Another monster to be released

[houseboy]

A 70 year old could still overpower a child.

True but they'd have to catch them first. Seriously though, despite what many think about these decisions, and I absolutely think he should never get out, if release is an option then the people making these decisions, however wrong we may think they are, are highly qualified, intelligent people who have more than a little experience in these matters. I don't remember much about the whole affair to be honest but my guess is that though he may have done this dreadful act if he is not a paedophile (which is incurable as it is not a choice it is a sexual orientation just like being straight or gay) then there may well be a case for him being no danger.

This of course does not alter the basic fact that most people think he should never get out whether he is a danger or not, what he did alone deserves no release.

[claretonthecoast1882]

Be a shame if he is found within a week impaled on a spike

[claret59]

There are some prisoners in our prisons who can never be released as they are a constant danger to society. So there is a precedent for 'life' to mean life'
Some crimes are so manifestly awful that surely a parole board can never be sure that if the same circumstances were to arise again then a particular prisoner could re-act in the same way. One can easily foresee that alcohol abuse may give rise to a similar outcome. I obviously know little of this case other than what is being portrayed in headlines but having committed these horrific murders he does not seem to have made any attempt to 'cover his tracks' which suggests a murderous recklessness that makes it ever more likely that a repeat will occur.

[Chobulous]

There are some prisoners in our prisons who can never be released as they are a constant danger to society. So there is a precedent for 'life' to mean life'
Some crimes are so manifestly awful that surely a parole board can never be sure that if the same circumstances were to arise again then a particular prisoner could re-act in the same way. One can easily foresee that alcohol abuse may give rise to a similar outcome. I obviously know little of this case other than what is being portrayed in headlines but having committed these horrific murders he does not seem to have made any attempt to 'cover his tracks' which suggests a murderous recklessness that makes it ever more likely that a repeat will occur.

I take the view that in crimes of this nature there should be 3 aspects to the length of sentence. Firstly to immediately protect the public from a violent criminal, secondly to attempt to rehabilitate the offender and thirdly for the offender to make restitution to society, the punishment aspect if you like. The third aspect should only kick in when the authorities are satisfied that the first 2 have been met. If the parole board are saying that this person has fulfilled the first 2 criteria he should start from this point on the 3rd ie his punishment phase. Hopefully for the rest of his life.

[biggles]

Like it or not these evil monsters are still human, and you can't have human rights applied selectively, otherwise they wouldn't be human rights.

Perhaps you should engage your brain a little bit more into trying to understand the points being made.

and you are still supporting a system that allows monsters like this to be released. perhaps the system should be changed to allow crimes such as this one to be considered special cases where more appropriate rules apply. i dont think liberals ever consider real human nature and the pure evil that some humans are capable of when they call for human rights. idiots like you spout such drivel as 'it's the law so it must be right' and that's that; laws can be changed, and the law is an ass. where humans are concerned, in all their civility and barbarism you simply cannot employ 'blanket coverage' when introducing new laws; there have to be exceptions.
have you bloody liberals ever admitted you made a mistake? unlikely. sometimes you lot go too far and others have to suffer the consequences.

[Imploding Turtle]

and you are still supporting a system that allows monsters like this to be released. perhaps the system should be changed to allow crimes such as this one to be considered special cases where more appropriate rules apply. i dont think liberals ever consider real human nature and the pure evil that some humans are capable of when they call for human rights. idiots like you spout such drivel as 'it's the law so it must be right' and that's that; laws can be changed, and the law is an ass. where humans are concerned, in all their civility and barbarism you simply cannot employ 'blanket coverage' when introducing new laws; there have to be exceptions.
have you bloody liberals ever admitted you made a mistake? unlikely. sometimes you lot go too far and others have to suffer the consequences.

Your complaint that liberals don't think that there should be special cases where more appropriate rules apply is ironic since it's exactly my position that each case should be considered solely on its own merits. But you're the one saying that there should be a blanket punishment for certain crimes.

This country is little more than a group of people who have decided on a set of laws, and we as a group have decided that the rule of law is more important than the rule of emotions. Meaning we have decided to be as objective as humanely possible when it comes to having those laws enforced, and a part of those laws is that we have also decided that we shouldn't incarcerate people beyond their sentence if we have decided that they are no longer a significant threat to society. And we task professionals with deciding that on our behalf. They decide to grant and deny parole all the time without our interference, merely our oversight, and this is no different.

I don't like it any more than you that he's being released, and i wouldn't want to be living anywhere near him, but that's an emotional opinion and not one that's compatible with our laws, and we can't have it where we over-ride objectively written laws based on emotion because how do you objectively decide to apply the law based on the emotional resonance of a crime?

In this case I don't like the outcome provided by our laws any more than you do, but I understand that this is the price we pay for having those laws. The objective application of our laws that make sure that people who i think deserve a second chance in society get that second chance means that occasionally someone else will get a second chance that i'd rather they hadn't got.

The application of our laws should be as free of emotion as possible, even (and especially) when we really want to let our emotions make the decisions.