There are plenty of professionals at parole hearings. The probation officers also write risk reports and parole reports every time someone goes up for parole. He will have completed plenty of courses over his time in jail, and the fact he has been in an open jail for 4 years without instance suggests he has proven he is safe to be released, and has potentially been rehabilitated.
Colin Pitchfork: Double Schoolgirl Murderer to be Released | Recalled to Prison
- Thread starter esmufc07
- Start date
The subject was originally around Pitchfork who is currently incarcerated. Rehabilitation is prevalent but not exclusive to inmates so yes, my comments were always focused on those with lost liberty.
Edit: Hopefully the parole board reconsideration mechanism will see that he never steps foot on the green grass of home again! That said, the legal test to turn the decision around is based on procedure or irrational actions during the hearing, not so easy to overturn.
Last edited:
One of the many issues with the penal system. When facing a lifetime in prison, it could be argued that there is an added incentive as to why you would want to show that you are no longer that same person 33 years later, whether you are truly rehabilitated or not.
An old argument but still relevant is that the victims of homicide don't get a second chance at life, the perpetrator has removed their right to life (Universal Declaration on Human Rights) so why should they get a chance of a life outside of prison?
Well, given that you're moving the goalposts rather than accept you were wrong when your statement was pretty categoric, I'll change the subject.
My controversial opinion is that where someone is convicted of such a serious crime *and they admit it*, the option to exit life should be available to them, humanely.
My controversial opinion is that where someone is convicted of such a serious crime *and they admit it*, the option to exit life should be available to them, humanely.
Whatever you need to make you feel better
convicted of such a serious crime *and they admit it*
Regardless of the history of forced confessions?
convicted of such a serious crime *and they admit it*
Regardless of the history of forced confessions?
If people don't believe in the death penalty would they be against chemical castration for these types of crimes? Or any rape for that matter? Would seem like a strong deterrent.
It's all well and good but it requires the perpetrator to take the medication.
That would be purely retributive which is ineffective as a deterrent and would only sate an instinctual part of ourselves. It could be argued that satiation by those means provide little constructive, long term relief of suffering for anyone.
2 bricks would be my preferred method of choice but failing that would people accept a rapist who's allowed to be back on the streets be obligated to have injections whenever they're needed? I'm not sure of the actual time frame of how long the chemicals last but if it's once a month then once a month they have to have the injection or tablet.
Rape is the most heinous of crimes and should be dealt with accordingly. Rape of children is beyond comprehension. As a society we're just too soft in dealing with these types of crimes. And yes, 33 years served is still too soft for the crime he committed . If we have to go one step further and surgically remove testicles then I'm all for it.
It's a reasonable approach and we had a very good discussion on here years ago with respect to child molesters but the reliance on the offender to present for meds or take them presents plenty of risk. A system that took this approach would need a lot of controls in place to mitigate the risk of the offender not presenting for treatment or not refilling the prescriptions (i.e. ankle monitors and follow ups) and even then they simply may not take the medication, which you cannot control. So even with lots of monitoring controls in place, they still have an opportunity to re-offend.
Depends.
If you mean forced castration I would be massively against it. Aside from being unethical medically, that type of punishment is at odds with the nature of a modern legal system, in much the same way that cutting off the hand of a thief is. It would be opening (or rather re-opening) the door to a whole world of unpleasantness. Also, I have no doubt that there are many sex offenders who would still commit crimes having been chemically castrated as it is a psychological issue as much as a physical one. Pretty sure it comes with potentially severe side-effects too and may well drive paroled sex-offenders to go off-grid rather than continue taking the drugs. And even if it doesn't, the side effects may make it more difficult for sex-offenders to re-integrate, which increases the risk of re-offending in itself.
You do see quite a few sex-offenders willing to opt for it voluntarily though, at least as part of trials. Because frankly I'm sure a lot of them would actively like to have the drive that has ruined their lives removed. So if there are cases like that where there is buy-in from the prisoner, it's properly supervised, it doesn't carry undue health risks, it is accompanied by psychological treatment and it is proven to be effective in reducing recidivism then maybe it could be an option as a form of treatment. But then I wonder how expensive all of that would be and whether the taxpayer would want to pay for that rather than just keep them in prison.
As a general rule, I think the current system in the UK of being able to apply a whole life tariff is the most practicable solution.
agree (bold).
He's also had his sentence reduced because he was a model prisoner and took his education to degree level... something those two girls never had the chance to do?
For me, murder is life in prison. I know there are pros and cons but I'll never change my stance on this. I can't get my head round people who talk about second chances, time off for good behaviour and rehabilitation... I remember the Jamie Bulger case vividly and those pair of tw@ts have had chance after chance, anonymity, cost the country a fortune - wrong priorities i.m.o
For me the case against that still boils down to the chance of wrongful convictions being non zero
So I’m still against it
I disagree. The alternative would be to release them back into society, I'm sure that would incur more suffering especially to those directly connected to a case.
A whole-life tariff, introduced in 1983, to ensure the most notorious criminals spend the rest of their days in prison.
Where the offender is 21 or over at the time of the offence and the court takes the view that the murder is so grave that the offender should spend the rest of their life in prison, a 'whole life order' is the appropriate starting point. The early release provisions in section 28 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 will then not apply. Such an order should only be specified where the court considers that the seriousness of the offence is exceptionally high. Such cases include:
a) the murder of two or more persons where each murder involves a substantial degree of premeditation, the abduction of the victim, or sexual or sadistic conduct
Pitchfork would have faced such sentencing if he was tried in recent times.
As for a deterrent, a loss of liberty for life is as strong a message as you can send. The death penalty on the other hand could encourage offenders to take extreme measure to evade capture, further homicides for example.
I know we're talking hypothetically but surely it wouldn't be that hard to control? With a crime as serious as rape then they should be obligated to attend where ever, however often the (new) law stipulates. If they miss an appointment then straight back to jail.
I don't know if I'm imaging it but I seem to remember reading somewhere that sex offenders are one of the highest percentage groups in re-offending. Obviously talking about it on the caf isn't going to solve anything but surely the savagery of the crime should fit the punishment which in many cases doesn't.
A very good friend of mine from London had one of her mates raped in the middle of Kingston last year. She was suffering from depression and turned to drink. Pissed up she started talking to this fella who then proceeded to drag her into a church yard and rape her. The same day he was out on the street claiming she led him on even though there was a witness who called the police. "Not enough evidence to proceed" meant that cnut was given another chance to rape again which he no doubt now has. No mercy should be shown to these cnuts.
On the surface it should be easy. Offender wears an ankle monitor and attends for shots or gets refills from the pharmacy but unless you actually see the person taking the meds you have zero assurance that they are taking them. They could have a cupboard full of filled prescriptions at home, never opened, never consumed.
If you don't include ankle monitors then the offender simply has to go off the grid and good luck finding them.
A legal system just cannot exist on the foundations of the half arsed approach you advocate for. It's far too open to abuse. If you can't remove your emotion from it then you're not ready for the conversation because the concept of justice doesn't have feelings, doesn't care what things should be in your view, doesn't give two shits about what you're for or not for and sometimes it means that if things can't be satisfied, that people go free. That might make you angry, but it's to protect those who could be innocent but would otherwise be found guilty.
It's not controversial.
If I have to choose between life in Alcatraz or death, I'm asking for a last dinner of steak, asparagus and a cyanide reduction.
Maybe this is controversial: sex offenders upon release should be given the option of going to live in some sort of galactic penal colony. No return to Earth. But otherwise they can live normal lives (barring they re-offend on a fellow excon)
Regarding the feelings of the victims and/or their family/friends when it comes to punitive punishments like the death penalty and/or horrible conditions in prison like rape...
My car has been stolen once. If I was the judge and jury whoever stole my car would have been hung, drawn and quartered, with his remains hung at high points all over the Eastern Seaboard. As it should be, my feelings on what the perp should suffer don't go into determining the punishment for car theft.
The state should ensure that criminals don't have the opportunity to prey on further victims. In addition, and financial recompense possible should be extracted from criminals and paid out to the victims or their families. Victims are not owed "revenge".
My car has been stolen once. If I was the judge and jury whoever stole my car would have been hung, drawn and quartered, with his remains hung at high points all over the Eastern Seaboard. As it should be, my feelings on what the perp should suffer don't go into determining the punishment for car theft.
The state should ensure that criminals don't have the opportunity to prey on further victims. In addition, and financial recompense possible should be extracted from criminals and paid out to the victims or their families. Victims are not owed "revenge".
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
It’s absolutely shit but it is also the laws of the land. He’s served his minimum sentence and the parole board have judged him to no longer be a threat to society. I’m torn on cases like this because on the one hand I naturally have empathy for the victims and their families and would like nothing more than scumbags like this to get what’s coming to them. But, on the other hand, I think it’s also important that our justice system is not abused and is not swayed by public emotion and people have a chance to rehabilitate and repent. If you take that function away from the justice system, what you are left with is even more terrifying.
I’ve read a couple of these and the overarching sentiment isn’t that prisoners can’t be rehabilitated, they actually give an insight into why many reoffend and describe structural and systemic reasons as to why that is the case.
I understand where you’re coming from when you say the law works with the belief that criminals can’t be rehabilitated, but I’d argue that is a self fulfilling prophecy. In fact in those books there is also mention of other rehabilitation programs in other countries.
So when you say
What you should really be saying is that is widely accepted in law that the current programs and structures in place are fundamentally flawed, and through incompetency are designed to not rehabilitate and fail one of their main tenets.
You noted two purposes, to deny liberty and to ensure safety of the public. You’ve missed out one.
This is the widely held view, and all those who work directly and indirectly with ex-offenders would not subscribe to your view.
They also released David McGreavy a few years ago. He killed three children and impaled them on railings. Watched a documentary about him a while back. Strange case because apart from him being a bit of an alcoholic and a bad drunk they could never find any real warnings in the past of what was to come or a motive of any sort.
Last edited:
That kind of behaviour always scares me, when there’s none of the warning signs or concerning behaviour beforehand.
To be fair that Scottish criminologist who seems to be in all these documentaries said its extremely rare for it to happen in cases as serious as that one.
I work around ex-offenders and find this statement not to be true. That is just my experience.
I disagree with your interpretation of the rehabilitation literature, although I don't have time to go into detail.
I'm currently observing a few delightful individuals as they lose their own liberty.
Last edited:
I don’t disbelieve you, but I find that sad. Withthe great work my cousin has done as a probation officer, and her constant effort to improve the system, and my own past work with the homeless where there was an overlap, and have personally seen amazing results when we treat people like humans, rather than writing them off. I think those around you are failing them.
Ignoring your perception of the law, and those who work around you, do you believe the people can’t be rehabilitated?
I too have witnessed many that have gone on to lead normal lives, whatever normality is. A pessimistic outlook on rehabilitation possibility derives from the high number of ex-inmates that re-offend. It often makes one sceptical.
Personally, I believe people can be rehabilitated but also there are those that cannot, regardless of the great work from the services around them.
Working with convicted child murders, paedophiles and rapists but also petty criminals convicted of minor shoplifting, trespassing and theft I found that regardless of the crime, the individual is seldomly what you would expect and as such, I always approach with the dim light of hope for a positive outcome.
I can understand and respect the scepticism, especially with those who have worked in these services for a long time. I know it’s easy for me to cast judgement on those who have been there a long time at ground level, and their experiences shape their outlook.
I think in part my experience with fostering has shaped my outlook. It’s soul crushing to see these kids who have been basically fecked, experiencing things no one should at a tender age, and often carrying trauma for life. I know not everyone has some X factor style backstory, yet even when I worked with those living rough, the amount of trauma and mental health issues, a lot that had gone untreated for various reasons, is heartbreaking.
I just know in another world I would have done time, nothing violent, but I have my sins. I’m lucky that having a trade I have some stability, and am a lot less vulnerable than I was 10 years ago. It’s hard sometimes when I’d meet someone with more moral integrity than I, yet they were banned from the street and brushed away by the council.
I guess approaching these situations with the hope of a positive outcome, even if guarded, is all that can be asked.
I wish sometimes I had more agency. I guess in part you were right, while those I had direct contact had an earnest intention to help, we’d often be hamstrung by the council or law enforcement. It was certainly a black and white case them.
Disgusted this POS is being released. Should have been hanged.
Can only hope justice will be served on the outside.
Can only hope justice will be served on the outside.
While I can understand the sentiment, I think vigilante justice is usually pretty flawed. They can cause a lot of chaos
I'm a little alarmed to read that he now lives in our hometown. That was a truly wicked crime, the three children were siblings and very young.
There was one that I was familiar with as he was from the same town; he was in a Limerick jail but was released.
Off he went to London and within months he'd killed a young Canadian woman there so the Brits got to host him in their jail for years.
I hope he's still in. He was a bad egg imo that no amount of talking to would sort out his mental issues.
Last edited:
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
This is going to end well. Nobody can predict what will happen next.
Seems an odd decision, given his rap sheet. Bit more detail in the Sky version of the story.
https://news.sky.com/story/colin-pi...-after-spending-33-years-behind-bars-12396518
He really needs to be banned from using the internet. That wasn't around when he went to prison, and it would be a mistake for him to have access. However, I doubt very much that there's any way that could ever be enforced.