The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > The BBQ Pit

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-15-2002, 06:29 PM
Rodd Hill Rodd Hill is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Myra Hindley Dead...And Godd Bloody Riddance!

"Moors Murderer" Myra Hindley died earlier today after a heart attack. She had been in prison since her conviction in 1966 for helping Ian Brady abduct, torture and murder at least 5 children in England. Their victims were buried out on the desolate moors of the Midlands.

I hope she's bloody frying.

http://abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s728235.htm
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 11-15-2002, 06:33 PM
Rodd Hill Rodd Hill is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
The thought of those two murderers has robbed me of the ability to spell "Good Bloody Riddance."
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-15-2002, 06:35 PM
Lobsang Lobsang is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Douglas, Isle of Man
Posts: 18,213
gud bludeey ridense


I saw the news on BBC and thought - "that's good news isn't it? since when did they start reporting good news on TV?"
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-15-2002, 06:42 PM
irishgirl irishgirl is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2001
she was used as a political football for years.
she was sentenced to 15 years.
it's what she should have served.

and i believe she was religious in her final years, so i hope she found the forgiveness she sought.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-15-2002, 06:52 PM
Fenris Fenris is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Sure, Irishgirl: three years served for each child brutally raped, tortured and murdered. Nice to see the value you place on human life.

I sincerely hope that the fundies are right and that there's a hell so this bitch can burn in it forever.

I save my pity for her victims.

Fenris
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-15-2002, 07:22 PM
irishgirl irishgirl is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2001
look, there were reasons the judge made that ruling.

they include the fact that she was an emotionally weak person who was in thrall to brady.

i'm saying that the judge who heard ALL the facts at trial made a ruling, and it should have been upheld.

she was kept in prison because of public opinion, not justice.

and i don't think the judicial system should sentence based on public opinion, ok.

brady, who is insane, and has been unsucessfully trying to starve himself to death for the past 2 years, should, in my opinion be allowed to do so.

i don't pity her fenris, but i choose to believe in the possibility of redemption.
it's what gives me hope for everyday life.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 11-15-2002, 07:58 PM
Gomez Gomez is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: England
Posts: 718
Quote:
they include the fact that she was an emotionally weak person who was in thrall to brady.
That doesn't excuse anything she did in any way, shape or form. Josef Goebbels was enthralled by adolf Hitler but if he hadn't shot himself he would still have undoubtedly been put to death. She deserved far worse than she got.

Quote:
i'm saying that the judge who heard ALL the facts at trial made a ruling, and it should have been upheld.
Not to doubt your word but do you have a cite for this ruling? I would have sworn it was longer than 15 years. 15 years for 5 homicides? In what happy land is this?

Besides, if he'd sentenced her to 2 years suspended and some community service, should that have been upheld? If you are correct and the sentence was extended from 15 years to life I see that as merely correcting a gross error of judgement on behalf of the original judge.

Quote:
she was kept in prison because of public opinion, not justice. And I don't think the judicial system should sentence based on public opinion, ok.
Any system of 'justice' which lets a quintuple child killer off with anything less than life without parole cannot be accurately termed a system of Justice, IMO.

Even if you are correct and the original ruling was 15 years, and even if you can convince me that it is somehow morally wrong to ensure that a sadistic, soulless child murderer spends the rest of her worthless, inutile life behind bars, I still contend that preserving the British Publics faith in the judicial system (which would have been shattered by her release) made her continued imprisonment worth it.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 11-15-2002, 08:27 PM
Monty Monty is offline
Straight Dope Science Advisory Board
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Beijing, China
Posts: 17,677
So, irishgirl, you're saying that the lady who had a mental defect shouldn't have died, but the guy who has a mental defect should?
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 11-15-2002, 08:31 PM
everton everton is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
I expected there to be a thread about this, but I didn’t expect it to be started by a Canadian.

The main reason why Hindley stayed in prison so long is precisely as irishgirl has told you – that the tabloid press in the UK have used the case as a marketing tool for themselves since the day she was first convicted. Reactionary and populist politicians have also used the case to suck up to the voters for 36 years.

Nevertheless, the reason why she ought to have served a continuing sentence, in my opinion, is because of her reluctance to assist police with the recovery of the victims’ bodies. Keith Bennett’s body has never been found (in the moors east of Manchester, not in the Midlands as a matter of fact). His mother, Winnie Johnson, still lives near the scene of the crime, but has no place to leave flowers, and will never know where her son’s body is buried now, which I find morally indefensible.

All the same, sentencing policy should always be a matter for the judiciary to determine. If we allow the decision to be made by the public as if it were a phone-in poll to choose the members of a pop group or the survivors of the Big Brother house, then we’re within a whisker of the villagers attacking Frankenstein’s monster with burning torches.

Perhaps I ought to declare an interest, which is that Ian Brady is incarcerated in a high-security hospital in the town where I was brought up. It’s beyond dispute that he was the prime mover behind the appalling events between 1963 and ’65. Before formulating your opinion, I suggest you read more about the case instead of relying on a blunt newspaper headline. This is a reasonable short primer.

I have no remorse that Hindley is dead, but I also hope that she genuinely repented, and that any fate she has beyond death is decided by the truth of that. Nevertheless, I know that the families of the victims will never forgive her, and if I was one of them nor would I.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 11-15-2002, 09:23 PM
irishgirl irishgirl is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2001
everton, i agree, she should have told them.
but she still wouldn't have been released, and we both know it.
because the home secretary is an elected official, and keeping her in prison won votes.
so she kept the only power she had.

nope. monty, she had a heart attack, i think her time was up.

i just think she shouldn't have been imprisoned for the whole of her life, when the man who judged her case (and aspects of it were NEVER made public) judged that 15 years was sufficient.
he actually sentenced her to life (as is usual in murder cases) but recommended she serve only 15 years.

in the UK life does not mean life, except for myra hindley.


monty, i do think that force-feeding Brady is a cruel and unusual punishment.

the only reason that they can do so is because he has been declared insane, and thus not competent to make medical decisions.

after all, they let the IRA hunger strikers die.

he is NEVER going to be sane.
he CANNOT repent, he CANNOT be rehabilitated.

he will NEVER be allowed to starve to death.

yet, he can, and probably will, continue to refuse food for the remainder of his life.

and he will continue to be strapped to a gurney, sedated and tube fed.

i'm against the death penalty, but i'm against enforced life under those conditions.

because i wouldn't do it to a lab rat.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 11-15-2002, 11:33 PM
Rodd Hill Rodd Hill is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
No, Irishgirl, the judge in 1966 did NOT suggest that she serve 15 years; he sentenced Hindley to two life terms for her involvement in the murder of two children, plus a seven-year term for accessory after the fact for another. He recommended that "Hindley should serve a sentence of imprisonment "for a very long time"." Brady and Hindley were fortunate to miss the death penalty, capital punishment being outlawed in the UK about a month before they were brought to trial.

In 1985 her case was reviewed by the Home Secretary, who ruled that a "tariff" of thirty years was appropriate for her crimes. Two years later, she confessed to participating in two other murders of children. In 1990, another Home Secretary revised her sentence to a "whole life tariff." This was upheld by a Labour Hom Sec in 1997.

And "life means life" for 22 prisoners in the UK, including Rosemary West, Denis Neilsen, and Dr. Harold Shipman.

As for Hindley being merely a tool of Brady, she participated in the abduction, rape, torture and murder of five children in a time period of over a year. Her earlier story of not being directly involved in the killing is belied by the fact that both her and Brady's voices are on the 16-minute tape recording of the rape and strangulation of ten-year old Lesley Ann Downey. Whether or not she later repented makes no difference to the crimes.

There is also the consideration that had the government released her, the likelihood that she would have been killed is extremely high.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 11-16-2002, 01:07 AM
Monty Monty is offline
Straight Dope Science Advisory Board
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Beijing, China
Posts: 17,677
Ah, I get it now. You're completely unfamiliar with both the English language and the concept of Logic.

If your scenario is correct (which I doubt, since you just assert stuff in a rather lame imitation of English): The judge sentenced her to life and his recommendation, NOT an order, to the parole board was that she serve at least 15 years of that sentence before being paroled.

The more likely scenario is the one Rodd just posted.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 11-16-2002, 05:25 AM
RTFirefly RTFirefly is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 26,610
For her role in five particularly abhorrent murders, anything less than life seems insufficient.

Life was her original sentence; it wasn't lengthened by some arbitrary post-conviction decision.

Forgiveness is an issue between her and her God, and possibly between her and the survivors of her victims (although I doubt much forgiveness has been forthcoming there). I'm not up on the the differences that exist between the British and American legal systems, but I can't see that whether or not she has found Jesus is a matter of concern to the Crown.

God's forgiveness, I believe, is available to even "the vilest offender," as the hymn says, but nowhere in the Bible do I see that that it's supposed to be a get-out-of-jail-free card that enables us to bypass the earthly consequences of our decisions. Quite the opposite, IMHO.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 11-16-2002, 05:32 AM
irishgirl irishgirl is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2001
look, monty, i'm sorry.
it was 3 am when i wrote my last post, and i apologise if it wasn't as coherent as it might have been.
but you could have tried to be polite.

i still don't agree with the home secretary's decision, i still don't agree with force-feeding brady, and i have nothing further to add her.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 11-16-2002, 10:15 AM
casdave casdave is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 7,508
First things, a "life sentence" does not necessarily mean life incarceration, it means that the person will be imprisoned, and if granted parole they will be subjected to license terms for the rest of their lives.If they breach any of the terms of that licence they can be returned to prison without any further ado.

Typical licence terms are , not associating with certain persons such as other criminals, keeping out of an area where offences took place, for sex-offenders this can be to stay away from areas where its reasonable for children to be present, not being in possession of firearms or other proscribed articles, and there are many other items that may be part of a licence.

A licence can be applied to any prison term, after release, in the UK and that licence has a stipulated timespan, except for lifers.

The tarriff is the minimum term that a convicted offender will serve before any consideration for release, and that certainly is no right of release, there are many conditions set upon the offender.


Next, elegibility for parole is dependant on many factors, you may be required to complete certain rehabilitation courses, one that I can think of for serious offenders is the Intensive Anger Management course, others include the Sex Offender Treatment Program. For a life prisoner, if your behaviour, and compliance and completion of courses is not satisfactory then, no matter what the tariff, you can stay in prison for the rest of your life.

Most life serving prisoners fail at their first parole application, if there is evidence of other offences, after the initial conviction then parole is extremely unlikely.
In Hindley's case, she was convicted of 3 murders/abductions/rapes at her trial but there was lots of evidence, without bodies, of more killings nowadays it's likely that DNA evidence would have nailed her for those without the need for a corpse, if such techniques had been available.This is prima facie evidence of her lack of co-operation.

It was not until 1987 that she confessed to her part in those second two murders, and even then she was unco-operative in helping find those bodies.IMHO the only reason that she helped to try find those remains when she did, was in the hope of parole, rather than any remorse for the families of the victims, this does not strike me as being compliant, a condition of acceptance for parole.

In the end of it all, the law is for the protection of citizens, and if those citizens do not feel that the law is doing this, they will find politicians who will.
We the public hold our politicians responsible for decisions taken, we have no direct way of doing this with judges, so when it comes to a decision like the release of evil persons it seems right that those who can be held to account, are the ones who should make the decisions.

The idea that Hindley was merely an instrument of Brady is an insult to the intelligence, without her presence it is pretty reasonable to imagine that Brady could have never committed those offences, it was Hindley who alone bore the responsibility for luring the victims toward Brady, her role was absolutely crucial and her sentence reflected that.

If I had the option I'd force feed the likes of Brady all right, a few cupfuls of bleach would be good enough him!!
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 11-16-2002, 10:30 AM
Monty Monty is offline
Straight Dope Science Advisory Board
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Beijing, China
Posts: 17,677
Quote:
Originally posted by irishgirl
look, monty, i'm sorry.
Dubious.

Quote:
it was 3 am when i wrote my last post, and i apologise if it wasn't as coherent as it might have been.
So what's your excuse for the latest illiteracy?

Quote:
but you could have tried to be polite.
I have no patience for stupidity.

Quote:
i still don't agree with the home secretary's decision, i still don't agree with force-feeding brady, and i have nothing further to add her.
Actually, you had nothing to add in the beginning.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 11-16-2002, 10:41 AM
Typo Negative Typo Negative is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Quote:
Originally posted by irishgirl
they include the fact that she was an emotionally weak person who was in thrall to brady.

i'm saying that the judge who heard ALL the facts at trial made a ruling, and it should have been upheld.

Ya know, all defendents who are caught pretty much red handed wail about their emotional weakness, the influence of others, and, of course, terrible childhoods. It should be recognized for the shallow and manipulative game that is.

Even if she was weak and in thrall to Brady, she is still responsible for what she did.

Quote:
Hindley and her then-companion Ian Brady, 64, were jailed for life in 1966 for the sexual abuse, torture and murder of three youngsters whose bodies were buried on Saddleworth Moor, near Manchester in northern England.
Unless this reporter got his facts wrong, the judge that heard ALL the facts fully intended for this woman to die in prison and sentenced her accordingly.

I am in agreement with the poster who said that she got far better than she deserved.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 11-16-2002, 11:24 AM
everton everton is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
So much confusion remains in this thread.
Quote:
Originally posted by RTFirefly
For her role in five particularly abhorrent murders, anything less than life seems insufficient.

Life was her original sentence; it wasn't lengthened by some arbitrary post-conviction decision.
With respect, you don’t know what her role was in the murders and an “arbitrary post-conviction decision” is precisely what did keep her in jail for so long.

Under English Law, the trial judge and the Lord Chief Justice (a state lawyer, not a politician) recommend a minimum term of imprisonment, after which a prisoner can apply for parole. It is open to the Home Secretary to override the recommendation and apply a longer sentence if he/she wishes. This power has been removed from the equivalent legal systems in Scotland and Northern Ireland on the grounds that it is breach of the Human Rights Act, which came into practice in the UK in 2000.

There is currently a Bill under consideration in the House of Lords that is intended to prevent politicians meddling in sentencing policy in England too, and it seems certain to be passed.

In Hindley’s case, the trial judge imposed a life sentence (which does not imply “whole life” in English law) and no time limit was imposed until 1985, when the Lord Chief Justice recommended 25 years (i.e. a further six years). That was increased to 30 years by a subsequent Home Secretary, and in 1990, the Home Sec changed the sentence to a “whole life” tariff – always fearful of negative public reaction had she been released a matter of months later. Arbitrary and post-conviction.

Numerous lawyers, such as Edward Fitzgerald QC (Hindley’s barrister at her trial) have said that decisions on sentencing tariffs “should be taken openly, publicly and fairly in court by a judge, not secretly and unfairly by a politician who has never heard the case and is subject to all the inevitable pressures of public opinion”. For justice to prevail it is essential to have a separation between the executive and judicial sectors. A politician’s job is to draft legislation; a judge’s job is to apply that legislation to criminal proceedings.

The duration of a “life” sentence for murder has typically meant a period of 30 years in practice. Variations to that, including reductions under parole, should be specified by the judge at the trial and the Lord Chief Justice afterwards. The fact that capital punishment was abolished only recently before the crimes were committed is of no relevance – it was abolished.

The tabloid press in this country have spent 36 years keeping Myra Hindley in the public eye as a malign celebrity. Headlines in today’s tabloids include “The Devil”, “Go To Hell” and “The Final Injustice: She died peacefully” (that last one is simply untrue). Those headlines explain why politicians have refused her parole, not any principle of justice. However, her lack of cooperation with investigators, as casdave and I have already mentioned would be sufficient to refuse her parole if the “life tariff” had not already been imposed. Serious newspapes have also condemned Hindley, but in much more sober and rational terms.

Whether Hindley has genuinely repented of her crimes is the subject of much confusion. Chief Superintendent Geoff Knupfer, the policeman who took her original confession, has said “I think she was a perfectly normal girl prior to meeting Ian Brady. Had she not met IB and fallen in love with him, she would have fallen in love and got married and had a family and been like any other member of the public.” Differing opinions also exist about whether she has shown genuine remorse, or whether she has tried to manipulate the authorities in an attempt to gain her release. It is not disputed that she was never any danger to the public after 1966, which is normally a major consideration in these matters.
Quote:
Originally posted by spooje
Ya know, all defendents who are caught pretty much red handed wail about their emotional weakness, the influence of others, and, of course, terrible childhoods. It should be recognized for the shallow and manipulative game that is.
That’s an excessively broad generalisation. Do you have any qualification for making such a claim?
Quote:
Even if she was weak and in thrall to Brady, she is still responsible for what she did.
It’s self-evidently true that she was responsible for her actions, but nobody contributing to this thread is in a position to say what that responsibility entailed.

The presence of her voice on an audio tape has no bearing whatsoever on her willingness to participate in the crimes themselves – you need a full psychiatric report to determine that in cases where it is disputed, as it was here. I’m certainly not defending Myra Hindley, but I believe that condemning her should be based on valid qualified judgement, not prejudice, false assumptions or gossip.

Overall I find it disturbing that the way a prisoner can be treated should be so dependent on the ignorance of the public and populist political decisions, yet I do believe that there is plenty of just reason for Myra Hindley to have served the sentence that was originally imposed on her - which was not a whole life sentence.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 11-16-2002, 12:13 PM
Fenris Fenris is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Quote:
Originally posted by everton
So much confusion remains in this thread.
Most of it from you and Irishgirl.

With respect, you seem to be missing the point. I don't give a bloody flying fuck about the state of her soul, about her repentance quotient, her deep-rooted need for love for Ian, her mommy's recipe for kippered herring or the size of her bra. None of that is relevant. And you keep bringing it up as though it was.




Quote:
The duration of a “life” sentence for murder has typically meant a period of 30 years in practice. Variations to that, including reductions under parole, should be specified by the judge at the trial and the Lord Chief Justice afterwards. The fact that capital punishment was abolished only recently before the crimes were committed is of no relevance – it was abolished.
So spiffy, you'd double Irishgirl's sentence and say that the value of a child's life is 6 years iinstead of Irishgirl's three year sentence. Wonderful. You seem to have so much compassion and moral outrage for the treatment that child torturers and killers get. I wonder where your sympathy and outrage and compassion for the raped, tortured and murdered victims and their families is?

Quote:
The tabloid press in this country have spent 36 years keeping Myra Hindley in the public eye as a malign celebrity. Headlines in today’s tabloids include “The Devil”, “Go To Hell” and “The Final Injustice: She died peacefully” (that last one is simply untrue). Those headlines explain why politicians have refused her parole, not any principle of justice.


You keep saying that. The point is this fucking bitch raped, tortured and murdered five children. I think "the devil" and "Go to hell" are spectacularly appropriate. And as regards the "She died peacefully" headline, if her death didn't involve, as a start, a torch to the groin, she got off too easily and did die too peacefully.

Why in the world are you so desperately defending this waste of flesh in human form?

Quote:
Whether Hindley has genuinely repented of her crimes is the subject of much confusion. Chief Superintendent Geoff Knupfer, the policeman who took her original confession, has said “I think she was a perfectly normal girl prior to meeting Ian Brady. Had she not met IB and fallen in love with him, she would have fallen in love and got married and had a family and been like any other member of the public.” Differing opinions also exist about whether she has shown genuine remorse, or whether she has tried to manipulate the authorities in an attempt to gain her release. It is not disputed that she was never any danger to the public after 1966, which is normally a major consideration in these matters.
Again, I couldn't care less if her repentance was genuine or not. I don't give a damn if she was in love with Ian Brady. I don't give a fuck if she was a danger to the public or not. She raped, tortured and murdered five children. Part of the reason fora jail sentence is punishment. The only two punishments that are minimally appropriate for raping, torturing and murdering five childeren is either life in prison with no hope of parole or death. Given that this is the UK, death is out of the question.

Why do you place such a low value on a human life? 6 years per child raped, tortured and murdered? And you think that's sufficient? What in hell is wrong with you?

Quote:
It’s self-evidently true that she was responsible for her actions, but nobody contributing to this thread is in a position to say what that responsibility entailed.

I am.

Her responsiblity entailed the brutal torture, rape and murder of five children. Anything further is irrelevant.

Fenris
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 11-16-2002, 12:29 PM
TwistofFate TwistofFate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Fenris, you seem to be blaming Irishgirl and Everton for deficiencies in the British judiciary.

Here is the confusion as I see it.

How long should a "Life" sentence be.

If she was sentenced to 30 years by a judge, then she should be serve 30 years and no more.

the problem here is that she had additional sentences while she was in jail, extending her sentence.



Monty, how dare you. Irishgirl apologised to you. Dosent your religion preach forgiveness, yet when she apoligised to you you still have to continue on the attack? Learn some common decency.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 11-16-2002, 12:32 PM
ruadh ruadh is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Well FWIW, everton, I think yours was the most sensible post in this thread.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 11-16-2002, 12:41 PM
TwistofFate TwistofFate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Quote:
She raped, tortured and murdered five children
Actually, she assisted in the rape, torture and murder of five children. while the difference is negligible to you and me, legally they are different.

You seem to miss the point that everton is trying to make. She would never have been allowed to get parole because fo the public furore that the tabloid press would whip up. "Evil People in Jail" sells papers. Following proper judiciary process means nothing to the tabloid press. And any minister that supported the release of Myra Hindley under the correct terms of the parole system in the UK would be burned at the stake.

Where were the tabloids to help Satpal Ram? nowhere. But you can bet dollars to doughnuts that anything go to do with Hindleys prison case made the papers.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 11-16-2002, 12:44 PM
Fenris Fenris is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Quote:
Originally posted by TwistofFate
Fenris, you seem to be blaming Irishgirl and Everton for deficiencies in the British judiciary.

Here is the confusion as I see it.

How long should a "Life" sentence be.

If she was sentenced to 30 years by a judge, then she should be serve 30 years and no more.

the problem here is that she had additional sentences while she was in jail, extending her sentence.
Two things, Twisty:

1) Part of the "confusion" is that Everton and Irishgirl seem to have the whacked idea that I care about the state of her soul. I don't. That's between her and her God.

2) The other part can be cleared up in part if you could answer a question?

Was adding the additional sentences legal?

I don't care (for the moment) whether it was moral, civilized or nice, just "Was it done within the confines of British law?".

I assume it was, or it would have been overturned.

Thus, I'm fine with it. It shows that the British Judiciary has an error-correcting mechanism and successfully corrected a gross miscarriage of justice by the original idiot judge who has/had no concept of the value of human life. Frankly, if Brits have a way to impeach a judge, I'd think that this asswipe would be a prime candidate for impeachement (and possibly flogging). SIX YEARS PER VICTIM???

If, somehow, a gross violation of British law occurred and she was kept locked up against the law, I'd conceed that it would be troubling in an abstract sense. I don't want the government to have the power to randomly lock up people in a way that's against the law. On the other hand, it certainly resulted justice being done so while I'd be concerned, I wouldn't rise to the level of outrage that some other posters have.

I wonder if Everton and Irishgirl would be complaining so loudly if the original judge had done the just and moral thing and sentenced her to a true life sentence (where she would have died in prison) and a later judge turned around and took time off her sentence?

Fenris
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 11-16-2002, 01:00 PM
everton everton is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Well, at least some people have been paying attention

Fenris:
I’m not saying she should have been released early, I’m saying she should have served her original sentence and that any variation to that should have been a decision for lawyers, psychiatrists and similar dispassionate professionals, not vote hungry politicians, tabloid newspaper editors or Rupert Murdoch.

Nothing I've posted about Myra Hindley has been out of misplaced compassion for her, or a lack of compassion for the kids that were murdered. I have limitless sympathy for them, and their families, as you might have detected from this in my first post.
Quote:
I have no remorse that Hindley is dead, but I also hope that she genuinely repented, and that any fate she has beyond death is decided by the truth of that. Nevertheless, I know that the families of the victims will never forgive her, and if I was one of them nor would I.
I realise my last post was a long one, so you may not have spotted this part:
Quote:
I’m certainly not defending Myra Hindley, but I believe that condemning her should be based on valid qualified judgement, not prejudice, false assumptions or gossip.
I've been trying to correct the errors several people from outside this country have been making about the legal meaning of a "life" sentence in English Law. So remarks like this one:
Quote:
Originally posted by Fenris
So spiffy, you'd double Irishgirl's sentence and say that the value of a child's life is 6 years iinstead of Irishgirl's three year sentence.
are as irrelevant as they are insulting. It's not up to me to decide how long the sentence should have been - it's up to the courts.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 11-16-2002, 01:10 PM
Fenris Fenris is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
And every other court decided that keeping the bitch in jail for life was the correct sentence. And I agree. You keep making this fake charge that "politicians" kept her in jail longer. Bzzzzt. Courts did. Perhaps the courts acted at the behest of the citizens, but guess what? A responsive court system (as long as they act within the bounds of the law) is a good thing.

The fact that the original judge (let's be charitable and simply assume he's an idiot) fucked up and gave her a far-too-short sentence doesn't mean that it's engraved in stone or handed down from heaven. Don't you believe that correcting horrible miscarriges of justice within the law is a good thing?

Why are you obessed with the "original" verdict. The fact that the first judge picked a sentence out of his ass that any moral person would be outraged by isn't made any better because it was the first sentence she got.

The fact that the too-short sentence was handed down first is irrelevant as long as later sentences were imposed legally. And as far as I can tell, they were.

Or should a multiple murderer get off simply because one idiotic judge was presumably drunk on the job?

Fenris
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 11-16-2002, 01:18 PM
TwistofFate TwistofFate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Fenris,

How much is a life worth in the US?

Is every murderer sentenced to the rest of their lives behind bars?

when you start to get into economies of morality personal opinion is the only govenor in the discussion.

I do think that she should have gotten LIFE. But the judge in her case did not rule that. His ruling, regardless of our personal moral opinions of it, was entirely legal within the system and it is up to the correct bodies to review that, not the papers.

That is the point that Everton and Irishgirl are trying to make.

they are not defending Hindley.

They are not saying she should have gotten less time in prison.

they are not putting a yearly value on human life.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 11-16-2002, 01:29 PM
Rube E. Tewesday Rube E. Tewesday is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Um, TwistofFate , what was she sentenced to? I've always understood that she was sentenced to life, and that a life sentence in England means life, subject to the power of the Home Secretary to release on licence. That the Home Secretary, for what seems to me to be very good reasons, did not exercise that power in this case does not strike me as an injustice. Unless I am misunderstanding very badly, she was not sentenced to a set number of years, then kept imprisoned when her legal sentence was up.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 11-16-2002, 01:31 PM
Gomez Gomez is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: England
Posts: 718
Quote:
I’m saying she should have served her original sentence and that any variation to that should have been a decision for lawyers, psychiatrists and similar dispassionate professionals, not vote hungry politicians, tabloid newspaper editors or Rupert Murdoch.
Idiot Judge setences vile child killer to ridiculously light sentence. The press, diligent in its role as a contemporary critic of such things as the judicial system, alerts the British public to this and provokes a change in public opinion. The mistake is corrected via a legal safeguard set up, presumably, for just this sort of thing.

Is this accurate? If so, where is the controversy? Seriously. It's all well and good whining about how the tabloids were only motivated by a desire to shift units but whatever their motives the end result was a correction of a gross error. Who cares who decided it. Frankly, the importance of preserving the publics faith in the judicial system outweighs any moral qualms you may have about the motivations behind her extended incarceration, an extension she fully deserved.

[quote]

Quote:
I have no remorse that Hindley is dead, but I also hope that she genuinely repented, and that any fate she has beyond death is decided by the truth of that.
I don't, however.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 11-16-2002, 01:39 PM
Gomez Gomez is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: England
Posts: 718
Quote:
But the judge in her case did not rule that. His ruling, regardless of our personal moral opinions of it, was entirely legal within the system and it is up to the correct bodies to review that, not the papers.
In other words 'It is not up to the press to criticise the judicial system.' Because that is all they did. They merely criticised. They didn't force the public to change their minds at gunpoint. The public, when made fully aware of her atrocities, were outraged to the point where the sentence was corrected. As Fenris said "A responsive court system (as long as they act within the bounds of the law) is a good thing."
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 11-16-2002, 01:40 PM
Gomez Gomez is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: England
Posts: 718
Ugh, forgot to credit. The post 2 above this one is addressed to everton and the post directly above this one is addressed to Twist of Fate
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 11-16-2002, 01:42 PM
everton everton is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Quote:
Originally posted by Fenris
And every other court decided that keeping the bitch in jail for life was the correct sentence. And I agree. You keep making this fake charge that "politicians" kept her in jail longer. Bzzzzt. Courts did.
Your imagination is working overtime here. A Home Secretary is a politician, not a court. The only times her applications for release were heard came after the expiry of the original sentence; there would have been no point presenting an appeal until then.

The increases in the sentence tariff made by Home Secretaries in this case since 1985 were legal, just as the original sentence was passed lawfully – by a judge who heard the evidence. You have decided that the original sentence must have been wrong (even though you did not hear any evidence) and that the increases in the sentence were to correct the judge’s mistake. That is not correct. The relevant Home Secretaries have never claimed that the original judge made any error of jurisprudence; they did it to avoid a backlash from the tabloids.

I have already told you that I believe her failure to cooperate with the police was sufficient reason to keep her locked up. Your imaginary scenario in which politicians reduced a murder sentence for the sake of public opinion is in the Loch Ness monster category of likelihood, but for what it’s worth – yes I would strongly object.

Quote:
Originally posted by Rube E. Tewesday
Unless I am misunderstanding very badly, she was not sentenced to a set number of years, then kept imprisoned when her legal sentence was up.
Although there was no time limit mentioned in the original sentence, the Lord Chief Justice decided on 25 years in 1985, and that period was increased twice afterwards by Home Secretaries.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 11-16-2002, 01:46 PM
everton everton is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Quote:
Originally posted by Gomez
Idiot Judge setences vile child killer to ridiculously light sentence.
He passed the maximum sentence available. I don't know how many times you want me to say this, but I think it was perfectly just that Myra Hindley was kept in prison until she died.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 11-16-2002, 01:56 PM
Fenris Fenris is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Quote:
Originally posted by TwistofFate
Fenris,

How much is a life worth in the US?

Is every murderer sentenced to the rest of their lives behind bars?
A) Not nearly enough
B) No. But they should be (assuming 1st degree murder)


Quote:
I do think that she should have gotten LIFE. But the judge in her case did not rule that. His ruling, regardless of our personal moral opinions of it, was entirely legal within the system and it is up to the correct bodies to review that, not the papers.

This is where I keep getting annoyed. The correct bodies did do the review. Unless Rupert Murdoch and the London Post, et al have a secret dungeon under their vast media empire where they kept this murderess locked away illegally, the courts did make the decision to overturn or add to the original idiotic ruling from the first judge.

The fact that the press fulfilled it's duty and reported a grotesque miscarrige of justice is a good thing, surely.

Fenris
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 11-16-2002, 01:58 PM
everton everton is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
There are any number of miscarriages of justice that the "super, soaraway Sun" has chosen to ignore. It is a hopelessly unreliable source of right and wrong, especially in legal cases.

If we leave it to the tabloids to decide who goes to prison, who doesn't, and how long they get then we have no justice system at all, and if you think the tabloids don't have any influence over the decisions politicians make (in this case and others) then you're kidding yourself.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 11-16-2002, 02:15 PM
Fenris Fenris is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Quote:
Originally posted by everton

Your imagination is working overtime here. A Home Secretary is a politician, not a court.


And yet, somehow he/they have the power to determine sentences? Without being part of the court? I accept that within the nuances of British Law the Home Secretary, when funtioning as an agent of the court somehow isn't part of the court. but "If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...."

Quote:
The increases in the sentence tariff made by Home Secretaries in this case since 1985 were legal,

Then what's the problem. If it was legal why are you griping about it unless you want her to get off with a sentence of 6 years per murdered child? You've said you don't, so I am at a loss to see what your objection is, unless it's a complaint about a free and independant press.

Quote:

You have decided that the original sentence must have been wrong (even though you did not hear any evidence)

Not "wrong" in the sense of illegal, "wrong" in the sense of immoral, wildly unjust and grossly disproportionate to the crimes she was found guilty of.

She was found guilty of raping, torturing and murdering five children. What more "evidence" do you need?

Quote:
The relevant Home Secretaries have never claimed that the original judge made any error of jurisprudence;

And yet they keep adding to his original sentence.

Quote:
they did it to avoid a backlash from the tabloids.

You keep saying that.

But you've yet to prove that a vigilant press is somehow a menace, especially since, if you're correct, the press managed to stop a horrible murderess from going free early.

Quote:
Although there was no time limit mentioned in the original sentence, the Lord Chief Justice decided on 25 years in 1985, and that period was increased twice afterwards by Home Secretaries.
And...? It was legal, it was moral, it was just. What could your complaint possibly be?


on preview
Quote:
There are any number of miscarriages of justice that the "super, soaraway Sun" has chosen to ignore.
So? Just because one can't correct every wrong, are you saying that one shouldn't correct any wrong?

Quote:
If we leave it to the tabloids to decide who goes to prison, who doesn't, and how long they get
You do have issues with a free press, don't you? Perhaps you should save your anger for the politicians who caved into public pressure, rather than the press for doing it's job well.

But if you did that, I'd have to disagree there too, as I want politicians who are responsive to the public as opposed to aloof, elitist politicians who don't care what their constituants want or need.

So what exactly are you so upset about?

Fenris
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 11-16-2002, 02:37 PM
Rodd Hill Rodd Hill is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
At least nearly all of us agree that it is appropriate that Hindley spent the remainder of her life in jail. There's no question that her case has been used to further other people's careers in the press and parliament; but Britain's Law Lords have reviewed the actions of the various Home Secretaries since 1985, and found them to be lawful, at least according to the official record of the House of Lords:

http://www.parliament.the-stationery...00330/hind.htm

The 1985 decision by the then Home Secretary to impose a tariff of 30 years was based only on her conviction for two murders and accessory in 1966; however, his decision was provisional; she came out in 1987 with new information on her involvement in two other murders which took place prior to those offences for which she was sentenced. This means that the 1985 Hom Sec's provisional tariff was based on ignorance of: i) her participation in two previous murders, and ii) an incomplete knowledge of her participation in three more murders in full awareness of the fate of two earlier victims.

After Hindley made her new confession to police, her lawyers then petitioned the Home Secretary to review her tariff:

Quote:
Through her advisers she asked the Secretary of State to consider her account of her involvement in the five murders under the influence and intimidation of Brady. In this context the Secretary of State was entitled to look at the whole of the available evidence. In deciding on her tariff the Secretary of State was not entitled to increase it as retribution and deterrence for murders of which she had not been convicted. But in deciding what was proper retribution and deterrence for the murders of which she had been convicted he was entitled to take into account that she committed them knowing the fate of Brady's earlier victims. Even if a tariff had been fixed and communicated in 1985, fairness in a public law sense would not have entitled Hindley to rely on the earlier decision taken in ignorance of material facts
(Quote from the above link, bolding mine).

Certainly Everton's point about Britain's tabloid press is well taken; we here in North America have little idea how shrill, exploitative and breathtakingly biased the "SHOCK HORROR" papers can be. Certainly the Home Secretary is a political appointment, and no pol can ever completely ignore the press or public opinion (Jean Cretien notwithstanding); but surely the Law Lords' have nothing to gain in the case?
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 11-16-2002, 02:43 PM
Monty Monty is offline
Straight Dope Science Advisory Board
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Beijing, China
Posts: 17,677
Her freaking original sentence was Life. Life, as in Life. Why are you so unable to comprehend that word, everton & irishgirl?

What you're really arguing is if she should've been paroled. Evidently the original judge had a recommendation. That's another word you two don't have a clue as to its meaning. Recommendation is not order. It's a recommendation. Said recommendation was to consider her for parole after a certain number of years in the gaol. That does not guarantee a parole, but merely consideration for it.

Also evidently, the folks that actually matter in the judicial process in the UK felt that she did not qualify for it and made new recommendations.

And everton: it's stunning that you think that someone occupying a judicial office in the UK system of justice shouldn't be a politician. That shows a new depth of ignorance that is impossible to alleviate in one thread on the SDMB.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 11-16-2002, 02:45 PM
hibernicus hibernicus is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 1,944
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Fenris

And yet, somehow he/they have the power to determine sentences? Without being part of the court?


This, hard as it may be for you to believe, is exactly the problem some people (including me) have with the sequence of events in this case.

This does not mean lack of sympathy with her victims or their families. It does not mean being "soft" on murderers. It means being extremely unhappy that a politician, in his capacity as minister for justice, can override decisions made by the judiciary, without any requirement for openness or due process.

Would you be happy if that were the case in the US, Fenris?
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 11-16-2002, 02:47 PM
TwistofFate TwistofFate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Quote:
Life
Life under the british judicial system means something different to Life under the US judicial system.

Life is generally 15 years before parole.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 11-16-2002, 02:50 PM
Mangetout Mangetout is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: England (where it rains)
Posts: 51,003
Shocking as the murder of children is (if you don't believe how sad things like this have made me, search against my username for 'Bulger' or 'Payne'), I was sickened by today's Daily Mail headlines (I don't buy newspapers, but I saw it) - "the final injustice - she died peacefully" (or words to that effect).

What she did was inexcusable and wicked.
There's no way for justice to make the situation right.
Of course it is unfair that she lived on while her victims lay cold in their graves...

...and yet baying for her blood, hoping that she fries, wailing that she should not have died peacefully and so on - it just seems like another facet of the very same fucked-up human nature in which the original murderous acts were rooted.

She's dead, gone, isn't that enough?
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 11-16-2002, 02:54 PM
hibernicus hibernicus is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 1,944
Quote:
Originally posted by Monty
And everton: it's stunning that you think that someone occupying a judicial office in the UK system of justice shouldn't be a politician. That shows a new depth of ignorance that is impossible to alleviate in one thread on the SDMB.
And in two sentences you show complete ignorance of the UK's justice system and then accuse everton of ignorance of the UK's justice system. Why don't you just leave your foot in your mouth permanently, to save time?

The Home Secretary does not occupy a judicial office. He is an elected member of parliament, appointed by the prime minister to serve as minister for justice.

The Lord Chamberlain on the other hand does occupy a judicial office and also serves on the cabinet.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 11-16-2002, 03:08 PM
Rube E. Tewesday Rube E. Tewesday is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Quote:
Originally posted by TwistofFate


Life under the british judicial system means something different to Life under the US judicial system.

Life is generally 15 years before parole.
TwistofFate , please read Rod Hill's link. Life may generally mean 15 years before parole, but legally it can, and sometimes does, mean life.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 11-16-2002, 03:38 PM
Fenris Fenris is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Quote:
Originally posted by hibernicus

This, hard as it may be for you to believe, is exactly the problem some people (including me) have with the sequence of events in this case.

So you and the other people in this thread are arguing against your legal system? That's not what I've gotten from Irishgirl's posts or Everton's earlier ones.

If everyone agrees that it's wonderful that the murderess spent her dying days in jail then the minister for justice prevented a major miscarrage of justice from occurring and he did so in a competely legal way, right? I truly don't understand what the problem is.


Quote:
It means being extremely unhappy that a politician, in his capacity as minister for justice, can override decisions made by the judiciary, without any requirement for openness or due process.
But from what I've seen, there was due process, and there was openness. To me, "due process" means "within the law". No-one's complained that the Minister for Justice did anything illegal. And "openness"? We're debating it, it wasn't done in a star-chamber behind closed doors, I assume the murderess's lawyer had a chance to speak on her behalf, so how much more open can it be? Are you using these terms differently from how I'm using them? (I'm not being snotty: I've run into difficulties with US/UK terms before! "Two nations seperated by a common tongue" and all that )

Quote:
Would you be happy if that were the case in the US, Fenris?
Frankly, although I'd want more details on the specifics of your system, yes.

I fully support a responsive judicial system which includes judges being elected or easilly impeached/removed. If I could wave a magic wand, I'd make it much easier to impeach, term-limit and/or remove judges up to and including the Supreme Court Justices. I'd love to have a system where there's a maximum term a judge can serve after which he or she is automatically removed unless they can get a supermajority of the popular vote.

Since that's not the case and it's not likely to become the case, a person who's accountable to the public who can overturn a bad decisions within the confines of the law sounds like a remarkably good idea.

I don't like the idea of an entire branch of government being unelected, (mostly) unaccountable* and appointed for life.

Your system seems to have struck a nice balance against judicial abuses.

Fenris

*Judges in the US are almost never impeached or removed. It's virtually impossible to get rid of the bad ones.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 11-16-2002, 03:50 PM
casdave casdave is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 7,508
Just why is it that folk posting here cannot accept that a l"life term" actually has nothing whatsoever to do with the length of imprisonment?

In case anybody is actually reading this please will you note,

A "Life Sentence" relates solely and only to the terms of supervision, convicted prsoners are not sentenced to "life imprisonment" they are sentenced to "life licence" which is a totally differant thing.

The term of imprisonment is a recommendation by the presiding trial judge and this is called the "tariff".
In Hindleys case the tariff was " a very long time".

You will note that " a very long time" is indeterminate, the judge in effect, was handing over control of the length of incarceration to the home sercretary of the day, and to future nome secretaries.
The judge at the original trial made no mistake, there would have been an awareness by that judge how life prisoners were dealt with, and the role the home secretary had to play in this, including the likely attendant politics.
There was no scope for him to vary his sentence, all murderers that are found guilty must be sentenced to "life", judges have no discretion in this matter, they may set a recommended tariff.

The recommended tariff is subject to conditions, which I have already laid out, and since Hindley did not meet those conditions then the home secretary was absolutely right in agreeing with the recommeadations of the parole board, which was not to release her.

She was convicted in 1966 and it was not until 1987 that she admitted her role in other murders, that huge gap in time is quite enough to question her motives behind that confession, it was deemed by the parole board and the home secretary to be a self-inerested move on Hindley's part, and thus not an expression of remorse, and this is an absolute requirement for the start of any parole application, when dealing with convicted murderers.

The European courts have agreed that although, under the terms of the European Convention on Human Rights, that all convicted prisoners have the right to know what the length of their incarceration is going to be, those same Judges have also agreed that there are some offences and offenders whose scope falls so far outside the realms of usual considerations, that overriding public and political issues place such offenders in such an arena that each case can only be taken individually.
The law is a tool to be used for the majority of crimes, but some crimes are so exceptional that they can step beyond those bounds, and Myra Hindley is one of those few cases.

Other cases in the UK about the legal power of the home secretary to intervene in tarriff terms have caused some confusion, mainly in the case of the murder of Jamie Bulger by Jon Venables and Jon Thompson.
Here the home secretary has intervened but has been challenged, and this is largely because he has tried to go against the parole board rulings, and due to the youth of the offenders.

This has been decided to be a case of lesser gravity than Hindley, and the hope of reform is real.

These two cases are fundamentally differant, even though murder was the outcome, for many reasons, such as trying the two boys as adults , and Strasburg does not see them in the same way as Hindley.

The simple fact that must be recognised is that any politician that allowed such as Hindley and Brady their freedom, no matter who made that determination, no matter what country, or political climate, and no matter what legal procedures are, would genuinely be risking losing the consent of the people to be governed, you can call it political, but some crimes take a step beyond the ability of the law to deal with them, this is one of those very few.

Consent by the people to be governed is of such fundamental importance that losing it could never be countenanced.

This may seem a very philosophical point, but think about it, if the people do not believe that authorities are acting in their interest, by keeping such exceptionally evil killers locked up, those authorities would soon be replaced, it would in effect, be a challenge to our nation hood.

There must always be examinations and arguments about which crimes qualify for such unusual treatment, but the Hindleys, Bradys, Neilsons, Sutcliffes and others will always be obvious cases.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 11-16-2002, 04:52 PM
Rube E. Tewesday Rube E. Tewesday is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
[QUOTE]Originally posted by casdave
Just why is it that folk posting here cannot accept that a l"life term" actually has nothing whatsoever to do with the length of imprisonment?

In case anybody is actually reading this please will you note,

A "Life Sentence" relates solely and only to the terms of supervision, convicted prsoners are not sentenced to "life imprisonment" they are sentenced to "life licence" which is a totally differant thing.

Casdave
, you seem like an intelligent and reasonable person, but I would ask you, too, to check out the link that Rod Hill provided. The Law Lords seem to be under the impression that she was sentenced to life imprisonment, and I have a feeling that they know something about the subject.

Cheers,
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 11-16-2002, 05:01 PM
Monty Monty is offline
Straight Dope Science Advisory Board
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Beijing, China
Posts: 17,677
hib:

You are a fool and present yourself as one. The judicial system, as you should know, includes those individuals who make decisions which affect offendors. This might come as a complete surprise to you, what with you being a moron and all, but in the UK, the Home Minister gets to make such a decision from time to time. Also suprising to you, what with you being an unobservant moron, is that in the United States, not only the President but also the Governors get to make such decisions. You see (well, you obviously don't, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't), it's not only judges who get to make judicial decisions.

And I find it laughable that you are unware that Minsiter of Justice is an office that's part of the Justice system.

Okay, maybe you're not ignorant. Maybe you're just stupid.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 11-16-2002, 06:02 PM
Lobsang Lobsang is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Douglas, Isle of Man
Posts: 18,213
This thread sure exploded.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 11-16-2002, 06:02 PM
everton everton is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Quote:
Originally posted by Fenris
So you and the other people in this thread are arguing against your legal system? That's not what I've gotten from Irishgirl's posts or Everton's earlier ones.
With all due respect, Fenris, it’s not my fault if you don’t get it. It’s all too clear that you don’t understand
  • How our legal system works
  • How our political system works
  • How our tabloid press behave, or the relationship they have with the political system
In spite of insulting, and groundless, accusations from you that I don’t care about tortured and murdered kids (or that I care about their murderer more), I’m not “upset”, because I put it down to you not knowing what you’re talking about.

So to try again: I have said, clearly and frequently, that justice is only served when the people that are involved in practicing it, and influencing the course of it, act in the interests of what is right and just. They should be influenced by the facts and by the professional judgement of people who are qualified to make such a judgement.

They should not be influenced by populism, or by press trade wars. Sometimes the right decision is the popular one, sometimes it isn’t. Sometimes people arrive at the right decision by accident, sometimes such a decision is wrong.

The Hindley case may be one where the right outcome was reached by accident; there have been plenty more where the outcome was wrong. I am criticising a procedure that depends upon accidental justice. I am criticising a system which is unfairly and destructively influenced by certain elements of our press – not the press that is interested in investigative journalism, or by correcting judicial errors, but by sales alone. They don’t need to point a gun at anybody’s head – they can make or break a politician’s career easily enough without that, and they do affect the decisions that are made.

Before the Home Secretary makes a decision, he will receive numerous pieces of contrasting advice and can emphasise or ignore whatever he likes – it isn’t done in open court anyway. If he chooses, he can push a controversial case to the bottom of his own agenda so that the justice of it isn’t examined at all. The one thing he will never say (but may very well be the case) is “I made this decision because I was shitting myself about what the tabloids would do to me if I made the other decision”.

If you think accidental justice is OK, well you’re entitled to your opinion, but if you don’t understand what I’m saying (or if you think your ignorance of a foreign system outguns my real-life experience of it) it’s your fault, not mine.

A few examples you might care to look at are:
the Birmingham pub bombing,
the Guildford pub bombing (the film In the Name of the Father was based on this one) and
the Stefan Kiszko case.

These were all cases where innocent men were prosecuted and, therefore, where guilty men walked free. In each case, many years passed during which Home Secretaries prevaricated because the subjects were politically controversial or otherwise distasteful, and where there were perceived to be no votes in overturning the status quo. I think that’s a bad thing.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 11-16-2002, 07:32 PM
Monty Monty is offline
Straight Dope Science Advisory Board
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Beijing, China
Posts: 17,677
Drat. Be so kind as to mentally change "Home Minister" to "Home Secretary." Danke.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 11-16-2002, 07:56 PM
hibernicus hibernicus is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 1,944
Quote:
Originally posted by Monty
hib:

You are a fool and present yourself as one. The judicial system, as you should know, includes those individuals who make decisions which affect offendors. This might come as a complete surprise to you, what with you being a moron and all, but in the UK, the Home Minister gets to make such a decision from time to time. Also suprising to you, what with you being an unobservant moron, is that in the United States, not only the President but also the Governors get to make such decisions. You see (well, you obviously don't, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't), it's not only judges who get to make judicial decisions.

And I find it laughable that you are unware that Minsiter of Justice is an office that's part of the Justice system.

Okay, maybe you're not ignorant. Maybe you're just stupid.
I may be ignorant, and I may be stupid. But I still know the difference between the executive and the judiciary. You, apparently, do not. This makes you either more ignorant or more stupid than I. Take your pick.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:15 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.