Should Peter Sutcliffe be released?

[Professor Yaffle]

Well let's just say if he was released, I would want him under close supervision.

 

[Rolfe]

Mmmm. How much do I trust "close supervision"?

And there was that point about him being liable to be lynched, that someone was making on breakfast radio this morning.

Rolfe.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

To be honest, I really don't see how I could comment on any individual case. I've never met the person concerned, I haven't seen if or how he has changed throughout his sentence etc. Any response is going to be based on very limited information. I'll leave it to those whose job it is to decide these things and hope they get it right.

 

[Lisa Simpson]

I thought Pete Sutcliffe was one of the original Beatles....

That was Stu Sutcliffe.

And there was that point about him being liable to be lynched, that someone was making on breakfast radio this morning.

Rolfe.

Given the number of times he's been attacked while institutionalized, I don't doubt that he would be killed not long after being released.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

I have zero confidence in 'Care in the Community'.

My mother lives next door to a crazy woman who screams and shouts at voices/invisible people at all times of the day and night (this weekend it was 1am & 2am on Saturday morning), has had a Christmas tree up in the living room for the past 2 years, planted a tree which grows 20ft 3ft from the front of the house, often plays the piano frantically for 1-2hours in the evening, slams cupboard doors over and over again and is abusive to people over the phone (again, at all times of the day and night).

When you complain about this, all you get off the mental health people and police is they can't do anything (even go into her house) until she threatens her own or someone else's safety. The environmental health can't do anything because she's mentally ill and my mother can't sell her house and move because she'd have to tell any potential buyers that the woman next door is bat-**** crazy.

Given my above experience, I don't trust that Peter Sutcliffe would be monitored carefully enough and can't imagine who would want to live next door to him.

 

[zooterkin]

I never saw any sense in imposing more than one "life" sentence.
Assuming life is 70 years, 20 life sentences, bu my arithmetic equates to 1400 years.
That puts his release date in 3381.
Let him out then.

That's something that's always puzzled me slightly; in the UK, sentences usually (always?) run concurrently, whereas in the US I think they often (always?) run consecutively. For some reason, I've perhaps unthinkingly felt that the UK system is fairer, in that there is usually the prospect of being released eventually, which can disappear quite quickly under the US system with a handful of offences.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Can someone explain the logic whereby sentences run in parallel?
If a car costs £20,000 and I buy 20 of them, they cost £20,000 each. £400,000.
I don't get all 20 for the price of one.
There's some sort of bulk sentencing rate for mass murder?

This man should have been sentenced to 1400 years in jail.
Not a life sentence; A death sentence.
And since that would be ridiculous and inhumane, he should have been executed, in which case the problem of release would not ariseand I wouldn't have had to contribute to his keep all this time.

 

[commandlinegamer]

That's something that's always puzzled me slightly; in the UK, sentences usually (always?) run concurrently, whereas in the US I think they often (always?) run consecutively. For some reason, I've perhaps unthinkingly felt that the UK system is fairer, in that there is usually the prospect of being released eventually, which can disappear quite quickly under the US system with a handful of offences.

Multiple life sentences may mean you're less likely to be released on licence in the UK, but how does that equate to the US system? If say you get 340 years in America, is there any likelihood you'll ever see daylight again?

 

[Soapy Sam]

Well, plea bargaining will probably get it down to about 140, then time off for good behaviour and you're out in about 90.

 

[Darat]

Something to consider: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/8546528.stm

 

[zooterkin]

I found some guidelines for the UK (so it seems both consecutive and concurrent sentences may be handed down):

Where an offender is sentenced to imprisonment for more than one offence, the sentences may be ordered by the court to run either consecutively or concurrently. There are a number of factors which a court will take into account when deciding whether sentences should be consecutive or concurrent. Consecutive sentences will generally be appropriate, for example, where different types of offending behaviour are involved.

And from here, I get the impression that for the most serious offences, consecutive sentences are discouraged

It emphasised that, in general, consecutive sentences should be avoided where they include extended sentences and/or imprisonment for public protection. Wherever possible, concurrent sentences should be imposed with the period in custody adjusted to reflect the overall criminality of the offender.

 

[crackers]

Multiple life sentences may mean you're less likely to be released on licence in the UK, but how does that equate to the US system? If say you get 340 years in America, is there any likelihood you'll ever see daylight again?

No, there isn't. That's kind of the point of it.

 

[Alt+F4]

Something to consider: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/8546528.stm

What I find suprising is that both of them aren't back in prison. Considering how horrible that crime was, how young they still are now, it seemed inevitable.

How do folks in the UK put up with vagness, such as:

The Ministry of Justice said: "We can confirm that Jon Venables has been recalled to custody following a breach of licence conditions."

Details of the nature of the breach were not released.

Doesn't the public have the right to know if he murdered another child (in your community) or it was just public drunkenness?

 

[Debaser]

I'm not really clear what the highlighted part entails, since--absent new evidence--the gravity of the crimes should have been adequately considered first time round.

Lest we forget, this was a time when the police could get away with casually differentiating between his 'innocent' victims and those who worked as prostitutes, I am unsure as to whether this attitude was shared by the judiciary.
Although I was a child I can remember the atmosphere of fear around Leeds at the time, and that apparently any adult male could have been the murderer. Makes the late 70s/early 80s even bleaker in my memory.

 

[geni]

At the time of his trial there was some discussion about his sanity. It was a bit of a Catch 22 - nobody who did what he did could be called sane, surely? However, he was tried for murder (not manslaughter) and considered to be sane at the time.

Legaly sane. Something which has only a limited amount in common with the more conventional defintions of instanity. The barrier is also pretty high.

 

[geni]

No, there isn't. That's kind of the point of it.

The problem is that effectively gives the ability any prosecuter with decent run of burglaries on the books to effectively threaten a life sentance against any petty criminal who doesn't accept a plea bargin.

 

[geni]

What I find suprising is that both of them aren't back in prison. Considering how horrible that crime was, how young they still are now, it seemed inevitable.

Murder doesn't have that high a reoffending rate and traditionaly the young are in a better position to be influcence for both bad and good.

How do folks in the UK put up with vagness, such as:



Doesn't the public have the right to know if he murdered another child (in your community) or it was just public drunkenness?

Per a court injunction no. If it's anything significant I expect we will find out.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

I'm surprised that Sutcliffe is still alive - I just kind of assumed he'd been murdered in prison as I hadn't heard anything of him in years (except perhaps on programs like great crimes and trials).
I cannot imagine him lasting a long time in general population, surely he is still one of the most despised men on earth. I will shed no tears.

It is for men like this that I reckon capital punishment should be available.

 

[Francesca R]

Lest we forget, this was a time when the police could get away with casually differentiating between his 'innocent' victims and those who worked as prostitutes, I am unsure as to whether this attitude was shared by the judiciary.

Fair point but there is a well established principle that changes in laws or enforcement / judicial processes don't reach into the past to re-evaluate it.

In any case I would be confident that a judicial process would not respond to public opinion.

 

[richardm]

Doesn't the public have the right to know if he murdered another child (in your community) or it was just public drunkenness?

They have to be a little bit careful about what they say, because knowing where he was lifted and what he was doing at the time could lead to him being identified. It's not necessarily anything particularly serious; the terms of his parole are very strict.