Approx £50,000 per year to keep Jo Cox's killer in jail.

Re: so you have never heard of Animal rights then

Would you be prepared to take in a vicious dog amongst your family DT.?

 

Re: so you have never heard of Animal rights then

would you be prepared to take in the killer of Jo Cox.... I think you are missing the point a little.

 

I think he'd have it put down if uncontrollably vicious, probably in the manner of disposing of Jo Cox's killer.

 

Re: so you have never heard of Animal rights then

There's a point ?

 

yes there is a point

but its obviously so well and truly over your head. But do not let that stop you following my every post in order for you to snipe at me at every possible moment, I guess your life would be so empty without it.

 

Re: yes there is a point

Following your every post!!!
Where!!! ?
Your either on fantasy island or very very drunk.
Notice you didn't elaborate in the point though.
The answer is yes I'm prepared to take in Joe's killer in fact my tax payers money Is already doing that in pentonville or somewhere where he can reflect for the rest of his life what an absolute lovely person he is.

 

well I was gonna reply...

but then noticed you had gone offline , its around 7:30PM..... I forgot it was s school night... obviously your homework and a bath had to be done before bedtime.... Night Night little man...


BTW what role are you doing in yer schools nativity play this year.... HEEE HAAW

 

Re: well I was gonna reply...

Are you still off the sauce DT?

Just wondering......

 

Re: well I was gonna reply...

Dint really expect owt else from you DT ,
Well apart from a spell of name calling but I see you've probably exhausted yourself on that score.

 

Hindley (before she died) and Brady get a very comfortable life inside prison, it is certainly a lot better than they deserve for what they did. It took them years to reveal the 'approximate' whereabouts of some of their victims and one little lad is still buried under Saddleworth Moor - his poor Mum died without ever being able to say goodbye to and bury her little boy.

Hindley wanted to be freed for years and with the help of Longford she ensured she kept her profile in the public domain.

Brady doesn't want to be freed, but I don't think he wanted to die, certainly not when he was first sentenced.

They were sadistic, despicable child torturers and murders and I'd have gladly given them what they wanted if they asked to die.

 

I guess a lot of the crux of the argument depends on whether you see prison as a rehabilitation process or a punishment. In general, I think the UK system, and even more so the US system focus on incarcerating people for the sake of it, and not actually making progress with the offender for the good of society. The very high reoffending ststistics of both countries bears this out. The Norwegian system is a case in point. On the whole the tarrifs are lenient, and prison life in Norway really is very "cushy". But Norway's violent crime and reoffending rates are minimal, even in a country where gun ownership is relatively high. So far, so good. The "cushy" system is generally working. Then somebody like Anders Brevik comes along and blows all of this out of the water. Not because what he did means that the Norwegian system doesn't work - in general it clearly does, very well - but because the system, with its 15 year maximum tariff for murder (as far as I'm aware) is clearly unsuitable for serious offenders such as Brevik - somebody who would obviously continue to be a danger to society if he was released at any time. Those who we have discussed - Hindley, Brady, the Boston Marathon bomber, Roy Whiting, Ian Huntley, Lee Rigby's killers - they are absolute outliers, people who have committed crimes so hideous and revolting that the idea of "rehabilitation" for them is bordering on completely crass. I would like to see something closer to the Norwegian system implemented in the UK, but at the same time a proper and very harsh life sentence for those rare and extraordinary heinous offenders that you would probably consider for capital punishment. But in that case where would we draw the line? Recognising that people offend for many different reasons, and a lot of the time offenders grew up in exceptionally difficult circumstances, how would we decide who gets a shot at rehabilitation, and who does 60 years in solitary confinement? It's an interesting and complex question, and not one I have the answer to.

 

Isn't this why we have different catagories of prisons? (Well at least one of them)

I'm not saying that it isn't used as it could be in the sense you outline but that would be the starting point wouldn't it?

 

Good post MT, some very interesting points raised. I like the punishment v rehabilitation argument and yes in most cases there has to be a element of both which should be exactly what prison does however in the cases of the people mentioned in this post I wonder what the point of rehabilitation is.

 

I guess so, but first of all it needs to be decided which categories are suitable for which people, and this would be likely to open up a legal can of worms. Regarding the "category" system, and more widely the general conditions in UK prisons and the opportunities for prisoners to improve their lives and make their time in prison a positive thing, it seems to me (as an absolute layman in this field) that all too often where somebody is sent is pretty arbitrary, and there is no standardised system across the country. Even if general guidelines exist, they can't always be followed because of overcrowding, underfunding etc. Prisons become universities of crime, and people are released only to reoffend. At least that's the impression I get. Any reform, while possible needs funding and the political will. It seems both of these are always lacking.