Ian Huntley

Fanny Cradock wrote:

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.

they do it in america so i don't think its actually illegal.

cooperguy wrote:

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.

it costs €90,000 a year to keep someone in mountjoy (heard it on the radio last week). ian huntley's jail sentence is 40 years. are you saying it would cost €3,600,000 to have him executed?

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.

absolutely not. someone like ian huntley doesn't change. i disagree with mandatory maximum sentences for the same reason i disagree with mandatory minimum sentences. the judge is in a position to decide how long the person should go to jail for. by saying the maximum he can give is ten years you'd being tying his hands and putting a huge amount of mentally disturbed people and irredeemable scumbags back on the street.

maybe everyone can be redeemed, except the mentally disturbed. but i'd rather they show themselves to be redeemed while behind bars instead of showing that they weren't really after being found covered in a child's blood

oRlyYaRly wrote:

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.

oRlyYaRly wrote:

Because I'm selfish. Or did you not read my post? Just like Ian Huntley. I can't judge him when I do the same.

I'm not trying to invoke anything. I'm just offering my view. Would you rather I lied? This is a forum.

you simply can't compare the two. yes, i could give more money to charity and yes i could go over to poor countries and help out. i choose not to. that does make me selfish i suppose but being selfish is not the same as being a child killer. i find it absolutely mind boggling that you think buying that extra pint for yourself is the same as clutching a child's throat until she stops breathing. selfishness is human nature, child killing is not.

Mossy Monk wrote:

is there a hidden meaning to this or is it one big contradiction

no you didn't read it right. he meant that they could but they don't

astrofool wrote:

OT, I think its funny how some people think life imprisonment is worse than the death penalty. You don't see American/Chinese/Middle East courts giving the guilty the lesser sentence of dying

this is true. but just because they think it's worse doesn't make them right. I think 40 years of solitary confinement in a dark hole would be far worse than being sent off to sleep. imagine you were put into a dark 6*6 room and told you were only coming out as a skeleton. that would scare the crap out of me.

Fanny Cradock wrote:

The also have the death penalty in America, and non-combatants imprisoned in Cuba at the behest of the Fed Gov - neither of which are acceptable in Europe. Different continents different laws. Besides, I think there are too many bleeding hearts in Europe to allow forced labor.

you were talking about the court of human rights. the UN declaration of human rights is the same for the whole world

i hate the term bleeding hearts. people talk about bleeding hearts until they end up on the wrong end of someone with the same opinion as themselves. then they realise that "bleeding hearts" might have a point.

for example, people who are dead set against stem cell research until the day they find out they have parkinsons.

Actually, I was talking about the European Court of Human Rights. As far as I know (though admittedly I stand to be corrected) this is not subject to any UN control, and as for the "UN declaration of human rights", I never heard of it.

The term "bleeding hearts" may offend or annoy you, however, it's not meant as an insult. It just a way of discribing someone whos viewpoints are as skewed as some hard-nosed "fry 'em all" right winger on the other side of the fence.

Wertz wrote:

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...

It could be that increased prison numbers and increased sentence lengths have no affect on serious crime numbers.

Ickle Magoo wrote:

I say if he wants to die then Huntly should be kept alive.

I don't think that anyone capable of premeditated murder or other violent crime - including violent sexual crime & paedophilia - is capable is rehabilitation.



And if they got a second chance in society after 10yrs in jail & spent it raping & murdering your daughter, you may not feel so liberally minded. Do you really think someone who has committed such a terrible crime can ever be considered "safe"? Would you want them living next door to you & your young family?

Its hardly rational to let the victim's family set the standard for punishment in each case.

If you think about it logically, if you support the death penalty, then you would never use it. "What is he talking about?" I hear you say. Think about it though. If you support the death penalty, then you think it is ok to kill people. So if someone kills someone, you won't see that they have done anything wrong and therefore see no reason to put them death. It makes perfect sense. Those that argue for the death penalty are contradicting themselves. They are basically saying "You killed someone and killing is wrong, so we are going to kill you."

Ok, they may argue that the person that was murdered was innocent. Fair enough. But taking that to the next step, if it is later found that the person that was executed was innocent, then surely the judge, jury and executioner should be put to death for killing an innocent person, if they are going by their own standards and being consistent. But when have you ever heard of a judge, jury and executioner being put to death for killing an innocent person?

oRlyYaRly, If Ian Huntly killed your sister/brother/husband/wife/mother/father/child would you have the same opinion - let him serve 10 years, release him and let him see if he can turn his life around?? Some how i think not.
Your views on poverty are completely off topic here.

My opinion to the original post, let him live (he doesnt want to), let the other prisioners deal with him (no solitary confinement), and when he gets out let whoever wants to deal with him do so!!

give him a break guys, he was only trying to get back together with the woman he loved.

Commander Vimes wrote:

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html


you're saying that a bleeding heart is the left wing equivalent of a "hard-nosed "fry 'em all" right-winger" with "skewed views". sounds fairly insulting to me

bleeding heart is meant to be an offensive term. its similar to "commie pinko bastard"

Thanks for providing the link, Vimes

Unfortunately, you assumed I was talking about something that I actually wasn't, and provided a link to back up your incorrect assumption. I'm uncertain what the UN has to do with anything I was talking about. As for you being insulted by the term "bleeding heart" I sugget you grow some thicker skin because it really isn't that bad a phrase. But if it makes you feel better I apologise for my harsh words.

Jakkass wrote:

I didn't say that he shouldn't be detained, of course he should but he shouldn't be "let" die as other people have said on this thread. He is under heavy sedation and has tried to kill himself on several occaisions. Its obvious that he does genuinely feel guilty for what he has done if he has tried to kill himself. Theres two sides to every story as they say and this is no exception, step into Huntleys shoes see what hes feeling. It is disgusting what he did but when his term is over I hope that he can better himself as a person instead of branding him as "evil". Are we that childish?

Funnily enough, Jackkass, I think we are, in a round about way, singing from the same hymn sheet. I'd like to believe that once a punishment has been served the person, who I assume is now changed for the better, should have the possibility of living out the rest of their life in peace. Yet I'm not sure that this is likely. First off, a person may never change. Secondly, people may never be willing to forgive (especially with something like murder).

In Huntley's case I really can't see what can/ should be done. A sentence for his crimes has been handed down (a just one imo), and he will now find himself in a pretty inhospitable and unsympathetic environment for the next 30 odd years. So in principle I agree with you. I'm just not sure how this is applicable with a crime that the average person finds do abhorrent.

Finally, Trinity1 made a fair point in questioning the motivation behind his suicide attempts. Maybe it's guilt. Maybe it's just pressure.

Fanny Cradock wrote:

Thanks for providing the link, Vimes

Unfortunately, you assumed I was talking about something that I actually wasn't, and provided a link to back up your incorrect assumption. I'm uncertain what the UN has to do with anything I was talking about. As for you being insulted by the term "bleeding heart" I sugget you grow some thicker skin because it really isn't that bad a phrase. But if it makes you feel better I apologise for my harsh words.

well you were talking about the court of human rights so i thought the universal declaration of human rights might have something to do with it. i may be wrong.

the term isn't incredibly offensive in itself, what annoys me about it is that its a way of dismissing someone's point of view without actually proving them wrong. to put it in boards lingo, it's attacking the poster, not the post and besides the fact that its annoying, its against the forum rules

Commander Vimes wrote:

well you were talking about the court of human rights so i thought the universal declaration of human rights might have something to do with it. i may be wrong.

the term isn't incredibly offensive in itself, what annoys me about it is that its a way of dismissing someone's point of view without actually proving them wrong. to put it in boards lingo, it's attacking the poster, not the post and besides the fact that its annoying, its against the forum rules

He was in no way attacking the poster, at all.