Yorkshire Ripper

[Royboy39]

Originally Posted by pam1

you watch next will be his biography, then a film and that will pay for his hot shot lawyer.

OK let him write his book..............put a 1000 pound tax on all copies sold to pay for his keep and his appeal.......I am not in favour of raising tax for lost causes, but in this case go for it.

[moon]

Although being a defence lawyer is a well-paid job, I couldn't do it. It wouldn't feel right if I had to stand up and defend someone who could well be guilty and if I knew they were guilty because of the evidence against them I would still have to defend them. What if they were set free for their horrid crime because I was a persuasive lawer? They could walk free and it would be my fault. I just couldn't live with the pressure, lots of money or not.

[West Ender]

When someone takes away another person's most essential Human Right, the right to live, they should forfeit any rights themselves. Anyone who deliberately kills, injures or degrades another human being should be treated as a non-person and treated accordingley, in other words they should receive basic sustenance and shelter and nothing more.

Sutcliffe is yet another example of the way prisoners are better cared for than many of our oldest citizens. There are people who fought for this country in a world war who don't get free, heated accomodation, 3 free meals a day provided, free television and the free advice of lawyers (paid for by you and me) on how to get an even better deal.

[derekgas]

He should have been put to death. If they let him out, either send him to me, and I will 'look after' him, , or lock him in a room full of men hating women.

[emamum]

Originally Posted by derekgas

He should have been put to death. If they let him out, either send him to me, and I will 'look after' him, , or lock him in a room full of men hating women.

you will find a few of them on here.........

[moon]

Yes, not mentioning any names ( Emma) bacause that would be wrong ( wouldn't it Emma!) !!!

[Wynonie Harris]

It's all very well criticising Sutcliffe's lawyer, but it's her job to look for ways to further her client's interests, even though he may be the dregs of humanity. And this wretched government have presented her with the perfect opportunity - the right of a prisoner to have a tariff set on their period of incarceration, enshrined in article 5 of the European Convention of Human Rights which (as I never tire of telling you lot ) was incorporated into British law by this government.

So how is Jacqui Smith, our bold and fearless Home Secretary, going to deal with this? Is she going to have urgent discussions with Gordon about making the Convention, or at least parts of it, inapplicable under British law? No, that would be far too decisive...instead, she's going to come out with puerile drivel like this, "Top of my list of priorities I have to say is not Peter Sutcliffe's rights, it's the rights of those people who were his victims and how we keep this country safe." How we keep this country safe?? Horses and stable doors spring to mind. I despair...

[Eric]

Originally Posted by West Ender

When someone takes away another person's most essential Human Right, the right to live, they should forfeit any rights themselves. Anyone who deliberately kills, injures or degrades another human being should be treated as a non-person and treated accordingley, in other words they should receive basic sustenance and shelter and nothing more.

Sutcliffe is yet another example of the way prisoners are better cared for than many of our oldest citizens. There are people who fought for this country in a world war who don't get free, heated accomodation, 3 free meals a day provided, free television and the free advice of lawyers (paid for by you and me) on how to get an even better deal.

The "non person" argument has been used before, as has labelling certain individuals and groups as sub-human. The KKK labelled blacks as sub humans and then proceded to lynch them ... the Aryan Nations still thinks this is cool. What surprises me, altho after all these years of seeing it I should be immune to the surprise, is how little it takes to turn normal, nice, law abiding people to turn into a howling lynch mob. That pensioners and veterans are poor is a totally different issue. It has nothing to do with civil rights and a lot to do with goverment allowing an obscenely inequitable distribution of the national wealth. Is it your argument that if prisoners were deprived of their civil rights and housed in uncivilised conditions, pensioners and veterans would all of a sudden be better off? I don't be bloody well thinking so.

[West Ender]

Originally Posted by Eric

The "non person" argument has been used before, as has labelling certain individuals and groups as sub-human. The KKK labelled blacks as sub humans and then proceded to lynch them ... the Aryan Nations still thinks this is cool. What surprises me, altho after all these years of seeing it I should be immune to the surprise, is how little it takes to turn normal, nice, law abiding people to turn into a howling lynch mob. That pensioners and veterans are poor is a totally different issue. It has nothing to do with civil rights and a lot to do with goverment allowing an obscenely inequitable distribution of the national wealth. Is it your argument that if prisoners were deprived of their civil rights and housed in uncivilised conditions, pensioners and veterans would all of a sudden be better off? I don't be bloody well thinking so.

No I don't think so either, I'm not so stupid or naive. I simply make the point that more consideration is given to the so-called rights of those who have denied "rights" to others than is given to the rights of more deserving members of society. Should I be castigated for pointing this out?

I am not a subscriber to KKK (or Nazi) thinking in relation to any "sub-human" section of society. Nor am I, in any way, a potential member of a howling lynch mob and I resent the implication that I might be.

[Eric]

Originally Posted by West Ender

No I don't think so either, I'm not so stupid or naive. I simply make the point that more consideration is given to the so-called rights of those who have denied "rights" to others than is given to the rights of more deserving members of society. Should I be castigated for pointing this out?

I am not a subscriber to KKK (or Nazi) thinking in relation to any "sub-human" section of society. Nor am I, in any way, a potential member of a howling lynch mob and I resent the implication that I might be.

Fair enough ... but my argument was a general one, not aimed at individuals, but at a mindset which has wide currency. You must have noticed how little it takes for some people to advocate the return of the death penalty and corporal punishment. And with the last part, I meant to point out that it is illogical to link two different issues in order to legitimize rhetoric. And I don't think rights are "so called"; they are real and they protect all of you. In a sense, they are above or apart from the law. All white juries continually aquitted those who lynched blacks in the American south. They were, however, convicted of violating the civil rights of those they had murdered. I believe that civil rights are an all or nothing thing ... tinker with them and the integrity of the whole democratic system is threatened. If that happens, the scumbags win.

[Boeing Guy]

Instead of a 30 year minimum tarrif, why did the court not issuse 10 Year sentencing for each murder committed (13) and for the sentance to run consecitively, that way he would be able to to be freed in 130 years!

If this man is ever released, I think that someone will find him and kill him. It is all very well talking about Human Rights, how can somebody who has shown scant regard for the live's of others have any rights whatever.

[jaysay]

Originally Posted by Boeing Guy

Instead of a 30 year minimum tarrif, why did the court not issuse 10 Year sentencing for each murder committed (13) and for the sentance to run consecitively, that way he would be able to to be freed in 130 years!

If this man is ever released, I think that someone will find him and kill him. It is all very well talking about Human Rights, how can somebody who has shown scant regard for the live's of others have any rights whatever.

I think your last statement puts it in a nutshell BG, especially people like Sutcliffe. in the old days we would not be having this conversation, he would have been strung up, end of

[grannyclaret]

Originally Posted by Wynonie Harris

It's all very well criticising Sutcliffe's lawyer, but it's her job to look for ways to further her client's interests, even though he may be the dregs of humanity.
..

I dont know how she can sleep at night ,,

[Wynonie Harris]

Originally Posted by grannyclaret

I dont know how she can sleep at night ,,

Neither do I, GC, I certainly couldn't. But lawyers who specialise in spurious "human rights" cases are a fact of life these days. It's up to the government to ensure that there are no loopholes that these people can exploit. Sadly, the government have failed to do this.

[grannyclaret]

I still believe in CAPITAL PUNISHMENT,,,I also think THE BIRCH wouldent go amiss.....