks for the thoughts Nobody. Especially re the unworkability of self-supporting prisons. I guess we have moved on from the days of Oliver Twist but I'm sure there must be a way of reducing £38,000 per year which seems ludicrously high. I think the public is going to grow more and more angry even though you make some very good and valid points. A disgruntled young working population, crippled by heavy taxes facing a property ladder with an impossible first rung renting a room not much bigger than a prison cell. You want this struggling generation to pay to train prisoners when they have £20,000 worth of university debts themselves? Ian Huntley was given a small self-contained apartment and is allowed to study any subject he chooses. I don't want to go too far into the huge subject of crime and punishment but I think victims do want to see punishment as well as rehabilitation. Joe, "You go to a prison and see exactly why people are there - lack of education, a life of poverty, abuse" these are contributary factors but not the only ones. I believe in free will and moral choice even though they are not trendy concepts today. Blame my parents, my school, the council, my genetic make-up, horror movies, computer games....anyone except poor me! jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

 

I think it's a shame that every time Huntley's name is mentioned in the media, they have to name those two girls as well. That must be very hurtful to the family - constantly reopening the wound. I'd pass a law that three months after the trial has ended the next of kin of victims of high profile crimes, should be allowed to ban the media from ever mentioning their relatives' names again - if that's what the next of kin request. I'd also pass a law that no martyrdom videos can ever be shown. A reporter can describe what is depicted, but no footage of the terrorist can be broadcast. I am sure there will be some young men out there wavering as to whether they should become terrorists who will be attracted by the thought of appearing on national TV, albeit after their demise.
I grew up in pretty extreme poverty til my early teens, and even then it didnt get vastly better. I didnt get educated til I was older either, and i was in a very abusive relationship for quite some time. One thing it has never made me do is murder children (though I've come close with my teenager of late). I like nobodys post. I'd like to be with joe glass, but the older I get, the less liberal I get.
Weird, cos the older I'm getting the more liberal and left I'm getting. I know this thread doesn't really highlight this fact but long-term members will remember how I was in my early and mid-twenties - I made Maggie T look like Mother Teresa. This is probably a demonstration of selfishness; when I was younger I had a nice flat, good job, private healthcare, enough money...and given that I had a lousy childhood, I rested my case that its all about choice. Until I fell on 'hard times' within the past couple of years although it was more of a leap than a fall. After years of 'putting in' to the system I have had to 'take out' of it in the last year and this has been an exercise in humility. jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

 

I'm still poor. I'm still not tempted to murder. Much.
Jude, it is difficult, i know. I myself have an enormous student debt around my neck, and it is difficult to convince people we have to spend to gain. I myself have done numerous stints in jail, I also came from a severely impoverished background. Out of all my siblings I'm the only one with a criminal record, I was the only one to go into the care of the local authorities. My student debts have mostly come about as a result of people encouraging me that it was the way to go, I could do it. Yeah I could, it's just getting a job afterwards. How am I supposed to contribute to society, tax etc when no-one'll even give me a job. Why? Record of no emplyment or lack of basic trade skills. I don't say this to wallow in self pity but to point out the reality. Maybe ex-crims don't deserve jobs, that's irrelevent to society today, no job, no money, no money, no nothing. Whatever the views, right or left, surely it's better to do something constructive so they might be constuctive in some way to society. Like it or not, these people have kids, brought up in a fucked up environment, sadly the cycle continues, the problems get worse. Something may need to be done and it may take one of the government's and media's arrow from their bow, moral panic, good sales for the media, new laws to implement from the government, but it should be sorted. At present people are caged who could be treated by other means, community punishment or psychiatric, that's a short term solution which is like a plaster on a cancerous growth. nobody
'Whatever the views, right or left, surely it's better to do something constructive so they might be constuctive in some way to society.' Right on. Utterly.
"Part of the problem is many of the prisoners are under-educated and also have lack of job skills" While I agree for the great part with Nobody on this, the difference with Ian Huntley and his lot is that he *killed children*; he didn't rob a bank or sell drugs or cheat on taxes; he used his 'job skills' to get into a school and target two little girls who never got the chance to make choices about how their lives would go. I am against the death penalty for the most part as State-sanctioned killing is a scary thing, but I would consider exceptions for perpetrators of crimes against children: murderers and paedophiles can stand against the wall and wait for the firing squad, as far as I'm concerned. And a firing squad *would* be much cheaper than keeping a useless, remorseless piece of shit like Huntley alive. Then again, I'm with Jude that maybe 'hard labour' ought to be brought back; again, for particular crimes. My own right-winginess as far as this goes alarms me, but I have two very small and very beautiful children, and if anything were ever to happen to them at the hands of another, I'd kill the perp myself, and forget all that 'turn the other cheek' stuff I normally promote. Gosh, even thinking about it winds me up!
And I have to say the whole, 'I grew up in poverty thing and I never murdered anybody' thing is probably not what Joe meant. He wasn't saying, from my understanding of what he wrote, that if you live in poverty you'll murder, he was talking about the prison system as a whole and how pointless it is the way it works, because basically, it doesn't work. There needs to be both empathy and a constructive means of changing things. I don't mean letting people off if they've had hard backgrounds (and let's face it we all have hard backgrounds in our own way, even those who seem to have silver spoons)... I just mean finding a system that actually *does* something.
I think it is amazing that more average people don't kill other people. If you look at other animals they're always killing each other. And how do you decide what is evil and what isn't? State sanctioned killing is what I find the scariest... not just captial punishment, but war and stuff like that. It is a minefield.
It really is a minefield. There are only shades of grey as far as morality is concerned. I suppose there must be some consideration, in very serious crimes, as to whether the person is remorseful (I think of Morgan Freeman in Shawshank Redemption, looking back on his younger self, chiding him for his stupidity). But cold, calculated killing, especially of children (here I go again)...? I'm not sure there's punishment enough...but then I don't actually know whether there *are* any 'good' alternatives for punishing such a crime? Kill them? Flog them? Put them in the stocks?
Hmmm, speaking for me fergal. Very kind, but a dangerous pursuit. How would you know what I was thinking sweetcheeks? As it is, you are right about my intent. I was talking about the prison service as a whole, not specifically Huntley. And I most certainly am not saying being poor or abused is an excuse... I'm not looking to excuse things, but I am looking to explain and explore things on a more useful level than just, 'he is sick, kill him' because it does nothing for us as a society to move on. And this comes from someone who works in the prison service. You know how good it feels when someone thinks well of you, even if you don't think you deserve it? Many of the people I meet in my work have never had anyone say anything good to them or about them. They don't think the same way as 'decent folks' who are giving their opinion here. It's like comparing a radish with a screwdriver. Killing is obviously wrong. God, if something happened to my nephew I would be devestated. Utterly. But would I feel better if the person who killed him was killed himself? If he was put to hard labour? No. I really would not. The capacity for change, for growth, for learning is at the heart of humanity, I think. And I really hope that the way we deal with 'criminals' in general changes the more we learn. I do think the death penalty is always wrong. I agree with most of what Nobody has said. Especially "At present people are caged who could be treated by other means, community punishment or psychiatric, that's a short term solution which is like a plaster on a cancerous growth." As for Huntley, well. What can I say? He is a childkiller and childkillers are the most terrifying of them all... But childkillers come in all shapes and sizes, and the demonising of Huntley does nothing for the popular conscious which believs paedophiles and childkillers lurk about in playgrounds, when in reality the majority of child abuse, sexual and mental, happens within families or from family friends. That is the unspoken truth about what's really happening in this country, and you see it in my line of work every single day.
"the demonising of Huntley does nothing for the popular conscious which believs paedophiles and childkillers lurk about in playgrounds, when in reality the majority of child abuse, sexual and mental, happens within families or from family friends.' You are right about this, of course, and I wasn't suggesting that I believe there's a paedophile on every corner, but as a childhood victim of not just one, but THREE separate paedophiles (one a neighbour, one a family 'friend' and one a total stranger), my feelings toward people who prey on children disallow much sympathy for them or their 'rehabilitation', psychiatric or vocational, which, as you will know from your line of work, is only occasionally effective anyhow. Shoot 'em or let them rot in a dark hole, all alone...
Despite various incidents happening througout my life, Interestingly, I am still on the liberal side of the fence when it comes to crime and punishment, and I think the mistake is to think that because someone is liberal they don't care about the victim, which is NOT true. Help for the victim is paramount. But it needn't be an either/or scenario. Working out ways to help/work with both IS possible, I believe. I really believe that, wholeheartedly, with every single bit of my personality.
"My own right-winginess as far as this goes alarms me, but I have two very small and very beautiful children, and if anything were ever to happen to them at the hands of another, I'd kill the perp myself, and forget all that 'turn the other cheek' stuff I normally promote." You're bare-facedly arguing from a wholly emotional point of view there, AG. When I think about Rush Limbaugh being paid staggering amounts to broadcast dangerous bullshit it makes me want to see him subjected to many, many years of Oriental-style torture. And I'd probably argue that he does *deserve* it. But, obviously, dishing out just desserts isn't in any way the best way forward for humanity. ~ I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe
'But, obviously, dishing out just desserts isn't in any way the best way forward for humanity.' That is one of my favourite things I've seen today.
it is an emotional viewpoint,no doubt about it, and it doesnt mean that she necessarily believes she is correct in it, but when you have children, i'm afraid thats the way it goes. Nothing is rational, you do react with emotion. Never thought I'd agree with AG, and in fact, for the most part I dont, but on that, I'm with her. Have kids, come back and argue the same point _ i bet you find it difficult at best, even though you want to maintain the liberal humanism, when it comes to crimes against children such as the ones you nurture, some deep gut instinct in you revolts against it. And that, I am afraid, is human nature. Thats why tribal wars go on and on and on... doesnt mean I think it is right, but I'm being honest here...
When I was studying philosophy we had to learn a list of 'fallacious arguments'; reductio ad absurdum, reductio ad nauseum, slippery slope fallacy, argument from age, appeal to pity, there are loads of them and I think one is called argument from emotion. And in debate it doesn't stick, I think Jack's saying something along those lines. But when I first read it I remember thinking pretty much along the lines of what CC is saying, and wondering if emotional rationale is not as important as intellectual rationale given that we are emotional creatures. jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

 

I dont think anyone is saying that it is right to feel that way, just that it is entirely understandable. Before I had kids, I was sooo liberal, and in many other ways i still am. When it comes to crimes against children, im not. Cant help it. I can only speak from my own POV.
I'd like to point out, in no way do I condone Huntley, or even for one minute suggest he should be walking the streets. What I say is our jails are warehouses for the socially excluded, maybe the money saved from the use ofother forms of sentencing could be used to work out exactly why these people do things they do. This is not a brag but an explanation of why I think this. The blood that everyone screams for I have produced. Have any of you been on a prison wing when a sex offender comes on the wing, have any of you actually participated in what you think should happen to 'bacons' as we call them. Have you held one's head as a broken of ariel is repeatedly gouged into one's eye. As repulsive as it is, I have. During my time in that screwed up environment I also encountered victims of both the Welsh and Liverpool care home scandals, you know when peado's were in positions of power, abusing kids in their custody. Those victims, one of which had tracked down one of his abusers with a loaded gun, wanted answers, not revenge. I looked down that wing, saw the anger in the populace at these people and saw that the people that it had actually affected, wanted answers, not retribution. It meant a great deal to me, after all, who was I to scream for vengence. These sick individuals, shouldn't be allowed back into society, they should however be learnt from as much as possible, hence the secure hospital, and hopefully we can find away from it happening in the future. nobody
I agree with Nobody. Hmmm. I'm not sure about the 'wait till you have kids' argument, because basically it's telling me that I have no right to an opinion on this until I've had kids, and I don't think that's fair. Obviously I find it horrendous, and if anyone was going to hurt me, or someone I cared for (and I believe I have the capacity to care for people very deeply, whether I've given birth to them or not) I would probably stick a knife in their belly. But after the effect, when a villain is caught. Welll... But nobody has said everything I wanted to say. and I still don't think it is an either/or, just like when, if your'e interested in animal welfare someone will always say, 'Who cares about animal welfare when there are humans suffering?' and I always say, 'Yes, and I care about humans suffering too. Who says that as a society we can't care about both?'
I too have kids and while I know the answer doesn't lay there I must confess if something similar happened to my kids I don't think I'd be looking for an explanation. In fact I'd go so far to say that I'd get banged up just so I could do it with my own bare hands, I wouldn't give a fuck. But that wasn't my point, and luckily I don't run the country, cause the same applies to burglars, though it's wrong, you don't want to let me catch you robbing my house, nobody
No, I know thats not fair - but you'll notice, that the people who are MOST liberal about child murders, have no kids. Now, I've had no kids, and been liberal, and I now have them, and I'm not. I have had both views. Thats all. I'm with nobody - there needs to be work done to find out WHY this happens, why people go like this. Poverty and abuse doesnt really do it for me, though I know abuse CAN cycle, I think we've known that for years. Cant explain it totally though, as nobody says, there is something deeply wrong with a man like Huntley.
We can all agree on that, that's for sure.
Whilst we live in a capitalist society there will never be enough money for everything; pensions, housing, education, healthcare, etc etc. You could argue that rehabilitation and criminal psychology will lower the financial burden on society in the long run but acupuncture for prisoners (and this a real example) and posh psychiatrists for the deeply disturbed come pretty low on the priority list for me. I used to work with someone who used to say 'It costs nearly forty grand a year to keep them alive but 50p for a bullet'. I don't agree but see the point. I think it would be fab to lavish rehab programs that work on offenders, if there was oodles of money to spare. But surely, by commiting a crime (and I think we have all agreed that there is an element of morality involved, grey though it is), you not only lose your right to vote as a convicted criminal but your place on the waiting list of the vast numbers of people who need help - you're still on the list but should be behind others in need who have not made the choice to commit a crime. I think that's a summary of my feeling. Right now. (Always open to change and learning I hope) jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

 

... however I feel differently completely about child 'criminals' I guess this is back to the emotive thing but in the infamous James Bulger case, I know what they did was terrible but they themselves were children. I think the rehabilitation, therapy and care they had was justified. This opens a whole new and seperate debate of course.

 

 

Was Styx's post 2 days preemptive? Does he have some insider knowledge at Wakefield?!

 

nah...that happened days ago. He should be kept alive. Let him live through hell. There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed - Dennet

There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed -
Dennett

Eh? That news was out two days ago, Jude. I understand that having kids must ratchet up your emotional reaction to these things somewhat. But it's not like I don't have emotional reactions already. When I found my bike lights were very difficult to affix yesterday I declared that the engineers behind them should be fired and punished for being rubbish. You might find that a trite comparison, but it demonstrates the same thing: actions based on emotionally motivated judgement, while human, are likely to do more harm than good. I mean, lots of art makes the point about revenge being a further descent into the Pit. Best example I've come across recently is the film 'Irreversible' (famous for the 10 minute rape). The film runs backwards, like 'Memento', and in *beginning* with the act of retribution we get exposed to the animal brutality of it (and the pointlessness, since they get the wrong man) without any kind of understanding as to why this is taking place. The point being that once you remove the emotional satisfaction of revenge, or punishment, it becomes clear how unjustifiable it is. Now, I'm not arguing for cold logic and denial of feelings when making decisions, but clearly, when it comes to issues like this, emotions have to be something you take into account, rather than the driving force. There's the line in 'A Scanner Darkly' - "We're all way too close to this." Implication being, if you're too emotional about it, you're unfit to make the right decision. ~ I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe
The units in the penal system that provide psychiatry and therapy are few and far between, and the places are reserved for the end of the line prisoners when it's clear nothing else is going to work. Best example would be Jimmy Boyle's 'A Sense Of Freedom'. You need to look at it not from the view of the prisoner recieving expensive help but that they are a case study. I was sent to such a unit. It was run by a Home Office Forensic Psychologist who out ranked any governor, one of the quacks was Dr Max Glatt, sadly dead now, but was the first person in the UK to look at alcoholics and drug addicts as more than just drop outs in society. When I met him he was in his eighties and still wanting to know the answers, nature or nurture. nobody
Is there any moral basis for denying a sane man the right to kill himself? Surely it's just the ohter side of the coin from execution? The philosphy of imprisoning people is muddled at best. But generally prison is supposed to deter, rehabilitate, and protect the rest of society. It is not supposed to punish (although the difference between punish and deter is a fine line).

 

I swear, I only read it in this morning's Metro. doh, I am so slow I am almost going backwards... now this whole thread makes slightly more sense.

 

Would it be so wrong if some one wants to commit voluntary euthanasia, to look the other way? Are we being more vindictive making him stay alive? The parents might eventually get some (horrible word this) closure. And if he does the requisite 40 years, I reckon he'll be out when he's about 68. I suspect he would still be a danger to children.

 

Although I was advocating all sorts of horrid things for childkillers and such, I'm not sure parents of victims actually *get* any closure, whether the perpetrator rots in prison, gets the chair, or kills himself. Any way you look at it, it's cold comfort. There are reports of victims' families watching the execution of the criminal, and leaving feeling not vindicated, but hollow. It's just a nasty business, altogether.
I don't think that arguing against the death penalty from the point of view of how less or more moral it makes society really works. It's not the point, I think it's a false argument. If you have a law that alolows you to execute muderes of children, I can't see how that in itself in any way affects the nature of society. Perhaps society doesn't even have a nature to be affected; it's too fluid. Is there any evidence that societies without death penalties are any "better" than societies with them? How do you define better? Saudi Arabia and th USA have death penalties, but they're different types of society. I think the main point is this. People say that executing child murderers has no effect. Well yes it does. Because the point is, it stops them from murdering more children. We all know by now that child abusers generally re-offend; the re-offending rate is extremely high. So any society that allows a child abuser/murderer out of prison is saying "we accept that by doing this, more children will be abused or killed." It's going to happen. So who has the moral right to say to this child or that child, "you're going to lose your life or have it destroyed," just to hold on to the idea or principle that we're a liberal society that doesn't have a detah penalty? If you take the view of the Utilitarian philosophers who talked about the greatest good of the greatest number, then it makes sense to execute child killers. The moral right to do so doesn't come into it. I'm not arguing in favour of the death penalty necessarily; but in some cases I can see it's justification. I do think that because of the high risk that more children will be raped or killed, that those who do such things should never come out of prison again. Life should mean life. In this country it doesn't, it means 6 years, 12 years, or whatever the judge decides. In other words it's a meaningless term. I'm with AG really, as far as I'm concerned, child rapists and murderes can stand against the wall and take twelve bullets, and who cares? That way, we would save the lives of many more innocent children, who as far as I'm concerned have more moral right to live than those who abuse or murder.
Utilitarianism is awful moral philosophy - used generally to justify wrongdoing on the basis of a speculative 'better' outcome. It's OK to kill thousands in order to save millions. It's OK for the police to gun someone down if he might be a terrorist. The death penalty - not as punishment - but as a preventative measure against something that *might* happen? You think there'd be less children killed if captured paedophiles were hanged. Well, I think there'd be less children killed if paedophiles were more accepted, at least as people with problems, rather than monsters, because I think it's possible to create a social environment where they will more readily turn themselves in. Whose speculation is right? We'll probably never know, but mine doesn't involve executing people (and, as said above, inevitably, a number of innocent people). Is the reoffending rate so high? Why then are there so few headlines along the lines of 'Released child killer kills again'? I can't think of a single incidence, and yet, if it happened, the papers'd be over it like a shot. Instead it's people 'on the sex offenders' register' getting jobs at schools. The whole 'child killer' label is laced with emotional appeal as well. Why child killers as opposed to simply killers? Are we more viable targets for murder the older we get now? Is it more OK to kill someone once their parents have passed on and they're nobody's child? I'm sorry, but any law or rule of thumb applied solely to 'child killers' cannot be based on a moral greater good - it is punishing people for our own disgust, rather than their wrongdoing. ~ I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe
http://www.koopress.co.uk/speaking.htm Heh, good post Jack, you said everything I was going to say plus a lot more. One bit you missed tho' is this: the reason so many child-rapists/killers try to commit suicide is because their lives in jail are so awful. It doesn't take much imagination to see what the other inmates do to them. Even in solitary, I'd bet they are given a hard time by the wardens (sorry, officers). Then they must consider what will happen to them when and if they ever get out (when was the last time a child rapist got out early reckless, eh?). I reckon suicide (for them) seems the easy way out so the fact that Huntley's attempt failed is good news. I still think (going back to my heavy involvement in a thread like this some years ago) that Maxine Carr got off lightly. There are still many unanswered questions about these murders and that is why the death penalty is wrong.

 

Another reason why they might try to commit suicide is through guilt. Another might be chronic depression brought on by their situation. Another reason they might want to try and kill themselves is because they were/are fuckin loonies and, despite being in prison, would have eventually topped themselves anyway. I mean, a man who murders a couple of kids like that is not all there is he. We know what happens to those who aren't all there. Those horrific, lonely nights of ceasless catharsis, the apocolyptic days, the terror that engulfs both mind and heart and drives a man to petrification in an otherwise dynamic world. you know.... There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed - Dennet

There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed -
Dennett

Ok – a few thoughts, please excuse the length. Firstly, honest reaction to the suicide attempt. Yep, keep him alive. We couldn’t not do so because that would be tantamount to the death penalty. Also, it’s frustrating when killers commit suicide when people want answers and their death denies them the hope of getting any – Shipman and Fred West spring to mind. However, the above aren’t the reasons for my gut reaction to Huntley’s attempt. I want him to be kept alive simply because he doesn’t want to be alive. It’s a retribution thing - 100% emotional, I know. As to the difference in reactions to child-killers as opposed to other killers, I think it may be this. It’s the regular reaction to life-taking, plus the fact it’s been committed against the most innocent, plus fear. It’s the fear part where Liana’s point comes in, I think. People with children associate a murdered child with our own children. We wouldn’t associate a murdered adult with our own children (even though they are obviously a child to their parents). Therefore the reactions are different. You can’t help but torture yourself by thoughts of your own child being in that situation. Now, I care about my life just as much as I ever did, as I do about the lives of family and friends in general. But I care about my children’s life far more. I’m not trying to sound sickeningly pious – it’s a genetic thing, isn’t it – we’re programmed that way. So, in my opinion, that’s when rational responses fly out the window. Lastly, the whole paedophile/punishment question needs looking at. I believe the mindset of a paedophile is rarely altered. I remember watching a documentary about paedophiles who were asking to be imprisoned. They knew they couldn’t control their impulses and they were worried that their behaviour was becoming more extreme. They didn’t want counselling, they wanted to be locked-up. At the time (it was a few years ago) they were stuck in a Catch-22 situation. The secure psychiatric hospitals said their condition couldn’t be treated. There was no known cure so there was nothing they could do for them, therefore they didn't fall under their remit. The police couldn’t do anything until they had committed an offence and, even then, they could only imprison them according to the offence committed. These men had already been in prison for minor offences but knew they would offend again. The only option was to wait until these men had committed crimes serious enough to receive a life sentence. Screwy situation. I wonder if it still stands.
Inspite of the liberal view that prisons are supposed to be rehabilitory, that not only rarely happens, it's also at least in part, an excuse for what is a pretty awful thing to do to a human, but also necessary. Prisons are about protecting society from persistent criminals, (and first time offenders too, in serious cases), deterring prospective criminals, but mainly about revenge. I don't disapprove of revenge, in fact I believe it's therapeutic in some cases. If my kids had been murdered I wouldn't want the murderer to spend their life in jail, I'd want them dead. Even better I'd want to see their death, even be their executioner. I don't think I'd benefit from that, I imagine it would destroy me even further, but after the loss of the kids I wouldn't really care anymore, I'd just want revenge. It's possible that keeping them caged for 40years is almost as bad as their crime, but society justifies its sadism by claiming that it IS justice. I get the feeling that many people salve their revenge in this fashion. Far better to give them a way out than to either waste resources on them for decades, or give them early release to re-offend. The idea that murderers and rapists are somehow not 'normal' worries me a bit. Lou says that psychiatrists say their 'condition' can't be treated. Well that indicates that they have some socially unacceptable character/personality/mental illness. If that's the case then there is not much difference between their condition and that of autistics, huntington chorea sufferers, or any other genetic defect. My point IS that maybe they are just 'different' rather than deliberately evil. I believe that they are all part of the natural spectrum of human types, but as society has become refined, they have become totally unacceptable. For example, if it is to be believed, cavemen fought over females and the winners dragged them off to their cave for breeding purposes. Back then, it wasn't a crime, it was how society worked and no one thought anything of it. Now it's a heinous crime, and quite rightly so. Some parents in the animal world eat their young at birth but they wouldn't be executed for it, it's seen as an unfortunate turn of events but nothing more. Perhaps we need to take a hard look at the human race and realise that along with the admired characteristics there are also a few unacceptable ones, but they are still a part of the human spectrum.

 

Everything needs to be looked at again. Because of the rate of re-offending in child abusers is so high, they shouldn't be released. They certainly shouldn't be killed though. As I said earlier, I know victims of serious child abuse, the ones I met had lead extremely fucked up lives as a consequence. What they wanted was answers, the why's etc. Some of them got some of those answers, still emotionally scarred, but able to live, and to a degree, accept what had happened to them. Those answers wouldn't have come from a corpse. Whilst if somebody abused my children I would have a burning hatred, the real *victim* would be my child, they'd be the one that had to live with it and if I ensured the abuser was dead, then my child, the *victim*, might suffer more as a result. But hey what the hell, I might extinguish a little of that hate, not much, but a little, so I'd feel better as a result. Besides how would we define the abuser, as someone who's fucked up a kids life? I've met literary thousands of people with fucked up lives, pretty much a direct result of a fucked up childhoods, hundreds of reasons. Alcoholic parents, addict parents, pushy parents, a parent killed, parents who gave their kids too much to eat, made them fat, self esteem smashed at school, and drugs make you lose weight. The list is endless. or do you have to screw up the kids life in a certain way. True not all people end up fucked up from the above scenarios but then that applies to the sexually abused growing up to be abusers themselves. It's a lot more complex than it first seems isn't it. And the way things are going I don't think it's the best idea to preach that it's okay to kill some people but not others. nobody
As someone who was abused from a very early age into my teens on a fairly regular basis - hey - in the sticks we had to make our own entertainment! So yes I use humour to leven the damage done. But I feel qualified to speak. But that makes me no expert. And, no; I don't feel like I want to abuse children. But there are those who have been through want I went through; who do. I once read an article on this and the writer said that some people get 'stuck' psychologically at that level: and never move on. And of course there will be those that harbour a secret rage about what was done to them, and act out murderously. And there will be those who weren't abused in any way (a minority I suspect) who want to have sex with children. And as it's a condition - well documented - that is loathe to accept that there is any wrongdoing; you have to keep these people locked up forever. And if I'd been the prison guard on duty the evening that Ian Huntley tried to kill himself: I. WOULD. HAVE. ACTED. VERY. SLOWLY.

 

Pages

Topic locked