Should Peter Sutcliffe be released?

[Rolfe]

I think it's fairly likely Sutcliffe will indeed stay behind bars forever - or at least till he's hospice or ga-ga nursing home material. I don't have a problem with that. In fact, what Pikachu posted is spookily close to what I suspect about this case, so my main concern is that he doesn't pull the wool over the eyes of any psychiatrists sufficiently to get himself released earlier than that.

From memory the psychiatrists actually diagnosed paranoid schizophrenia before the trial. In England and Wales persons charged with murder have to have two psychiatric reports before trial. The psychiatrists agreed that he was insane and therefore the Crown were going to accept guilty pleas to manslaughter. The Judge queried this and they decided there would be a trial after all. Junior counsel for the Crown absolutely demolished the psychiatrists on the stand. Their thesis turned out to be mostly based on what Sutcliffe had told them. Their idea was he was a schizophrenic who killed as a part of his mission - not a sexual sadist. Counsel pointed out certain features of the crimes which definitely pointed to the latter and showed that Sutcliffe had been lying to them.

It was also pointed out that his wife was most definitely a paranoid schizophrenic and he would know a lot about symptons etc

What didn't come out at the trial was that Sutcliffe was wearing clothing adapted for some kind of sexual action at the time he was arrested...

The psychiatrists were not happy with what had happened - so after sentence they maintained their diagnosis (there are only a handful of forensic consultant psychiatrists in the UK) giving the prison system no choice but to send him to Broadmoor (the other two secure psychiatric hospitals being far too close to Yorkshire).

However, if we're going to widen the discussion to the desirability of a more permanent solution, then I think we have to consider the known miscarriages of justice. I'm not sure Bentley is a good example because he was hanged as an accomplice under bizarre legal rules - nobody ever thought he actually did it, ever. However, I'll accept Sion Jenkins - I never knew what to think about that case, so well did the media blacken his name, but I accept the acquittal.

The trouble is that at the time of conviction, every murderer is deemed proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. I cannot see any realistic prospect of introducing some sort of "super-sure" category for execution. It would actually be counter-productive to have a confession as one of the criteria, because accused are often induced to provide a confession with promises of leniency.

I agree, I was pretty certain that Barry George, Sally Clark (and the rest of Roy Meadow's victims) and some others were innocent right from the original trial material. (And I include Abdelbaset al-Megrahi in that, though he seems doomed never to be exonerated.) However, is this a reasonable basis to proceed? Yes you've been convicted beyond reasonable doubt, but we won't hang you because even now we can see it's probably a miscarriage of justice?

How many people saw the Sion Jenkins acquittal coming?

What about Michael Stone? (Lin and Megan Russell.) I think he's guilty as hell, but he protests his innocence and has presented what he thinks is evidence of innocence to the court. It has been rejected. But then, others have had early appeals rejected. What if he actually didn't do it after all?

I just read the Cameron Todd Willingham story. That is unconscionable. And that's where you end up if you allow the instinct for vengeance to take hold in a nation and give in to demands for the death penalty. Where does it get you? There's no sign it's a deterrent. It costs more money. And I'm not at all convinced that Soapy Sam's opinion that unjust imprisonment for many years is so bad it would have been kinder to have hung the poor bastards in the first place.

I am extremely glad we don't do that any more, and I consider keeping people like Sutcliffe banged up forever to be a good solution compared to the evil the death penalty carries with it.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Ruling overturned within five years of the original conviction. While not familiar with the case, there seems plenty of wriggle room in the original conviction and under the proposal I put up it is very doubtful he would have been executed - no harm done.

Do we have any in the past 15 years?

I would really like to find one instance of this occuring - then I can 'shut up'. The "what of we make a mistake" argument just doesn't seem to wash in this day and age.

Barry George?

Look, you can't just look at a criminal conviction as a member of the public and announce that there's "wiggle-room"! These convictions were all guilty "beyond reasonable doubt" in the eyes of the law.

Agreed, can't hang him now. But what of the future monsters.
Like I say, at some point these peoples lives and/or freedoms become permanently forfeit.

Stick with the freedom part, and you'll be fine.

Rolfe.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Barry George?

Again, it doesn't look like anything like all the boxes would have been ticked and an execution would have taken place.
He does not come close to the 'target group' I am talking about.

Look, you can't just look at a criminal conviction as a member of the public and announce that there's "wiggle-room"! These convictions were all guilty "beyond reasonable doubt" in the eyes of the law.

In terms of the rough proposal I put up I can.
In terms of the current system you are probably correct.

So, can you find any?
As I said before, in this day and age I honestly think the "what of we make a mistake" argument is redundant. As long as we have some additional criteria (eg. 'tick sheet') put in.

btw, I know the term 'tick sheet' seems a bit crass or flippant when we consider the topic, and I apologise for that.

 

[Rolfe]

It's also completely unrealistic. There are huge holes where all sorts of horrors may lurk. I can't even begin to imagine the tabloid campaigns if something like this got going.

Even the ones who don't "qualify" will cause trouble, as clearly there must be "reasonable doubt", so why are they in jail?

Rolfe.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

It's also completely unrealistic. There are huge holes where all sorts of horrors may lurk. I can't even begin to imagine the tabloid campaigns if something like this got going.

Even the ones who don't "qualify" will cause trouble, as clearly there must be "reasonable doubt", so why are they in jail?

Rolfe.

So these "horrors" would be borne out in the erroneous convictions (and potential executions based on the criteria) of the past 15 years or so wouldn't they?
So do we have examples or not?

If not, then I honestly think we can put the "what of we make a mistake" argument to bed as no longer relevant, and move onto (your) the next reason as to why we shoudn't have executions for the 'worst' kind of offenders..

 

[Slayhamlet]

Yes, I know you'd have hanged him.

He's not exactly my poster child for the anti-death-penalty movement either. But I prefer to live in a civilised country.

Rolfe.

I may happen to live in an uncivilized country, but I also live in a very civilized State, thank you very much.

 

[Slayhamlet]

"what of we make a mistake"

You've used this same malapropism (which I had presumed to be a typo) three times now. Is there some significance to it?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

You've used this same malapropism (which I had presumed to be a typo) three times now. Is there some significance to it?

Hehe.

No, sorry. I think my kids have been playing tricks with my keyboard again.

Actually there os ni reasin fir ot at all. O hinestly cant explaon ot.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Actually, while DNA evidence has it's uses, it's also easily planted, so I'm less enthusiastic about it than some.
I've said my bit, so no sense going on about it. To summarise and stop:-
I see nothing "inherently immoral" in the state having the power of capital punishment (CP). (Or for that matter, of corporal punishment).
It seems to be a matter of public opinion which, like others, varies with various outspoken campaigns. In my long ago youf (the 60s & 70s), the UK public was, I think, pro death penalty, even as the political establishment developed a hard anti-line. That line has since been favoured in the press , and the pro- CP public attitude has moved significantly towards the anti-CP court. But I see that as an opinion shift rather than a recognition of some immanent moral truth. It can and may swing back.

The argument that convictions are unreliable is an interesting and valid one, but (IMO) does not constitute an argument specifically against CP. If the legal system is wrong often enough to cause concern over executing the wrong person, it is probably wrong in like proportion in every other matter too. So how many innocents are languishing in pokey right now?

If we can't trust the system to kill the right man, why trust it to jail him?

Is there, among those here who oppose the death penalty, a belief in, or a push towards a radical reassessment of our apparently profoundly flawed legal system?
And if not, why not?

 

[Rolfe]

So these "horrors" would be borne out in the erroneous convictions (and potential executions based on the criteria) of the past 15 years or so wouldn't they?
So do we have examples or not?

If not, then I honestly think we can put the "what of we make a mistake" argument to bed as no longer relevant, and move onto (your) the next reason as to why we shoudn't have executions for the 'worst' kind of offenders..

I don't think it's up to me to present examples. It should be perfectly obvious that the danger exists. So you don't need to fence that dangerous quarry because you don't know of anybody having fallen in yet?

The minute you introduce something like this, the only winners are the lawyers, who will have a field day fighting this extra layer of "certainty" (over and above "beyond reasonable doubt") to the last gasp.

You can't include confessions, because not only are false confessions well documented, but at present more lenient treatment is given as an inducement to confess. So in effect, you can strike out all the cases where there is a confession. You'll actually be executing the people who are protesting their innocence. As Soapy Sam says, DNA evidence can be and is planted.

Experience in the USA, with the whole protracted death row wrangling, should flag up how this is likley to play out. I certainly don't think that's progress.

And for what? To execute a small number of people who would otherwise spend their lives in prison. There's no evidence this is a deterrent. It's certainly not cheaper - especially not, when the lawers would be wrangling for years about whether or not each conviction was "suoer-certain". It seems to me this is being suggested for no other reason than to satisfy a desire for revenge, and I can't agree that's a good way to go.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Is there, among those here who oppose the death penalty, a belief in, or a push towards a radical reassessment of our apparently profoundly flawed legal system?
And if not, why not?

Sure. Something stinks in the Scottish criminal justice system. The most high-profile ones I can call to mind are Shirley McKie and Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, but I've no doubt there are more. Corruption and expediency are certainly not absent.

What would you suggest?

Rolfe.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Hang all the lawyers?


Woops. Forgot the irony smiley again.

Incidentally you mis interpret me a bit if you think I reckon it's better to hang the wrong man than jail him for life.
I think it's more humane to execute the right man than jail him for life.
I think it's better not to try the wrong man in the first place.

If that means a lot more cases being dismissed before they get to court, well that's what it means.

I do agree that lawyers of all types should be responsible for their actions. Send an innocent man to jail and you personally owe him the compensation, not the state. So better be sure. This includes jurors.
I don't expect anyone to be omniscient. I do expect them to be sure, based on the best evidence.
If you ain't sure, don't convict.
But if you are sure, have the guts to stand by the decision.

 

[Ian Osborne]

Pre DNA

Bentley's execution was down to a flawed judicial system, not incorrect detection. DNA wouldn't have affected the case at all.

The problem with offering DNA as a cure-all for wrongful convictions is that it's only been around for a relatively short time, whereas miscarriages of justice can take decades to emerge. Check out the sad tale of Stefan Ivan Kiszko. It's also pre-DNA, but the science that exonerated him is just as trustworthy when correctly used, but equally vulnerable to the human element.

And please, let's not try to introduce a super-guilty verdict, whereby you get life if you definitely did it but death if you definitely-definitely did it. As Rolfe said, such a system would be unworkable.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Why?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Even if I agreed, I didn't realise 'workability' was a prerequisite for the discussion. At any rate, I believe it would be readily workable and implementable, it is simply a matter of desire. And if the voters ultimately want it, the politicians will deliver.

What has been in discussion here is whether or not the "what if we make a mistake" argument washes or not.
I understand the misgivings about DNA, the process etc however I have yet to see an argument put up that - if all the boxes are ticked - gives this any real weight or validity.

We have been unable to cite one example in the DNA age whereby a person that fits the requirements would have been wrongly executed.
I also take your point about DNA being planted however when we are talking about a mass/serial murderers, just how many times would this planting need to have occurred? That argument is fantasy. I would also suggest that with an attitude like that towards the legal system, the police etc then everyone should be concerned for their personal liberty.

The arguments I am hearing come down to personal opinion and emotion, which are not fact based, and include a lot of 'what ifs'.

Remember, we are talking the 'worst of the worst' here. Those with no ifs, buts or maybe's when it comes to their guilt: Bundy, Gacey, Hindley, Suttcliffe, Milat etc.

 

[Pikachu]

Actually the British public when polled usually want the death penalty back. However this is one of those areas where it is always left to the conscience of individual MPs to vote and they consistently voted against it. It is now moot anyway since the European Convention on Human Rights was adopted into British law.

In Sutcliffe's case what he's asking the court for is a definite term. If he gets one he then has to get a parole board to agree a date & terms of release. No parole board is going to be insane enough to do this. Also if he's now sane - he should go back into the general prison population...
Traditionally British Justice was always swift. Appeal to the Court of Appeal, appeal for clemency/ Royal Pardon all dealt with within the month and execution following within days.
When we see documentaries from the US with people routinely on Death Row for years even decades that doesn't seem right. Neither do reports of the Texas Governor considering every death penalty case for a whole ten minutes. And personally my sense of justice was affronted when I read about the "expert" who used to examine defendants once and then be called by the prosecution in death penalty hearings to say they could never be reformed (Travels with Dr Death by Clive James).
(Disclaimer: I've been preparing and prosecuting cases in the UK for 23 years)

 

[Darat]

Actually the British public when polled usually want the death penalty back. However this is one of those areas where it is always left to the conscience of individual MPs to vote and they consistently voted against it. It is now moot anyway since the European Convention on Human Rights was adopted into British law. ...snip...

Why?

 

[Rolfe]

In Sutcliffe's case what he's asking the court for is a definite term. If he gets one he then has to get a parole board to agree a date & terms of release. No parole board is going to be insane enough to do this.

That seems to be the most realistic remark so far. I seriously hope you're right.

Also if he's now sane - he should go back into the general prison population...

That too.

Rolfe.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

That seems to be the most realistic remark so far. I seriously hope you're right.

That too.

Rolfe.

You might as well hang him now as put him back in general population.

 

[Soapy Sam]

I also take your point about DNA being planted however when we are talking about a mass/serial murderers, just how many times would this planting need to have occurred?That argument is fantasy.

Very unlikely indeed in that type of case, I agree. Fantasy? I'm less sure. Serial killers are obsessed and odd, but not necessarily stupid - and at least as likely to show interest in methods of criminal detection as anyone else. (By which I mean the serial killer might deliberately implicate others by planting evidence, to confuse the trail).

I would also suggest that with an attitude like that towards the legal system, the police etc then everyone should be concerned for their personal liberty.

Indeed. The people who would find it easiest to plant DNA evidence are close friends and relatives (ie those with physical access to the DNA)-
and the police, who take their orders from the Home Secretary.
If there's a counter argument to the "Big Brother is watching us" paranoia, it may be that all those security cameras in public places, all those ATMs and GPS tracking devices actually make it harder to fit someone up, because there is a high probability that independent evidence may provide an alibi. Ultimately, carrying a device which records our position constantly may be the only reliable proof of innocence. Of course, it would have to be implanted and tamperproof...Brave New World, eh?