I don't think this has been covered. If I'm honest I'm not quite sure what to make of it. What do the forum think his chances of getting sent to a normal prison are? I can't say I know although I did find myself strangely intrigued by what he had to say. I almost wish I been there to see the whole procedings.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23057892
Last edited by: sooty123 on Wed 26 Jun 13 at 13:33
|
I think we don't know what the purpose of keeping him in jail is.
If its to keep him out of society, then why keep him under medical care just because you're scared he'll remove himself permanently?
Surely the answer is clear?
|
This case is a complete outlier and other than that Brady's capacity to make trouble is undimmed by age we can draw no conclusions from it.
As far as I can tell his position as a patient at Ashworth is analogous to that of being 'sectioned'. He therefore has a right of appeal to the First-tier tribunal.
I'm not sure I buy the 'wants to starve himself' argument. If he has the capacity to make that decision he should be allowed to do it in hospital, if he has not then he should not be allowed to do so in prison. The tribunal always used to sit in private while exercising its Mental Health jurisdiction but a case last year established that it could, or even should, sit in public if the patient wanted that.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 26 Jun 13 at 16:43
|
After the recreational murders, years and years of recreational barrack-room lawyering... it matters not a jot whether the man is clinically insane or not: most people would judge him by his actions and attitudes to be mad.
In any case he's a dangerous baboon who deserves to be kept in a cage for life even if he's too old to do much harm now. He's not interesting or clever. If he were either he wouldn't be where he is. He's a crashing bore.
|
Everybody involved has been taken for a complete ride, and provided Brady with the notoriety and attention he craves. The hearing is about him claiming to be sane, but everything he has said has painted a picture of a complete nutter.
For refusing to give closure to the parents of the kids involved by telling them where they were buried, he should be locked away in a dark dark hole and have a small part of his body painfully removed with rusty nail scissors every day.
Failing that, he should be locked away and ignored. It would probably hurt him more.
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 26 Jun 13 at 17:54
|
>> The hearing is about him claiming to be sane, but everything
>> he has said has painted a picture of a complete nutter.
>>
I agree.
The only faintly interesting question is the paradox of whether it is possible for a real nutter to successfully simulate sanity. Really though I thnk he just enjoys trying to run rings round the experts he despises.
|
|
I still don't get why we wouldn't let him commit suicide. If its a bluff we'll find out, if its not we'll save some space and money.
|
|
I wouldn't let him commit suicide, why should he have a choice about how he dies? The children he tortured to death didn't.
|
>>why should he have a choice about how he dies
I think he would torment people less if he were dead. And if his life is so miserable he'd prefer to be dead, job done.
And dead, however it happens, must be better than alive and infesting the world.
|
Of course it's a bluff.
You can't administer enough nourishment down a nasogastric tube to keep someone alive for 10 years unless they are complicit (or cheating).
He wants the tube taken out but his personality traits won't let him submit and accept that his 'hunger strike' was a failure: he wants the. court to decide he is sane so he can 'victoriously' have the tube removed and amazingly he'll still not starve to death.
That's my take on it.
|
|
He's not very good at it. He's been on hunger strike for 10 years. Often makes himself some toast, or a cup-a-soup, apparently.
|
I'd like to see Brady buried on Saddleworth Moor.
Without actually waiting for him to die first, of course.
Last edited by: Robin Regal on Wed 26 Jun 13 at 18:47
|
I think you're still giving him the attention he craves.
I believe just chucking him in jail, telling him to kill himself if he wishes because nobody else cares one way or the other and then losing all interest in him is the way to go.
If he kills himself, all well and good at least he's gone. If he doesn't then he can rot ignored; which is probably about as badly as you could possibly treat him.
|
He's a really good advert for our mistake in not having the death penalty. He should have breathed his last donkey's years ago.
Why on earth should we have paid for his incarceration all these years and this current side show?
|
>> He's a really good advert for our mistake in not having the death penalty.
>>
It's a nice idea when you're talking about the likes of Brady or the Wests, but the Guidford four, Birmingham six, Bobby George and numerous others are a good advert for not having it.
|
>>Bobby George
Now I know he never fulfilled his potential as a dartsplayer but that's a bit harsh RR.
|
>>He's a really good advert for our mistake in not having the death penalty. He should have breathed his last donkey's years ago.
>>Why on earth should we have paid for his incarceration all these years and this current side show?
You can't release someone wrongly convicted of murder if you have just hung them!
Given the miscarriages of justice in this country and abroad and the recent underhand activity of some of London's finest (not directed at you WP) as well as our clearly biased media I would hate to see the death penalty reinstated.
Studies in the USA suggests that it costs more to execute a prisoner then to incarcerate them for life. The political aspect of crime and punishment are also of concern with politicians (now including senior members of police forces) potentially wanting to get someone prosecuted because it gets them re-elected.
Brady is a special case because he is in hospital which is what costs a fortune. I think it is a real shame that the current case has been made very public. I bet he revels in the attention given. Best to starve him of it.
Last edited by: zippy on Fri 28 Jun 13 at 17:46
|
>> Given the miscarriages of justice in this country and abroad and the recent underhand activity
>> of some of London's finest (not directed at you WP) as well as our clearly
>> biased media I would hate to see the death penalty reinstated.
Miscarriages of justice in the big scheme of things are few and far between..and there have been some where the evidence that convicted them was flawed, but they nevertheless had committed the crime.
I see it as a necessary evil, particularly in this modern age where forensics are that much more advanced, interviews are recorded, CCTV is everywhere, etc, so it ought to be less likely.
I see it as a kind of suffering of the few for the benefit of the majority, much like sending 10 men to their death in wartime, for the benefit of a thousand.
I'd have no problem with really severe penalties for those in law enforcement etc who cooked the books.
|
>>I see it as a kind of suffering of the few for the benefit of the majority, much like sending 10 men to their death in wartime, for the benefit of a thousand.
Would you honestly think the same if either you or one of your loved ones were fitted up and were about to get the drop because of faulty evidence?
There are advances in technology but they are not foolproof. Have you seen the quality of some CCTV? Evidence can also be manipulated, a legal team can be incompetent a judge can give a totally unfair summing up and if it is an election year a pardon or appeal may not be forthcoming.
Better to have life means life sentences for murders, rapes etc.
|
IMO the *only* argument against the death penalty is the risk of being wrong. The problem is, its a pretty powerful argument.
Unless you are prepared to live with the principle of killing some innocent people as a price for killing loads of guilty people, then you cannot reinstate it.
Is killing 1 innocent and executing 1m guilty acceptable?
What about 100 innocent and 1m guilty?
What about 1000 innocent and 1m guilty?
Where is the line?
Additionally it is effective only as a method of removal. It is not a deterrent nor a method of rehabilitation. And I prefer not to consider the revenge aspect.
|
|
p.s. Which is not to say that we should put *ANY* effort into forcing them to stay alive.
|
>> IMO the *only* argument against the death penalty is the risk of being wrong. The
>> problem is, its a pretty powerful argument.
As you almost concede in your closing para there are several other reasons.
Inhuman to both the convict and the executioner; disproportionate between different offences; denies any possibility of reform or rehabilitation and; panders to the revenge urge.
It's useless as a deterrent to terrorism/insurrection. The IRA's best recruiting sergeant was the British hangman ditto with other places such as Palestine and Cyprus.
Contrary to the popular myth terrorists or freedom fighters are not cowards but are motivated by belief in a purpose or end.
|
>>As you almost concede in your closing para there are several other reasons
Not in my world.
One argument for; the removal of someone you don't want in your gene puddle.
One argument against; you might have got the wrong person.
The rest is noise. At least it is for me, there's other belief systems which may bring in various factors against.
I don't think there is any argument that convinces me, or even that I can see any validity in, for execution other than removal.
Your other points are about who should be executed, which is a whole 'nother argument. I was talking about whether or not the option should exist, not who it should be applied to.
|
>> Additionally it is effective only as a method of removal. It is not a deterrent
>> nor a method of rehabilitation. And I prefer not to consider the revenge aspect.
>>
It is a huge deterrent. When they are dead, they cannot possibly do it again.
|
>> >> Additionally it is effective only as a method of removal. It is not a
>> deterrent
>> >> nor a method of rehabilitation. And I prefer not to consider the revenge aspect.
>> >>
>>
>> It is a huge deterrent. When they are dead, they cannot possibly do it again.
You seem to have forgotten a big place called the United States of America, where clearly its not a deterrent, not even a tiny one, let alone a huge one.
|
>> You seem to have forgotten a big place called the United States of America, where
>> clearly its not a deterrent, not even a tiny one, let alone a huge one.
>>
You are narrowly looking at the 'deterrent' as being only for other people. I am including it to mean other people AND the guilty party, as many crooks are recidivists.
Kill him and he can't do it again.
I'd agree that the death penalty has a limited deterrent factor for preventing new crime. However even a limited impact is better than no impact...and combine it with eliminating permanently the serious recidivist...then yes please.
Oh and I'm also a non apologist for a bit of revenge. I don't have a problem with it. Stand up to these people and dish out a bit of their own medicine, it's the only thing they understand, there'd be an element of deterrence in that alone.
No FM2R mentioned somewhere recently what he'd do to anyone who went near his daughters. Quite right too...that's what I'm advocating.
|
>> >> You seem to have forgotten a big place called the United States of America,
>> where
>> >> clearly its not a deterrent, not even a tiny one, let alone a huge
>> one.
>> >>
>>
>> You are narrowly looking at the 'deterrent' as being only for other people. I am
>> including it to mean other people AND the guilty party, as many crooks are recidivists.
No, I am widely looking at the facts that its proven not to be a deterrent. To anyone. Anywhere, Anytime Except the guy you hung. But then Brady has not been hung and he hasn't done it again, so hanging is not a factor there either.
|
>> No, I am widely looking at the facts that its proven not to be a
>> deterrent. To anyone. Anywhere, Anytime Except the guy you hung. But then Brady has not
>> been hung and he hasn't done it again, so hanging is not a factor there
>> either.
>>
You know exactly what my point is.
|
|
Yes, and I am saying you are wrong. Stop trying to dress it up as deterrent and just stick with spite and vengeance.
Last edited by: Zero on Sat 29 Jun 13 at 20:28
|
>> Yes, and I am saying you are wrong. Stop trying to dress it up as
>> deterrent and just stick with spite and vengeance.
>>
Oxford English dictionary: deter, two meanings, 2nd meaning...check or prevent (a thing, process, etc).
"Hang him and it will deter, prevent, check, stop, foil, him from doing that to someone else"
I do know that you realise exactly what I was saying.
If your definition of spite and vengeance is me wishing to sock it to the scrotes in life that criminally prey on others...a wish that they get some of their own medicine...then yes, i'm spiteful and vengeful.
|
>> >> Yes, and I am saying you are wrong. Stop trying to dress it up
>> as
>> >> deterrent and just stick with spite and vengeance.
>> >>
>>
>> Oxford English dictionary: deter, two meanings, 2nd meaning...check or prevent (a thing, process, etc).
>>
>> "Hang him and it will deter, prevent, check, stop, foil, him from doing that to
>> someone else"
So will locking them away.
|
>> So will locking them away.
>>
Not necessarily. Other prisoners, gaolers, prison visitors...are all vulnerable to the Dale Cregan's of this world....
...and I don't want to pay for the truly evil to be incarcerated for years.
Last edited by: Westpig on Sat 29 Jun 13 at 22:43
|
>>...and I don't want to pay for the truly evil to be incarcerated for years
And I don't want to pay for the health and social care of smokers, gluttons, drug addicts/alcoholics, the terminally idle, pensions for cops who retire at 45, etc, etc.
It's called civilisation - you don't always get what you want.
|
>> You are narrowly looking at the 'deterrent' as being only for other people. I am
>> including it to mean other people AND the guilty party, as many crooks are recidivists.
>>
>> Kill him and he can't do it again.
That's not deterrence it's prevention. Jail him and he cannot do it again
>> I'd agree that the death penalty has a limited deterrent factor for preventing new crime.
>> However even a limited impact is better than no impact...and combine it with eliminating permanently
>> the serious recidivist...then yes please.
There's not much evidence for that from the USA's enthusiasm for judicial murder. It's no deterrent at all for those perceived in their own community as 'freedom fighters'. On the contrary they become 'martyrs to the cause'. Every such death recruits more to the IRA, Al Quieda, Irgun, EOKA or whatever.
>> Oh and I'm also a non apologist for a bit of revenge. I don't have
>> a problem with it. Stand up to these people and dish out a bit of
>> their own medicine, it's the only thing they understand, there'd be an element of deterrence
>> in that alone.
Not really, see above re 'freedom fighters'. The same applies, motivationally, to the desperate, lunatic etc. See how the Woolwich killers charged at the Police.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 29 Jun 13 at 20:03
|
>> That's not deterrence it's prevention.
It is deterring and preventing him from doing it again.
>>Jail him and he cannot do it again
Yes he can. When he's released from his pitiful British sentence or given day release or absconds from the Open Prison or just escapes.
>> There's not much evidence for that from the USA's enthusiasm for judicial murder. It's no
>> deterrent at all for those perceived in their own community as 'freedom fighters'. On the
>> contrary they become 'martyrs to the cause'. Every such death recruits more to the IRA,
>> Al Quieda, Irgun, EOKA or whatever.
Once they're dead, that's another individual problem solved. Yes there will be more, so keep killing them, if that's what they want, so be it.
>> Not really, see above re 'freedom fighters'. The same applies, motivationally, to the desperate, lunatic
>> etc. See how the Woolwich killers charged at the Police.
You'll always have those, whatever system you have.
In reality, what is the point in keeping Dale Cregan alive? How long before he kills someone else in prison? Why should we pay for that moron to have three meals a day and watch DVD's and go to the gym, etc.
|
>> In reality, what is the point in keeping Dale Cregan alive? How long before he
>> kills someone else in prison?
According to your rules, thats a good thing.
|
>>
>> >> In reality, what is the point in keeping Dale Cregan alive? How long before
>> he
>> >> kills someone else in prison?
Creggan, like Brady, is a long distance outlier. Neither have any value whatsoever in formulation of penal policy.
|
Creggan, like Brady, is a long distance outlier. Neither have any value whatsoever .
|
>>
>> >> In reality, what is the point in keeping Dale Cregan alive? How long before
>> he
>> >> kills someone else in prison?
>>
>> According to your rules, thats a good thing.
>>
???? The prisoner in for fraud...or the prison warder....or the nurse....or the volunteer?
See, your indulging in the classic unnecessary overstating of your opponents case, in the hope it wins your arguement.
I don't want a murderous free for all in our prisons, anarchy and bodies everywhere. I would like our State to get some spine and dish out what it needs to, within a sound legal framework with proper checks in the system...so that the really criminally awful get their comeuppance and are not around to bother anyone else or cost us shed loads of money.
|
>
>> See, your indulging in the classic unnecessary overstating of your opponents case, in the hope
>> it wins your arguement.
There is no argument. All the facts prove that capital punishment is not, and never has been a deterrent. Try this small factet. When Brady first started killing, the death sentence was still on the statute book. Didnt stop him did it.
|
>> There is no argument.
There is, we are having one.
All the facts prove that capital punishment is not, and never
>> has been a deterrent. Try this small factet. When Brady first started killing, the death
>> sentence was still on the statute book. Didnt stop him did it.
>>
I agree that capital punishment as a general deterrent IS flawed, because of the awfulness of some people who will do it anyway and/or the spontaneity of some crimes. However, the other element of deterrence is taking out the awful who are then no longer available to be awful. That deters them from committing any further crime, the second meaning of the word 'deter'.
|
>> >> There is no argument.
>>
>> There is, we are having one.
>>
>> All the facts prove that capital punishment is not, and never
>> >> has been a deterrent. Try this small factet. When Brady first started killing, the
>> death
>> >> sentence was still on the statute book. Didnt stop him did it.
>> >>
>> I agree that capital punishment as a general deterrent IS flawed, because of the awfulness
>> of some people who will do it anyway and/or the spontaneity of some crimes. However,
>> the other element of deterrence is taking out the awful who are then no longer
>> available to be awful. That deters them from committing any further crime, the second meaning
>> of the word 'deter'.
And you can do that by locking them away.
|
And what about the argument that someone commiting a crime, knowing that they'll get the rope if caught, will then kill the rape victim/etc to reduce the risk of being caught?
And also pretending that Police corruption/collusion died out with the Met in the 1970s isn't going to wash either.
|
>> And what about the argument that someone commiting a crime, knowing that they'll get the
>> rope if caught, will then kill the rape victim/etc to reduce the risk of being
>> caught?
Yes, there's always that risk...however that is there now anyway
>>
>> And also pretending that Police corruption/collusion died out with the Met in the 1970s isn't
>> going to wash either.
Who suggested that? There will always be the temptation for corruption if human beings are involved.
What I will say though is the whole system has been transformed. At a time when a copper's word meant something, there were a minority that did engage in what is termed 'noble cause corruption'...and they eventually ruined it for everyone else, apart from the outright criminality.
....nowadays when that esteem has virtually gone, the problem has been mostly eradicated...because of taped interviews, CCTV everywhere and a hugely different culture.
Somewhat ironic.
|
>> Yes he can. When he's released from his pitiful British sentence or given day release
>> or absconds from the Open Prison or just escapes.
That's a pretty rare circumstance for lifers.
>> >> There's not much evidence for that from the USA's enthusiasm for judicial murder. It's
>> Once they're dead, that's another individual problem solved. Yes there will be more, so keep
>> killing them, if that's what they want, so be it.
But for each one killed in a supported insurrection two, or maybe ten, more are signed up to the cause. It's not that they want to die but that they're willing to face the prospect for their nation or culture.
Do you seriously believe Northern Ireland would have been solved if we'd executed people in number in 68/69?
|
Hard to believe hanging, or the death penalty, is much of a deterrent. In some circumstances it could actually be an incentive to eradicate possible witnesses.
New York has about four times the murder rate of London. And New York is safe by the standards of US cities - Baltimore and St Louis are four or five times worse.
That doesn't prove that the death penalty isn't a deterrent, but is does suggest there are much more important factors in the killing rate.
It has just occurred to me that one of the factors involved could be better welfare in the UK. Perhaps if you have tens of millions of people who are dirt poor with nothing to lose, you get more crime generally.
I don't suppose the guns help either.
|
Somebody said ones.If people have nothing to lose they lose it.
|
>> Would you honestly think the same if either you or one of your loved ones
>> were fitted up and were about to get the drop because of faulty evidence?
>>
No...but i'm not in that position am I?
>> There are advances in technology but they are not foolproof. Have you seen the quality
>> of some CCTV? Evidence can also be manipulated, a legal team can be incompetent a
>> judge can give a totally unfair summing up and if it is an election year
>> a pardon or appeal may not be forthcoming.
It would be acceptable to me
|
>> I'd like to see Brady buried on Saddleworth Moor.
>>
>> Without actually waiting for him to die first, of course.
There's one or two n Uppermill who'd volunteer for the burial party.
|
There's one here who would volunteer..........I got me uniform ruined searching for poor Keith Bennett all those years ago as a teenager.
Brady is a coward..he hasn't got the bottle to top himself or he would have done it in Ashworth. If he's been cooking and making toast then he must have access to electricity and other dangerous stuff.
Publicity seeker...that's all he is. Keep him alive as long as possible and restrict his rights to outside contact and gullible visitors.
But, of course, Yuman Rites won't allow that !
Ted
|
|
The photograph of smiling Keith Bennett always makes me smile, too. He looks to have been a thoroughly good sort and I should like to have known him.
|
|
I think there's a wonderful sense of poetic justice in Brady being kept alive against his own wishes. Death to someone like him is probably the ultimate sexual thrill; so hopefully he'll be denied it for a while yet.
|
Decision:
28th June 2013
The Tribunal has concluded that Mr Ian Stewart Brady continues to suffer from a mental disorder which is of a nature and degree which makes it appropriate for him to continue to receive medical treatment and that it is necessary for his health and safety and for the protection of other persons that he should receive such treatment in hospital and that appropriate medical treatment is available for him.
The reasons for the Tribunal's decision will be announced in due course
|
>> The reasons for the Tribunal's decision
Everything he said at the Tribunal was the reason. Complete nutta.
|
|
Let him die, this bloke is a waste of space,he should have been hung.
|
>>Let him die, this bloke is a waste of space,he should have been hung.
Too good fer im Ducky - keep him alive and suffering for as long as possible.
|
>> >>Let him die, this bloke is a waste of space,he should have been hung.
>>
>> Too good fer im Ducky - keep him alive and suffering for as long as
>> possible.
Is he really suffering though Dog? I think that the worst that could happen to someone is deprive them of their life. There must be moments of pleasure that he gets when reading something, eating e.t.c. Those children that he killed won't have any of the pleasure that life gives.
I agree that he should have gone years ago.
|
>>I agree that he should have gone years ago.
They should both have been hung back in the 1960's IMO, but now I think he should be kept alive and not made to suffer, just nailed to a wall, and his feet roasted over a brazier.
|
In France, a few hundred years ago, if you were caught counterfeiting, or passing off counterfeit coins, you were boiled alive in public.
Just saying.
|
>> France, a few hundred years ago,
No need to go so far afield. You could be hanged for stealing a sheep worth fourpence (of course fourpence really was fourpence in those days) in this country in the middle ages, and in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries - when religion was still political as it is now in other parts of the world - people could be hanged, drawn and quartered, or burned alive, for being underground Catholic priests or refusing to recant. I mean Guy Fawkes sort of asked for it, but just saying mass for a few believers seems pretty innocent to me.
An Iraqi friend asked me what hanged, drawn and quartered meant. When I told him he was absolutely horrified. He didn't think we were like that.
:o}
|
Keel Haul was a Dutch punishment at sea.Sailer was dragged under the keel under the ship form one side to the other under full sail.
Kiel Halen,any fighting on board and a knive was pushed through the hand to the mast.You had to free yourself.Interesting times..;)
|
>> Keel Haul was a Dutch punishment at sea.Sailer was dragged under the keel under the
>> ship form one side to the other under full sail.
Think you'll find the British Navy (and pirates, but the navy and pirates were one and the same in those days) invented it.
|
|
I have to check up on that Capitan Zero.
|
1560 Dutch Navy earliest official mention of Keelhauling.Punishment was abolished in 1853.
Doesn't prove anything mind you,punishing people is not peculiar to any race of people.
|
>> the British Navy (and pirates, but the navy and pirates were one and the same in those days) invented it.
It was a very harsh punishment, often fatal. It could be done the easy way - across the beam - or the hard way, from stem to stern. Either way, the probability of serious cuts and abrasions from the barnacles encrusting the hull (take a look at some mature specimens), not to mention drowning, was very high.
Not much used in the navy I think. Seamen are tough and don't take kindly to discipline carried to excess. Bad things could happen to flogger captains.
|
Ian Brady - No FM2R
