Ian Huntley

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Should they have let him die?

Strikes me as weird: In Europe, if a serious criminal gets life instead of death, it's considered a stronger punishment. If he dies (as in the case of Harry Shipman) the victims feel cheated.

In America (well, parts of) if said criminal gets live instead of death (as in execution) it's considered sparing the guy. Victims sometimes feel cheated if he lives.

Not to compete with the Death Penalty thread on the Humanities board, this is a cimple question: Should Ian Hunley have been allowed to die? Should he have been allowed to live?

Mrs_Doyle

Ikky Poo2 wrote:

Should they have let him die?

Strikes me as weird: In Europe, if a serious criminal gets life instead of death, it's considered a stronger punishment. If he dies (as in the case of Harry Shipman) the victims feel cheated.

In America (well, parts of) if said criminal gets live instead of death (as in execution) it's considered sparing the guy. Victims sometimes feel cheated if he lives.

Not to compete with the Death Penalty thread on the Humanities board, this is a cimple question: Should Ian Hunley have been allowed to die? Should he have been allowed to live?

It is Ian HunTley, and I think they should most certainly let him live. In fact, I hope he lives a nice long life.
On 29 September 2005, High Court Judge Mr Justice Moses, who presided over Huntley's original trial, ruled that he should spend 40 years in prison before he can be considered for parole, so I really hope he lives another 39 years, and hopefully he will die slowly and painfully in about 40/41 years time.

aidan_walsh

Should Ian Hunley have been allowed to die?

Absolutely not.

Fanny Cradock

Why Ian Huntley specifically? Why not the kids who killed James Bolger, or that mother who was recently found guilty of killing her kids (but charged with manslaughter)?

Considering that capital punishment hasn't been legal for some time, how long I don'y know, your question is sort of pointless. Besides, I would think that each moment he lives would be torture.

This thread will now decend into an argument about human rights Vs justice for the family of the victim

Kinetic^

Letting him die is an easy way out for him.........let him suffer through his punishment.

astrofool

It's a funny question from that point of view, is the death penalty less leniant than life in prison? If so, if he had committed a lesser offence, should he have been put to death instead?

xebec

There is no way he should be let die - what he did shouldn't be taken into account. No individual has the right to leave somebody to die even if the person did something as bad as Huntley.

Dun laoire

Same as that pr1ck John Hogan who killed his son and tried to kill his daughter. Did you see him in the paper looking for sympathy. No fuc4in way i'm not having it. He jumped out of a window with his 6 year old son and 2 year old daughter, he's a fuc4in child murderer and i hope himself and huntley live a long horrible life. If there is a hell i'm sure satan himself will be waiting with open arms.

Bastards

Froot

I personally feel the judicial system should impose custodial sentences. The death penalty solves nothing except for adding some small level of closure to the matter and also removing the cost of imprisoning someone from the budget.

He should suffer, but being honest just do it the custodial way, let him f*cking rot but let him live.

godtabh

Fanny Cradock wrote:

Considering that capital punishment hasn't been legal for some time, how long I don'y know, your question is sort of pointless.

Capital punishment has been legal in Ireland up until recently. You could face the death penalty up untill 7th June 2001 but was got rid of as part of the Nice Treaty vote.

Results Here.

I voted no so that would suggest Huntley should've died but I think each case should be taken on its own merits.

Degsy

Dont lock him up at all.If he's found guilty,turn him loose and let the people deal with him.Scumbag.

Fanny Cradock

kearnsr wrote:

Capital punishment has been legal in Ireland up until recently. You could face the death penalty up untill 7th June 2001 but was got rid of as part of the Nice Treaty vote.

Results Here.

I voted no so that would suggest Huntley should've died but I think each case should be taken on its own merits.

I'm surprised at that. I would have thought the 50's or some such

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Interesting spread. How would you have reacted had the death penalty been available and handed down?

Personally, I think life should mean life. I'm anti-death penalty generally speaking. But with some form of forced commuinity labour (canal-dredging for example - or scraping the sh*t off statues). If he's got a debt to pay let him pay it. I'd have felt cheated had he been sentenced to death.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Fanny Cradock wrote:

Why Ian Huntley specifically? Why not the kids who killed James Bolger, or that mother who was recently found guilty of killing her kids (but charged with manslaughter)?

Considering that capital punishment hasn't been legal for some time, how long I don'y know, your question is sort of pointless. Besides, I would think that each moment he lives would be torture.

This thread will now decend into an argument about human rights Vs justice for the family of the victim

Point taken. I choose him for topical resaons. It's not a pointless question - it's a twist on the death penalty issue: Is it more leniant/less leniant than life imprisonment?

Fanny Cradock

Ikky Poo2 wrote:

Interesting spread. How would you have reacted had the death penalty been available and handed down?

Personally, I think life should mean life. I'm anti-death penalty generally speaking. But with some form of forced commuinity labour (canal-dredging for example - or scraping the sh*t off statues). If he's got a debt to pay let him pay it. I'd have felt cheated had he been sentenced to death.

I definately agree with the forced labour for "common" crimes. I know it would probably be shot down by the Court of human rights, but I see it as a form of punishment (not cruel) and a small way of paying society back while also not being such a financial burden on the country. However, I would assume that a guy like Huntley would be a special case - requiring protection from other inmates and unable to do anything other than sit in a cell for fear of his life.

eirmail

Let him die, he is a drain on tax payers money

spacecoyote

he wants to die, so make him live. simple as that, he wants to avoid punishment & shouldn't be allowed to do so!

exiztone

Wasn't there plenty of doubt over whether or not he killed those two girls? Best to keep him alive based on that alone...

Imagine if Lee Harvey Oswald had been kept alive! :eek:

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Pretty sure he did kill them. Wasn't sure it was pre-mediatated murder one, but when you're talking what ledto it and what he did do, it's pretty much watr under the bridge.

Blisterman

Personally, I wouldn't care if he died. It's one less sick pedo in the world.

Executive Steve

i don't know what's scarier... the average response by boards.ie - supposedly a miscrocosm of irish society - to questions like these or the fact that the "stormfront ireland" heads think you guys are all uber politically-correct commie pinkos....

Ruu_Old

I think he should be just left in prison right now, killing him would just bring up the memories again and probably do no good for the families involved. It would give the media lots of controversy to talk about again also.

spanner

let him die
there is evil people who deserve to be killed, as long as they live there is a chance they can kill somebody else. I am not avocating what happens in america were by they kill mentally disabled but there is crimes like violent rape leading to death espeically on children that deserve the death penalty

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

[cm]tyranny wrote:

i don't know what's scarier... the average response by boards.ie - supposedly a miscrocosm of irish society - to questions like these or the fact that the "stormfront ireland" heads think you guys are all uber politically-correct commie pinkos....

This may be ignorance on my part, but what is stormfornt Ireland?

kizzyr

Mrs_Doyle wrote:

It is Ian HunTley, and I think they should most certainly let him live. In fact, I hope he lives a nice long life.
On 29 September 2005, High Court Judge Mr Justice Moses, who presided over Huntley's original trial, ruled that he should spend 40 years in prison before he can be considered for parole, so I really hope he lives another 39 years, and hopefully he will die slowly and painfully in about 40/41 years time.

I agree and the very fact that he obviously WANTS to die would make me even more determined to keep him alive and dreadfuly unhappy, uncomfortable etc etc etc. There aren't words enough to help me express how disgusting and vile I find this man.

MrJoeSoap

Either way, he'll hopefully be in jail until he dies. Hope he's getting some good "treatment" from the other inmates.

cooperguy

Froot wrote:

I personally feel the judicial system should impose custodial sentences. The death penalty solves nothing except for adding some small level of closure to the matter and also removing the cost of imprisoning someone from the budget.

He should suffer, but being honest just do it the custodial way, let him f*cking rot but let him live.

Believe it or not it costs more to execute somebody than to keep them in prison for life due to all the time spent in court for appeals, having him under constant security etc. its been proven by a number of studies.

Dave!

Solitary confinement, and suicide watch.

spanner

Ikky Poo2 wrote:

This may be ignorance on my part, but what is stormfornt Ireland?

its a Irish right winged site

Wertz

Here's my take on it.

The guy was sentenced to his 40 yrs before parole....by topping himself he is effectively cheating his victim's families of justice.
Why should he be granted and allowed the freewill to take his own life? He may well be better off dead from our PoV, but that would be on his terms not on ours (by ours I mean society as a whole)

I agree with the death penalty but feel it is flawed or rather the judicial process that leads up to it is flawed....it should be such that only where the guilt of the party has been proved beyond beyond a reasonable doubt.
Is there is any hint of ambiguity then it should not be used.

oRlyYaRly

10 years should be the absoloute longest jail sentance and death sentances shouldn't exist.

I'd like to think everybody can have another chance and be a better person.

Blisterman

An UBER right wing/racist site, to be more specifc.

Wertz

oRlyYaRly wrote:

10 years should be the absoloute longest jail sentance and death sentances shouldn't exist.

I'd like to think everybody can have another chance and be a better person.

lol
Yeah lets just let the likes of Huntley and his ilk out to prey on the innocent all over again.

10 years? What kind of feckin' deterrent is that? You could potentially make more from a well planned crime than you could in the dcade you'd spend in jail for it...

They should give forum trolls 10 yrs...

Duckjob

The families of Holly and Jessica have a life sentence to live because of his actions. Let the f*cker have one too.

Fanny Cradock

oRlyYaRly wrote:

10 years should be the absoloute longest jail sentance and death sentances shouldn't exist.

I'd like to think everybody can have another chance and be a better person.

Controversial statement for the sake of it?

GUILTY

MrJoeSoap

oRlyYaRly wrote:

I'd like to think everybody can have another chance and be a better person.

Including Holly and Jessica?

If you take someones life then you're freedom should be taken.

philologos

the reaction of this thread doesn't take into account that people sometimes, occaisionally do learn from their mistakes in jail and can turn themselves around. Just because someone did an incredibly sinister thing once does not brand them as evil for life in fairness. From reading the thread you all seem to have rather sinister wishes for this man as well. Would we be much better than he was if we let someone die? no matter how bad the reputation of this man is he should at least have some respect left. I know not all of you believe in Christianity but letting someone die is not a Christian thing to do regardless of their reputation. People need to learn to forgive, and I hope that Ian Huntley will be forgiven for this sinister act in time.

netwhizkid

I think he should be left rot in Jail, give him 19th century conditions and toture him for every day he lives. The death penalty is much too good for him.

oRlyYaRly

Yes. I am a troll because I don't condone the destruction of somebody's life.:rolleyes:

I think Ian Huntley deserves a chance. I wouldn't wish life improsinment on my worst enemy. I'd wish they'd stop doing the thing that makes them my enemy.

el rabitos

oRlyYaRly wrote:

Yes. I am a troll because I don't condone the destruction of somebody's life.:rolleyes:

I think Ian Huntley deserves a chance. I wouldn't wish life improsinment on my worst enemy. I'd wish they'd stop doing the thing that makes them my enemy.

thats funny, u condone the destruction of the lives of 2 innocent girls?

*edit*

btw...your scary

oRlyYaRly

el rabitos wrote:

thats funny, u condone the destruction of the lives of 2 innocent girls?

*edit*

btw...your scary

I don't condone the destruction of lives and this is why I said I would like it if he never did it again. 2 destroyed lives or 3. I'll take 2.

Ruu_Old

oRlyYaRly wrote:

Yes. I am a troll because I don't condone the destruction of somebody's life.:rolleyes:

I think Ian Huntley deserves a chance. I wouldn't wish life improsinment on my worst enemy. I'd wish they'd stop doing the thing that makes them my enemy.

There are some people that are beyond saving in prison and that the system can't fix, I reckon Huntley is one of them so you should be able to see why some people want he gone for good.

Trinity

oRlyYaRly wrote:

10 years should be the absoloute longest jail sentance and death sentances shouldn't exist.

I'd like to think everybody can have another chance and be a better person.

These 2 innocent little girls are dead poster :eek:

They have no second chance. What kind of deterrant is ten years for taking other peoples lives?

Is that all they are worth? They were only 10 years of age - he robbed them of their entire lives and future. Approx say 60 years of their lives. they hadnt experienced anything. First boyfriends, their debs, getting married, careers, having kids of their own then grandkids. Nothing - they are just gone.

not forgetting he killed 2, if he had killed one 'by accident' and went for help and let the other go i would say he was remorseful and it was an 'accident'. But he knew what he was doing when he killed the second little girl.

He is only sorry he got caught.

oRlyYaRly

Ruu wrote:

There are some people that are beyond saving in prison and that the system can't fix, I reckon Huntley is one of them so you should be able to see why some people want he gone for good.

But I can't make that judgement. And nor can you. The system has to try. If he is truly only sorry he's caught, is he really going to risk getting caught again?

Mossy Monk

death is too easy for these people

Töpher

Mossy Monk wrote:

death is too easy for these people

Nail. Hammer. Head.

Trinity

oRlyYaRly wrote:

But I can't make that judgement. And nor can you. The system has to try. If he is truly only sorry he's caught, is he really going to risk getting caught again?

Do you think it is worth risking the lives of more children though? Many many offenders re-offend when they get out. Child-killers are not people the system take lightly or should, its too much of a risk putting childrens life in danger in the HOPE that he has learned his lesson.

There are clinically and psychologically assessed before being released on parole. Some are pure psychopaths, sociopaths you name it - the likely hood is they will reoffend. And more lifes will be lost - young innocent children that cannot fend for themselves

SO - Someone has made that judgement - he got life imprisonment.

I think the original question was more about should the prison guards have resusitated him this morning when he was found in his cell.

edited to say - so if he is capable of murdering little girls and if the ONLY reason he is not going to murder little girls is fear of getting caught well then he should never get out.

That is no reason not to take another life oh i might get caught. Jesus what kind of mentality is that???

oRlyYaRly

Taking to our high horses though, aren't we? Think of the food for kids in 3rd world countries the €1000 we spent on our computer would buy. We could all save loads of orphans if we did without the luxuries. But we're selfish.

We're all murderers really. And at least Holly and Jessica probably had a good 10 years, as opposed to a sh*tty 2 weeks before they died of hunger.

Mossy Monk

yeah and paying for this electricity to power my pc. i am going to hell

oRlyYaRly

Mossy Monk wrote:

yeah and paying for this electricity to power my pc. i am going to hell

I'm just saying, there is more than enough wealth to go around and the only reason poverty exists is because we're so selfish. Kinda like Ian Huntley. He wanted to kill two girls and he was too selfish to think about what they wanted. We want to spend money on things we could live without instead of things other people can't live without. Indirect murder is still murder.

Trinity

You are in the wrong thread - the orphans one is over there *points*

i propose you are deliberately trying to provoke people on here and you should be ignored.

no point getting riled up by your posts they are getting sillier by the minute.

Those children are starving because of governments, politics, greed and the powers that be. I am not personally taking my hands and wrapping them around a childs throat squeezing until she stops breathing.

i give to concern every month direct debit - not much more i can do about the greed in this world.

*sits back on high horse*