Ian Huntley

[SMEE]

So...Ian Huntley is to sue the prison service for injuries incurred under their care. He is apparently suing for ?100 000 for having his throat slashed. It is likely to cost tax payer ?1m for his legal aid.

Whats your views on this?

[tm4tj]

I saw this headline in a paper this morning when I was along at the shop. Not a lot of headlines make me think twice, but to be honest this one turned my stomach. I would imagine there is a queue to slash his throat and I would happily join it. Make no mistake, this guy is a cold blooded and pre-meditated killer of young children and it makes my blood boil to hear this. Off with his head I say.

Rant over, but that is my view.

[SMEE]

Well...i had originally put in my post that my own personal prefference would be to pay someone ?10k to do the job properly, for once and for all....but decided to leave it out for fear of it being viewed as distasteful

[Renegade]

Why does he need money? He isn't going to be released, thus can't spend any of it!

[Johnboy]

If ever there was a case for euthenasia in jail, this has to be it. He has tried to take his own life on a couple of occasions - as Mannie says, other inmates are virtually queing up to slash his throat, and finish him off.

He he wants to end his own life, he should be encouraged to do so, and save the tax payer quite a bit of money in the long run.

[SMEE]

If ever there was a case for euthenasia in jail, this has to be it. He has tried to take his own life on a couple of occasions - as Mannie says, other inmates are virtually queing up to slash his throat, and finish him off.

He he wants to end his own life, he should be encouraged to do so, and save the tax payer quite a bit of money in the long run.

Totally agree JB!!

[+DoofersDad]

When there are so many genuinely needy folk in society I think it awful that money should be squandered in this way. To me, the purpose of prison is not so much for punishment as rehabilitation. The loss of freedom should be punishment enough and therefore the value of public money should be to rehabilitate prisoners and help them to become useful members of society. With that aim in mind I think the Government does have a responsibility to care for the welfare of prisoners but the right of prisoners to be protected from others should not extend to screwing compensation out of long suffering taxpayers.

Of course, there are some prisoners whose crimes are such that you feel they can never be rehabilitated or even if they could be, society would never feel safe if they were released. So why do we pay all this money to keep them behind bars? This is why I am in favour of the death penalty. If you accept that Huntly should never be released then whose interests are best served by keeping him in jail at great expense? Certainly not the taxpayers and certainly not his if it means he is in constant fear of violent retribution. In my view a humane execution is the best solution.

[Renegade]

On the death penalty, I agree with Mayor Bloomberg -

[starchief]

Stefan Kiszko, the Guildford 4, the Birmingham 6 etc etc would all be dead by now in that case. That's my biggest objection to capital punishment. Kiszko, for a start, admitted the crime. There was no doubt he killed and raped someone...then, 16 years later, he was released when new evidence showed that was physically impossible. He was a fantasist that couldn't distinguish between reality and tv/newspaper reports. The Birmingham Six judge publicly stated he would hang them if he had the authority. As they had firm forensic evidence (or so they thought at the time), no-one doubted their guilt until years later. How can a state live with killing an innocent man because it's cheaper to execute than jail?

There's also other things like burden of proof being higher, so more guilty people go free or get a reduced charge ("Are you sure he's guilty?" Yes! "Sure enough that your decision will mean his death?" Um...) I don't go for the deterrent argument as 1. it doesn't seem to deter anyone in other countries and 2. I don't think it'll stop people like Huntley who don't think of the consequences.

That said, should he get any money? Nope. Prison, given that it's full of criminals, is inheritantly dangerous. An attack just means that the prison can learn some lessons for next time. While you're in there, no rights and no compensation. It should be a harsh place where non-lifers can come to the decision that life on the outside, no matter how difficult it is to find a job/house/whatever, is much better than being inside. At the moment, it's a 24-hour factory. Boring, but not exactly fear-filled terror that ensures those inside will do anything but re-offend.

[Renegade]

It's interesting to note, that the country with the lowest number of murders in the world is Norway. They have no life sentence. Their prison system also seems to work, as this video shows -

[SMEE]

I am a hard liner...i believe if you are sent to prison, you should lose all your rights. Prison should be a harsh lesson...not about rehabilitation. There are too many goody two shoes who will make excuses and pander to these sort of scum that we lock away. Until such times....we will have lots of reoffenders, coz lets face it...prison isnt so bad!

I like the Chinese system.....they even used to charge the condemmed the price of the bullet used to execute em. I bet if we followed their lead there would be a lot less crime and reoffenders in our country.

[Yngwie]

I like the Chinese system.....they even used to charge the condemmed the price of the bullet used to execute em. I bet if we followed their lead there would be a lot less crime and reoffenders in our country.

Execution is certainly a very effective means of preventing reoffending!

[TopSix]

Are murder rates lower in states which use the dealth penalty?

[starchief]

Nope. Far lower in states without the Death Penalty (42% less murder rate in fact on the 2007 figures). You could argue about the demographics as much as 'no deterrent but lower conviction rates' that I've outlined above.

One thing's for sure: states with the Death Penalty have executed innocent men. Horrific, unjust and lets the real murderer away with little chance of reopening a case.

[dan_ict]

The death penalty is to good for this guy simply beacause you feel no pain. He should be put in a bear enclosure. Lets see if he can kill a bear instead of two young girls

[BA]

Only problem I have with this is whoever it was didn't do the job properly and kill the *******. I tend to agree with SMEE on this, as soon as you go to prison you should lose all rights and I'm also from the school of Eye for an Eye, and think the death penalty should be used in this country.

[Renegade]

Stefan Kiszko, the Guildford 4, the Birmingham 6 etc etc would all be dead by now in that case. That's my biggest objection to capital punishment. Kiszko, for a start, admitted the crime. There was no doubt he killed and raped someone...then, 16 years later, he was released when new evidence showed that was physically impossible. He was a fantasist that couldn't distinguish between reality and tv/newspaper reports. The Birmingham Six judge publicly stated he would hang them if he had the authority. As they had firm forensic evidence (or so they thought at the time), no-one doubted their guilt until years later. How can a state live with killing an innocent man because it's cheaper to execute than jail?

There's also other things like burden of proof being higher, so more guilty people go free or get a reduced charge ("Are you sure he's guilty?" Yes! "Sure enough that your decision will mean his death?" Um...) I don't go for the deterrent argument as 1. it doesn't seem to deter anyone in other countries and 2. I don't think it'll stop people like Huntley who don't think of the consequences.

That said, should he get any money? Nope. Prison, given that it's full of criminals, is inheritantly dangerous. An attack just means that the prison can learn some lessons for next time. While you're in there, no rights and no compensation. It should be a harsh place where non-lifers can come to the decision that life on the outside, no matter how difficult it is to find a job/house/whatever, is much better than being inside. At the moment, it's a 24-hour factory. Boring, but not exactly fear-filled terror that ensures those inside will do anything but re-offend.

That's the deciding factor for me. Whilst it is the case that some terrible, evil human beings like Huntley don't deserve to live, if you have a death penalty, no matter how much evidence you have for every case, you will one day make a mistake, and studies have shown that mistakes have been made. I'd rather keep as many true murderers alive than to one day kill an innocent person.

[VIVA LAS TOKLEY]

I agree with SMEE in some respects. Prison should be hard time, with a loss of rights. The only thing they seem to lose these days is there freedom. SKY TV, games consoles in cells, 3 hot meals a day, A warm clean centrally heated room. Some of them have a better standard of living on the inside than some people who have never comitted an offence have living on the bread line.

The thing that gets me the most though is why in this country does the criminal end up with more rights than the victim?

Capital punishment is a whole other can of worms. I can see both sides of the argument but come down on the side of thinking in some circumstances like Huntley it would be the best option. Apart from his compensation claims and legal aid, just how much does it cost the UK taxpayer per week to keep him in jail?

[KingBeastie]

They should just let the the other prisoners get hold of him.

I'm sure the resulting 'enquiry' (there seems to be an enquiry about everything these days) will end up being cheaper than any court case, nevermind the cost of keeping him in prison. He deserves to die, and not in a pleasant way.

[Scotty]

I agree with SMEE in some respects. Prison should be hard time, with a loss of rights. The only thing they seem to lose these days is there freedom. SKY TV, games consoles in cells, 3 hot meals a day, A warm clean centrally heated room. Some of them have a better standard of living on the inside than some people who have never comitted an offence have living on the bread line.

The thing that gets me the most though is why in this country does the criminal end up with more rights than the victim?

Capital punishment is a whole other can of worms. I can see both sides of the argument but come down on the side of thinking in some circumstances like Huntley it would be the best option. Apart from his compensation claims and legal aid, just how much does it cost the UK taxpayer per week to keep him in jail?

We need Sheriff Joe !!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio

http://www.sheriffjoe.org

[mainstander]

He is apparently suing for £100 000 for having his throat slashed.

Maybe somebody should sue the clown who botched the job - for neglagence!

God its a prison and you cant get somebody to comit a murder properly. They could have saved the taxpayer thousands over the years.

"Bunch of criminals in 'ere" as Norman Stanly Fletcher once said.

Edited August 31, 2010 by mainstander