“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.
The thought of those two murderers has robbed me of the ability to spell “Good Bloody Riddance.”
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?”
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.
Sure, Irishgirl: three years served for each child brutally raped, tortured and murdered. Nice to see the value you place on human life. :rolleyes:
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!!
Dubious.
So what’s your excuse for the latest illiteracy?
I have no patience for stupidity.
Actually, you had nothing to add in the beginning.
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.
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.
So much confusion remains in this thread.
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.
That’s an excessively broad generalisation. Do you have any qualification for making such a claim?
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.
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.
**
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? :rolleyes:
**
**
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?
**
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?
**
**
I am.
Her responsiblity entailed the brutal torture, rape and murder of five children. Anything further is irrelevant.
Fenris
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.