The Yorkshire Ripper: Should he be let out?

[anyatara]

Okay, I was just watching Loose Women (Yes, I'm a sad sad person) (which is basically a really weird chat show, for those of you who don't know, since I think it's just a British thing.) and they were discussing the Yorkshire Ripper being let out of hospital.
He's been in jail for twenty-years after brutally killing thirteen people, and he's mental, literally.
There's an article here: Yorkshire Ripper should remain behind bars 'for his own safety' - Telegraph
And another here: Never free the Yorkshire Ripper | The Sun |News
And no-one seems to want him out.
What do you think?
Think he should be allowed out?

I personally don't. He's a danger to everyone, pretty much everyone in England, because he could go anywhere. Where I live is pretty near Yorkshire, which is a worry. And I don't think it's right to let him out. Even if they claim he's better, I highly doubt it. He could start killing again.
I say keep him locked up and throw away the key.

Thoughts?

 

[Kean]

Whether he was insane when he murder those people or not he still killed 13 people. Jail is the only place he should be.

 

[Edmund Blackadder]

(which is basically a really weird chat show, for those of you who don't know, since I think it's just a British thing.)

This is inaccurate.
Loose Women is a poor recreation of The View, which is an American day time chat show where a group of women just chat about the days news and have guests.

This is not a 'British thing' at all.

ANYWAY, my old Geography teacher was arrested back in the day as a potential Ripper suspect because he fit the bill and was new to Leeds -glad to say he was absolutely innocent.

Should he be released?

Yes, I truly believe that he should be released from Hospital...and sent to rot in prison until his dying day.
'nuff said.

 

[Kali]

The guy was an utter psycho. Really, some of the things he did still stick in my mind years after having read the case notes. So hideous, I can't discuss it here.

So let him out? Never. Only reason I can think of to let him out is so he gets hung, drawn and quartered before sunset, by tipping off the public first.

 

[Selig]

Let him out, tell me where he is and I'll execute him myself. Don't tell anyone though!

 

[Jill_Valentine]

Mob justice is so 16th century...

I served jury duty once. The guy had tried to kill his sister with a hammer. She survived to testify, and you could make out the claw-and-ball imprints on her face. Now, anybody would look at her and think of the guy as a freaking savage, but it turned out he'd only been hitting her to let some demons out of her head. And there was no faking how crazy that guy was, he was as terrifying as he was terrified, and he was an irrecoverable lunatic.

That guy doesn't have any place in prison. A mental health facility, yes, but not Prison. Punishing him doesn't serve any function, it's not like he's going to learn something from it. He isn't living in the same world as we are. He's not going to suddenly think, in fifteen years time, "Hang on - demons? In her head? Jesus, that's demented. Whoops."

Sutcliffe isn't quite as clear cut as that, but I think it's the same wider discussion. If they were "normal" crimes, and he'd served an appropriate sentence, then I'd say yeah, imprison him and then let him out when the clock runs down. But they weren't normal crimes, the guy is clearly not sane, and he should be somewhere secure for the remainder of his life for the good of free society.

 

[LorneyTunes]

In one word NO ! Hes a murder no one reforms after slaughtering people is it just me or are people just getting dumber , he killed 13 women and tried to kill another 7 doesn't that say something!

I also heard today that they are going to start getting murders to pay for their victims funerals .

 

[JCC]

In one word NO ! Hes a murder no one reforms after slaughtering people

Really? That's news to me, mainly because most of them do.

If he's dangerously ill mentally then he should either be kept in a mental institution (I don't like this idea) or be given a carer/group of carers around the clock (which is an idea that I prefer).

If he's just a bit wacky (well, okay, more than a bit), steps should be taken towards rehabilitation, psychiatry and so on. I haven't got a de facto position on this, as long as nobody except Jill_Valentine from this thread gets their way.

 

[LorneyTunes]

Really? That's news to me, mainly because most of them do.

How exactly if a member of your family had been killed by someone do you really see yourself saying that murder is ok now? Because he/she been to murder rehab ? I totally disagree with you, murders never change , even if they have mental health issues and have been given all all clear no murder card they should not be let out. Its not right that someone should be given a second chance at life when they have taken one, its never even stevens, and I think they will never end their need to kill whatever drives them.

 

[JCC]

How exactly if a member of your family had been killed by someone do you really see yourself saying that murder is ok now? Because he/she been to murder rehab ? I totally disagree with you, murders never change , even if they have mental health issues and have been given all all clear no murder card they should not be let out. Its not right that someone should be given a second chance at life when they have taken one, its never even stevens, and I think they will never end their need to kill whatever drives them.

Justice is seeing a murderer functioning in normal society, not watching them rot.

 

[LorneyTunes]

No they are not normal and should not be given the chance at another life they should be given prison jobs and they should be left to rot , taking a life causes more pain than anything I can think of, the victim has lost their life , their family has lost someone precious and your telling me that someone who kills should be a functioning member of society.

justice would be to lock them up for the rest of their lives so they couldn't hurt anyone ever again. Plus justice doesn't happen, for killers , the death penalty is wrong, so how would you repay for taking a life?

That man should never the let out ever, he doesn't deserve life or death he deserves hell.

 

[JCC]

No they are not normal and should not be given the chance at another life they should be given prison jobs and they should be left to rot , taking a life causes more pain than anything I can think of, the victim has lost their life , their family has lost someone precious and your telling me that someone who kills should be a functioning member of society.

justice would be to lock them up for the rest of their lives so they couldn't hurt anyone ever again. Plus justice doesn't happen, for killers , the death penalty is wrong, so how would you repay for taking a life?

That man should never the let out ever, he doesn't deserve life or death he deserves hell.

I wonder whether the majority of murderers ever said anything this malicious.

 

[LorneyTunes]

I am in no way being malicious, I am being honest. 13 women died because of that monster , what he did is not human and jail is what he deserves and if you think he should be let out, Good Luck.

Most of the people in this thread agree with me and so would most of the uk.

 

[JCC]

I am in no way being malicious, I am being honest. 13 women died because of that monster , what he did is not human and jail is what he deserves and if you think he should be let out, Good Luck.

Most of the people in this thread agree with me and so would most of the uk.

Yeah, because the closest most of the UK gets to compassion is putting a half-empty box of Bakers in the Dog Food Donation tin or reading the articles about Jade Goody in the Daily Mail right next to the articles advocating vigilantism and how we should be poggering paedophiles in the streets. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm happier believing in mistakes being reparable rather than brandishing the flaming torches and believing that every murderer has reached the depths of moral depravity.

 

[LorneyTunes]

I do not read the daily mail and I never will. I am not what u described I find that offensive and I am in no way raising a flaming torch, i am just telling you my opinion about it . For instance a stupid man was driving while on his laptop complete idiot, he killed 4 kids and their parents he only got a 3 year sentence because he wasn't paying attention. He took 6 lives does anyone think 3 years was enough I don't there is no sense justice in this world.

 

[JCC]

I do not read the daily mail and I never will. I am not what u described I find that offensive and I am in no way raising a flaming torch, i am just telling you my opinion about it . For instance a stupid man was driving while on his laptop complete idiot, he killed 4 kids and their parents he only got a 3 year sentence because he wasn't paying attention. He took 6 lives does anyone think 3 years was enough I don't there is no sense justice in this world.

I don't suppose that you've considered the possibility that he's more sickened by the repercussions of his lack of sense than you are? You don't know what he thinks, three years might have been too much.

 

[LorneyTunes]

Why should I care what he thinks, he killed 6 people because he was'nt paying attention while driving . To me he got way less than what he should have, and why should I care if he got 3 or 600 years because they people are never coming back. End of story.

 

[anyatara]

Can you guys just PLEASE stop arguing?
Maybe he regrets what he's done, maybe he doesn't, either way he's done it. Arguing about it's not gonna solve anything.

 

[Jill_Valentine]

Murder is a complex thing, I don't think it's useful to talk about every murder as if they're all the same.

Your bog standard multiple murderer is somebody who has murdered several people. That is to say, they've deliberately killed a number of other people in premeditated acts, for reasons of personal or financial reward. There's something in it for them, they have something to gain. Killing for them may be opportunistic, and they might even enjoy it; but that's not the main reason they do it.

That's distinct from a serial killer. A serial killer kills purely - or at least primarily - for psychological gratification, as part of an overall pathological pattern. In other words, it's the product of a compulsive urge, and the act is it's own reward. More often than not, this pattern degenerates over time, and will continue to do so as long as it's allowed to.

Peter Sutcliffe is a Serial Killer. As such, to my mind, he continues to pose a significant threat. I don't care about what he "deserves" in return for what he's done. I'm not interested in the punitive side of the justice system and I don't consider him sane enough to be wholly responsible for what he did. The priority, as far as I'm concered, is public safety and in the case of somebody like Sutcliffe, I simply don't think I'd ever be satisfied of his rehabilitation.

I have faith in mental health theory, and I have no doubt that treatment can do extraordinary things, but Sutcliffe's actions were on such an extreme point on the spectrum I just find it hard to believe that he's suddenly seen the error of his ways. Granted, a 62 year old half-blind diabetic is hardly the most immediate threat, I just can't imagine that a guy capable of his particularly savage crimes can suddenly develop a capacity for remorse later on in life.

 

[Perny]

To me it just screams "Danger". When you have killed that many, you have gone beyond what would normally could be "forgotten." This is a maniac, a psycho! And no amount of good behaviour can make up for it. This is where I think death penalty is GOOD