Joanna Dennehy: serial killer

[bnm]

Of course he doesn't know what it's like to have the cell door closed at night but as he's seen inside a working prison which is virtually impossible to most people he has seen something of the excellent conditions.

And I've seen the inside of seven prisons. Not one would I describe as excellent.

 

[Johnuk123]

And I've seen the inside of seven prisons. Not one would I describe as excellent.

I've worked in several and visited the majority of the others, the conditions I describe are specifically High Security and I can assure you compared to overseas prisons they are excellent.

Which prisons are you talking about ?

Excellent for a prison doesn't mean it's the Ritz.

Just had a look back at your earlier post and I see you've been in mainly Victorian prisons and Leyhill which even you must admit is not really a prison.

Victorian places like Leeds and Bristol aren't excellent I agree but as I say I'm talking about Dispersals and they're a different kettle of fish.

 

[sutty]

Wading in here kinda late, but I've read every single post. How would people react to a death sentence where proof cannot be refuted? I'm talking about video evidence or an admission not under duress. That invalidates the point some have raised about getting the wrong person.

Secondly - what's wrong with revenge? If you (as an example) had your child murdered, you'd want that person to breathe for a moment longer? You can't answer that without being disingenuous.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Secondly - what's wrong with revenge? If you (as an example) had your child murdered, you'd want that person to breathe for a moment longer? You can't answer that without being disingenuous.

I've never been in that situation, but I hope I could be as strong as Scarlett Lewis, who forgave the person who shot her son at Sandy Hook, Mary Johnson who forgave and now supports the person who shot her 20 year old son in 1993 or Andy Grosmaire who forgave the killer of his 19 year old daughter, to give only three of many examples.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

or an admission not under duress

Confessions are very unreliable evidence. Lots of innocent people who have been put through the trauma of accusations, interrogations, cross examination and prison have in the end "confessed" to something they actually didn't do.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Some crimes are what are termed "hate" crimes and an example was that of 20 year old Sophie Lancaster who was killed by blows and kicks from a group of 15 year old boys for no other reason than "she looked different".

 

[Oswyntail]

.....Secondly - what's wrong with revenge? If you (as an example) had your child murdered, you'd want that person to breathe for a moment longer? You can't answer that without being disingenuous.

None of my children has been murdered, but I have a child who has been massively psychologically damaged by someone else, and another who has been hospitalised by a bunch of thugs. In both cases I feel the almost physical need for revenge, to go and do to the perpetrators what they did to my loved ones, or worse. But I don't, because, in a civilised society, that is one of the basic rules, without which there would be little but mayhem. If I were allowed revenge, then the friends and families of my victims would feel they were allowed revenge on me - and so it would go on. And all for an act that, to be honest would bring a momentary flicker of gratification followed by a lifetime of self-questioning, and would not undo the harm done to my children.

 

[gordonthemoron]

Walter Mitty types can confess to crimes which they did not commit

 

[SS4]

Some crimes are what are termed "hate" crimes and an example was that of 20 year old Sophie Lancaster who was killed by blows and kicks from a group of 15 year old boys for no other reason than "she looked different".

I'm not sure how that fits into the thread? Sadly your example was not a hate crime as subculture was not a reason back then and remains the case outside Greater Manchester

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I'm not sure how that fits into the thread? Sadly your example was not a hate crime as subculture was not a reason back then and remains the case outside Greater Manchester

The Judge in his summing-up referred to it as a hate crime.

 

[meridian2]

Execution is State condoned killing. Murder is when it is done without State approval. Someone who executes someone cannot be a criminal for that act. In this woman's case there is no justification for what she did but there is no reason for us to sink to her level
.

You see it as 'sinking to her level'. I see it that we would be sending out a message to the world that the jurisprudence system in the UK is not the pushover it almost always is. These liberal views are part of the reason that our system of jurisprudence is in such a mess. Criminals get banged up in a taxpayer-funded prison where they get more luxuries than I do and half the time, they get paroled far sooner than their original sentencing! Then recently, we had an appeal on 'whole life sentences' and how they are somehow inhumane! It makes me want to weep sometimes.
You see 'State condoned killing'; I see an effective justice system doing exactly what it says on the tin.

 

[Oswyntail]

...You see 'State condoned killing'; I see an effective justice system doing exactly what it says on the tin.

And I see a descent into barbarism. Was the justice system really more effective with a death penalty, or corporal punishment? Figures, someone, please.

 

[455driver]

In cases such as this woman and those 2 that hacked Lee Rigby to death the death penalty should be used.
There is no way it is "the wrong people" and there is no way on Earth that these 3 will ever be any use to society so me being environmentally friendly say lets save some oxygen and get rid of them once and for all!

Everything has a cost and if the costs outweigh the benefits then it is a waste of money, rehabilitating these people will cost thousands for very little (if any) benefit and so is a waste of money and also a waste of lots of peoples time.

If anyone thinks they can be repaired (lets be honest they are very broken indeed) then fine move them into your spare room and get on with it!

 

[cjp]

!

Everything has a cost and if the costs outweigh the benefits then it is a waste of money, rehabilitating these people will cost thousands for very little (if any) benefit and so is a waste of money and also a waste of lots of peoples time.

!

Ah someone getting back to the point in my first post - thank you for that.

And Sutty made the valid point about being people seen on video and admitting it such they they ought not to be released.

 

[GatwickDepress]

A lot of people seem to think that the death penalty simply requires an auto-injector and some rat poison. Factor in the administrative costs, construction of a dedicated facility, the staffing, all the requisite testing of equipment and chemicals, legal proceedings and appeals, the inevitable EU Court of Human Rights intervention... then when the first execution happens, the cost of policing the inevitable protests and demonstrations...

I'd rather see the those that can't be reformed left to stew in a prison cell than having a quick death. Imprisonment (to me) is a symbol of defeat, whereas execution; death is freedom, a release.

As for the Lee Rigby murderers, would executing them cause them to be exalted as martyrs by some religious extremists?

 

[Johnuk123]

When the death penalty was abolished the idea was that a full proper life term would be served instead for murder.

Of course due to Liberal interference it was very soon watered down till now you can get life and serve single figure sentences. So the British public were conned good and proper.

Remember just as Labour gave the IRA an amnesty there is no reason why a future Government of any type won't reverse even the rare whole life sentences and release Joanna Dennehy for instance after 20 odd years. Or more likely Europe as it tends to do will interfere and force her release.

I have often thought that when a criminal is at the point of sentence and gets 20/30 years or more he should be offered the death penalty as an alternative.
Loads of prisoners would definitely take it on the day I know that for a fact.
Nobody would be able to argue it was inhumane or barbaric as it was the weapon of choice.

 

[radamfi]

I'd rather see the those that can't be reformed left to stew in a prison cell than having a quick death. Imprisonment (to me) is a symbol of defeat, whereas execution; death is freedom, a release.

Oh yes, if I had a choice of 10 years in jail or pain-free death, I would definitely take death. In America, some prisoners facing the death penalty waive all their appeal opportunities in order to get a 'fast track' death. So they are really enjoying voluntary euthanasia, denied to most people in the world. Even in countries where euthanasia is legal, it is restricted to those with terminal illnesses. Almost all people in the world have to endure a natural death, which may be very painful.

As for the Lee Rigby murderers, would executing them cause them to be exalted as martyrs by some religious extremists?

Didn't they plan to be shot dead when they committed the crime? The fact that they survived the shooting meant that their plan had gone wrong.

Hundreds of people get murdered in the UK each year. Some murders like the Lee Rigby case get blanket coverage, whereas many others get a few seconds mention on regional TV news. A teenager stabbed in a south London estate is not as newsworthy as the death of a serviceman.

 

[bnm]

Loads of prisoners would definitely take it on the day I know that for a fact.

That is supposition on your part. Very different from fact. Unless you have empirical evidence which confirms the supposition.

 

[TheKnightWho]

When the death penalty was abolished the idea was that a full proper life term would be served instead for murder.

Of course due to Liberal interference it was very soon watered down till now you can get life and serve single figure sentences. So the British public were conned good and proper.

Remember just as Labour gave the IRA an amnesty there is no reason why a future Government of any type won't reverse even the rare whole life sentences and release Joanna Dennehy for instance after 20 odd years. Or more likely Europe as it tends to do will interfere and force her release.

I have often thought that when a criminal is at the point of sentence and gets 20/30 years or more he should be offered the death penalty as an alternative.
Loads of prisoners would definitely take it on the day I know that for a fact.
Nobody would be able to argue it was inhumane or barbaric as it was the weapon of choice.

Yeah, we evil liberals are just out to con you. We're all plotting the downfall of society, don't you know? Bloody hell... The only reason the ECHR ever gets involved is if people are having their rights violated. Fun fact: its constitution was written almost entirely by British lawyers sanctioned by Churchill, as he saw it as a way to impose British values on Europe. Another fun fact: that constitution remains the same to this day! (Oh, and I should probably also mention that it's a separate organisation from the EU, but don't let that get in the way of your preconceived ideas.)

Britain - death penalty abolished. Crime has fallen.
Germany - death penalty abolished. Crime has fallen.
France - death penalty abolished. Crime has fallen.
America - death penalty in force. Crime hasn't fallen, and has actually risen.

You can argue to the death about what people deserve, but the simple fact is that the justice system in European countries is more effective at keeping crime down, and the evidence suggests that the abolition of the death penalty has had something to do with it.

 

[meridian2]

You can argue to the death about what people deserve, but the simple fact is that the justice system in European countries is more effective at keeping crime down, and the evidence suggests that the abolition of the death penalty has had something to do with it.

Please tell me you're not that naive (aside from the unintended pun)?

 

[ainsworth74]

Please tell me you're not that naive (aside from the unintended pun)?

What would you put the fall of crime down to then?

 

[TheKnightWho]

Please tell me you're not that naive (aside from the unintended pun)?

I didn't realise that looking at statistics was naive now...

 

[455driver]

Britain - death penalty abolished. reported Crime has fallen.
Germany - death penalty abolished. reported Crime has fallen.
France - death penalty abolished. reported Crime has fallen.
America - death penalty in force. reported Crime hasn't fallen, and has actually risen.

Fixed that for you!

As for stastitics, you have to first work out what you are trying to prove and then choose the stastitics that back that up, always been like that and always will be!

 

[Oswyntail]

Fixed that for you!
...

So are you implying that the removal of the death penalty has resulted in people being less willing to report crime? That is some leap And who can say for certain that reported crime does not reflect a consistent proportion of actual crime, unless they are the ones increasing the level of unreported crime? In other words, either your amendments are meaningless or you are a criminal mastermind.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Fixed that for you!

As for stastitics, you have to first work out what you are trying to prove and then choose the stastitics that back that up, always been like that and always will be!

Except you didn't. Reported crime has dropped, but so has the actual number as well. Believe it or not, people are capable of working out what the real crime rate is, as much as people like you like to be all doom and gloom about it. :roll:

And yes, it's alright to be sceptical about statistics, but it's ridiculous to dismiss them just because they don't support your preconceived ideas. Believe it or not, you'll have to interpret them in such a way that crime has risen before you convince anyone to doubt them. Statistics can be manipulated, but that doesn't mean you can just stick your fingers in your ears and completely ignore them.

 

[cjp]

As for stastitics, you have to first work out what you are trying to prove and then choose the stastitics that back that up, always been like that and always will be!

indeed,

lies. damned lies and statistics spings to mind

along with "Bad Science"
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/oct/28/bad-science-diy-data-analysis

 

[TheKnightWho]

indeed,

lies. damned lies and statistics spings to mind

along with "Bad Science"

That phrase is the favourite preserve of people who don't like inconvenient truths...

Funnily enough, you have to show why they're lies.

 

[455driver]

So are you implying that the removal of the death penalty has resulted in people being less willing to report crime?

No!
Where did I say that then?

That is some leap And who can say for certain that reported crime does not reflect a consistent proportion of actual crime, unless they are the ones increasing the level of unreported crime?

I have recently tried to report 4 crimes but the Police would only class one of them as a crime (and so supply a crime reference number) and I ended up out of pocket for 2 of the others because the insurance wouldnt pay out due to the lack of crime reference number, the other was criminal damage (in my mind) to somebody elses property but the Police didnt see it as such!

In other words, either your amendments are meaningless or you are a criminal mastermind.

I am not a criminal but if you want to think of me as a mastermind, well that is your prerogative!

 

[TheKnightWho]

No!
Where did I say that then?

It's a natural conclusion of your claims. If crime has increased, crime reporting has decreased and the change is that the death penalty was abolished then the natural conclusion of your argument is that the abolition of the death penalty caused crime reporting to drastically drop, for some reason. I'm not really seeing that, for some reason, and the it's not like we're disputing the fall of reported crime or the abolition of the death penalty...

I have recently tried to report 4 crimes but the Police would only class one of them as a crime (and so supply a crime reference number) and I ended up out of pocket for 2 of the others because the insurance wouldnt pay out due to the lack of crime reference number, the other was criminal damage (in my mind) to somebody elses property but the Police didnt see it as such!

Oh dear, that sounds a little like anecdotal evidence again to me.

Look: if you can find some hard evidence that crime reporting has decreased but actual crimes have increased I'm happy to say I'm wrong. Telling me a story about how recently this or that happened won't.

 

[SS4]

You see it as 'sinking to her level'. I see it that we would be sending out a message to the world that the jurisprudence system in the UK is not the pushover it almost always is. These liberal views are part of the reason that our system of jurisprudence is in such a mess. Criminals get banged up in a taxpayer-funded prison where they get more luxuries than I do and half the time, they get paroled far sooner than their original sentencing! Then recently, we had an appeal on 'whole life sentences' and how they are somehow inhumane! It makes me want to weep sometimes.
You see 'State condoned killing'; I see an effective justice system doing exactly what it says on the tin.

I'd be pretty interested to see what world media makes of our justice system. Especially from those countries who have the same punishment. Whole life sentences are inhumane - pray tell me how never knowing when/if you'll be released is humane and before someone mentions that they killed another person I remind you human rights apply to everyone.

 

[radamfi]

Crime has fallen in most developed countries over the last 20 years or so, even in America. There are various theories why this has happened, for example the rise of the internet, abortion and even unleaded petrol.

It was expected that crime would rise following the financial crisis, but the reverse has happened.

Nevertheless, the murder rate in the USA remains far higher than here in Europe.