Yorkshire Rippers bid for parole

  anchor 17:04 02 Mar 2010
Locked
  jack 17:28 02 Mar 2010

Should not have the option of parole and eventual release.
They are by any measure damaged inividuals.
Punish for the crime by all means and thereafter permanent secure incarceration for as much their own wellbeing as, the community at large

  bremner 17:43 02 Mar 2010

He is currently not seeking parole.

It is perfectly reasonable that he should be told exactly what tariff he is required to serve, something that has never been formally done.

That tariff should and almost certainly will be a full life tariff. If a full life tariff is not given to a man who murdered 13 women and attempted to murder a further 7 then it should not be given to anyone.

Even if it were a 30 year tariff then this is only when he could be considered for parole not when he will be released.

This man will quite correctly die in prison.

  peter99co 21:28 02 Mar 2010

The trial judge at the Old Bailey, Mr Justice Boreham, recommended that he serve a minimum of 30 years behind bars, a period that will expire next year.

However, Sutcliffe, whose name was not on a Home Office list of 35 murderers serving "whole life" sentences published in 2006, was given no formal minimum sentence, or "tariff".

Do we now need to dot the I's and cross the T's?

  sunnystaines 21:34 02 Mar 2010

life should mean life.

concurrent prison sentences should be scrapped too.

  Forum Editor 22:43 02 Mar 2010

"concurrent prison sentences should be scrapped too."

So, you would presumably have no objection to huge amounts of public money being spent on many new prisons and thousands of extra prison staff, plus all the other running costs, in order to ensure that people who commit ten different burglaries stay in prison to serve separate sentences on each count?

Multiple murderers make up a minute percentage of the total prison population - scrapping concurrent prison sentences would be madness, a seriously irresponsible waste of public funds.

  Input Overload 22:49 02 Mar 2010

This must all be bringing back to mind what happened with the relatives, My thoughts are with them. They will never forget.

  morddwyd 07:54 03 Mar 2010

Sorry I must agree with sunnystaines on concurrent sentences.

Let's say someone burgles a house, and their record, and the circumstances, give a sentence of six months.

In similar circumstances someone admits to six other offences, and gets six concurrent sentences, serving the same amount as the first guy.

I have no sympathy with either, but I do think the second one has caused more grief and should serve longer.

  Quickbeam 08:26 03 Mar 2010

"It is perfectly reasonable that he should be told exactly what tariff he is required to serve,"
Yes, it's perfectly reasonable that he should officially be told that he will never be freed.

  Monoux 08:33 03 Mar 2010

Concurrent sentences simply allow a perpetrator to do more crime with no more time as set out by morddwyd.

This simply encourages low life to continue their activities safe in the knowledge that even if they get caught the punishment will not increase in real terms.

How it can be said to be madness to scrap concurrent sentencing and an irrsponsible waste of public funds to make the culprits sentences proportionate to the crimes committed is beyomd me.

  Snec 09:00 03 Mar 2010

I wholeheartedly agree with you.

This time I think it would be appropiate for others to use that well worn phrase, 'don't be silly,' but fortunately most of us are gentlemen who don't stoop to such rudeness.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

Galaxy Note 8 vs iPhone X

The secrets of creating gory VFX

How to update iOS on iPhone or iPad

WhatsApp : comment lire vos messages sans que l’expéditeur le sache