PDA

View Full Version : Myra Hindley - evil acts, but essentially a victim herself?


baleineau
Nov 15th, 2002, 07:27 PM
Myra Hindley, the child killer from the 1960s, died today in a prison hospital aged 60. She spent 35 years in prison, for being found guilty of two murders and as an accessory to a third murder. She was sentenced to "life" in 1966, though life doesn't mean natural life in UK law. The judge stressed in 1966 that although evil, he expected Hindley to reform once removed from the influence of her accomplice, Ian Brady, and therefore she should serve less time than him (he actually did the killings, she helped abduct the children).

In the 1980s, she was told by the Home Secretary that she would have to serve a minimum of 25 years behind bars. Brady was told he's never be released. Then, in 1990, nearing the time when she'd be eligible for parole, the new Home Secretary extended her mandatory sentence to 30 years. Then, in 1994, the new home secretary extended it to 35 years. In around 1997, it was extended once more to say that she should never be released from prison.

There's no defending her crimes. They were sickening and appalling. But what does it say about justice when somebody's sentence can be extended retrospectively. it's not as though the crimes changed. There has been immense political pressure on home secretaries to not release her. Hence the extensions.

Where do you stand? Myra Hindley should have been released after 25 years, or Myra Hindley's sentence (and other prison sentences) can be extended as and when, depending on political sensitivity?

BritneySpearsIsHot
Nov 15th, 2002, 07:37 PM
If i was in power, i would bring back the death sentence and put her forward for it

Absolute scum

raquel
Nov 15th, 2002, 07:40 PM
She should rot in hell. I saw a programme a few years ago, where they played audio tapes Myra and her boyfriend made while abusing one of the girls, and you could hear the girl crying for her mother. it was so upsetting and i had to turn it off. also, she refused to let one of her victims' mother know where her son was buried, so that the woman could bury him properly. she deserve to rot.

BritneySpearsIsHot
Nov 15th, 2002, 07:44 PM
That is horrible

They should have let me torture her, evil witch

baleineau
Nov 15th, 2002, 07:44 PM
i think the "refused to tell where the other body is" is false. she went back to the moors to try to locate it. she wasn't standing there watching brady bury the body, she was by the roadside, some 200m away, around a bend, keeping watch. she possibly never knew exactly where the body was buried, and after 30 years, you probably wouldn't recognise the landscape anyway. also, peat moves, so even if you pinpoint the grave, it may have shifted a lot, and been exposed. there may be little left anyway.

sorry to be morbid, but i don't think it's valid to say that she refused to let one of her victims' mother know where her son was buried.

she had nothing to gain by not revealing the information if she knew it.

raquel
Nov 15th, 2002, 07:49 PM
well, i am only going by what i saw on the news tonight, and the boys mother was talking in a telephone interview saying she still didn't know where he was and could not give him a proper burial. whether she tried to help or not, i dont see any reasons anyone would have for defending her.

BritneySpearsIsHot
Nov 15th, 2002, 07:53 PM
She has no defence, she was scum, no-one could defend her, she was evil and deserved to die in more pain than she did

baleineau
Nov 15th, 2002, 08:15 PM
i think it's less about defending her in a personal sense, and more about defending justice. if you're given a sentence, why should it be extended almost 30 years later when you're due for release? and to have it extended twice?

this thread is not about whether hindley is eveil or not, it's about whether she became a political prisoner i.e. one that cannot be released for political reasons.

BritneySpearsIsHot
Nov 15th, 2002, 08:28 PM
Life should mean life, although saying that, if she was released, she wouldn't have a life for long

gentenaire
Nov 15th, 2002, 08:34 PM
I've been reading about this case today.
I read that the mother of the little girl had to listen to those tapes to identify her daughter. I can't believe they actually played those tapes on TV :eek:

Certain crimes are just so awful that a life sentence really must mean a life sentence.

baleineau
Nov 15th, 2002, 09:00 PM
yes, tine, but the trial judge in 1966, and the jury, were satisfied that she must spend "a long period of time in prison", and it was not controversial when her original tariff was set at 25 years.

what's questionable is the arbitrary decision by a politican 23 years later to extend that sentence to, first, 30 years, and then after 29 years, to life imprisonment.

whether you think she should have got life in the first place (I do) and whether you think her crimes are appallingly bad (I do), is not the point. The question is not - do you think Myra Hindley is evil and should have received a life sentence? The question asks you to consider whether she was made a political prisoner, and the extentions could not be justified on legal grounds.

please reconsider before acting like a tabloid reader :rolleyes:

baleineau
Nov 15th, 2002, 09:01 PM
they didn' t play the tapes on TV. that is rubbish.

gentenaire
Nov 15th, 2002, 09:08 PM
Originally posted by baleineau
they didn' t play the tapes on TV. that is rubbish.

Then how did Raquel hear them?

BritneySpearsIsHot
Nov 15th, 2002, 09:08 PM
Yes it is justified. I believe all prisoners should have there sentences checked every 5 years or so

As for being a political prisoner? Who cares

gentenaire
Nov 15th, 2002, 09:10 PM
The judge stressed in 1966 that although evil, he expected Hindley to reform once removed from the influence of her accomplice, Ian Brady, and therefore she should serve less time than him (he actually did the killings, she helped abduct the children).

From what I've read, she did more than just help. The judge sentenced her to life (=25 years) based on the conviction that she'd reform. Had she truly reformed? What if can be proven that she was still a danger to society and therefore shouldn't be released?

BritneySpearsIsHot
Nov 15th, 2002, 09:12 PM
Didn't she say, if released, she couldn't promise not to do it again?

JonBcn
Nov 15th, 2002, 09:13 PM
Part of the tapes was played on tv many years ago, I remember it well.


I really hate kneejerk reactionism, but I'm sorry - kill or aid in the killing of a child and you should never be released; regardless of your original sentence.

Hurley
Nov 15th, 2002, 09:15 PM
Of course it's awful, but you cannot extend a sentence!

If they tried to do that in the US courts, they'd be laughed out of them.

Josh
Nov 15th, 2002, 09:22 PM
A similar thing happened in the Jamie Bulgar case. The judge decided that both minors were to be held in a youth detention centre until their 18th birthday but the home secretary tried to prolonge the sentence but was called back by the European court in Strasbourg. I dunno the exact procedure as common law is not my speciality but it's wrong that one person, the home secretary in casu can decide about people's sentence. He will always be influenced by the public as it is that public who elected him.

JonBcn
Nov 15th, 2002, 09:22 PM
They never actually extended the sentence. Its all subjective: 'life' really means 25 years, but at the home secretary's discretion it can mean whatever.

gentenaire
Nov 15th, 2002, 09:23 PM
Technically she was still sentenced to life. I always thought this meant that you can ask for parole after a certain amount of time, doesn't mean you're actually granted it.

BritneySpearsIsHot
Nov 15th, 2002, 09:23 PM
I think there should be an option to extend sentences on vicious crime

JonBcn
Nov 15th, 2002, 09:25 PM
No. Whats the point in trying someone if you can change the punishment whenever its deemed appropriate?

Hurley
Nov 15th, 2002, 09:25 PM
If she was originally promised 25 years through the jargon of the British legal system, that is all she should serve. Perhaps they should be a bit more specific in the UK, or, like, actually use the correct words for sentences like we do. :p

raquel
Nov 15th, 2002, 09:28 PM
Originally posted by baleineau
they didn' t play the tapes on TV. that is rubbish.
they did play the tapes, and jon also heard them too, so it is not rubbish. i definitely heard a bit of one, but immediately wished i hadn't - i wouldn't lie about hearing it.

BritneySpearsIsHot
Nov 15th, 2002, 09:28 PM
Put it this way, her being in prison saved her for so long, as soon as she got out, she was a dead woman, British feeling against such horrific crime is second to none in terms of hatred, she wouldn't have survived 5 minutes

I would have been first in line

BritneySpearsIsHot
Nov 15th, 2002, 09:29 PM
As i stated before, the death penalty should be brought back to Britain, she should have been roasted alive

gentenaire
Nov 15th, 2002, 09:31 PM
I disagree. I'm against the death penalty.

baleineau
Nov 15th, 2002, 09:31 PM
Originally posted by Tine
From what I've read, she did more than just help. The judge sentenced her to life (=25 years) based on the conviction that she'd reform. Had she truly reformed? What if can be proven that she was still a danger to society and therefore shouldn't be released?

well, there's no guarantee, that's what parole review boards are for :rolleyes: they look at a prisoners records, and they decide whether they've reformed and if they continue to pose any threat.

since the 1980s, the parole board has stated that hindley has reformed and is no longer a threat.

there's no guarantee, but we take the parole board's view as being expert for 99.9% of criminals. why should a politician know better than the parole board as to whether hindley had reformed?

she'd suffered ill-health for most of the last decade. that's usually reason enough for someone to be released from prison. prison sentences are a punishment of loss of freedom designed to deter people from committing a crime, and to the public from them until they're reformed. they're not they're to make somebody become gravely ill.

BritneySpearsIsHot
Nov 15th, 2002, 09:32 PM
Originally posted by Tine
I disagree. I'm against the death penalty.

Which is fine, everyones opinion counts :)

I believe in an eye for an eye

gentenaire
Nov 15th, 2002, 09:34 PM
So all prisoners should become chain smokers so that they'd become gravely ill and be allowed out?

Crazy Canuck
Nov 15th, 2002, 09:34 PM
Extending the sentance like that to proove a point, makes a mockary of the justice system, IMO.

Wether or not she deserved to be in there forever or not - what they did was wrong, pain and simple. I can't believe that there is a justice system that allowed that to happen.

But hey - if this was Canada she would be plea bargain before the tapes were found, and be out in 12 years. So look on the bright side.

baleineau
Nov 15th, 2002, 09:34 PM
Originally posted by Britney_SMG_MJH
I think there should be an option to extend sentences on vicious crime

on what grounds? doubt about the judgement of the trial judge? who makes the decision? how do you justify any discrimination - this person's violence, not that person's violence?

catch them, have a trial, sentence them if found guilty, try to reform them, and then release them when a parole board recommends it, or when the trial judge's sentence has been served. political intervention is not desirable in judicial matters.

Josh
Nov 15th, 2002, 09:35 PM
Originally posted by Britney_SMG_MJH


Which is fine, everyones opinion counts :)

I believe in an eye for an eye

Well obviously we don't need courts anymore then.
If someone does something to you, you just do the same to him, no need to bother a judge with something that simple, right?

gentenaire
Nov 15th, 2002, 09:35 PM
Originally posted by Britney_SMG_MJH


Which is fine, everyones opinion counts :)

I believe in an eye for an eye

I don't because it's never an eye for an eye, but an eye for an eye for an eye for an eye for an eye for an eye.... You end up losing and hurting so more.

raquel
Nov 15th, 2002, 09:35 PM
Originally posted by baleineau


they're not they're to make somebody become gravely ill.
she made herself gravely ill, it said on the news she smoked heavily for 40 years.

baleineau
Nov 15th, 2002, 09:36 PM
Originally posted by raquel

they did play the tapes, and jon also heard them too, so it is not rubbish. i definitely heard a bit of one, but immediately wished i hadn't - i wouldn't lie about hearing it.

well, i missed that, and am very surprised they played even an extract. i find that unbelievably poor taste on the part of the producers of this programme.

sorry for disbelieving you raquel, but i'm in disbelief that anybody could think of broadcasting the tape.

gentenaire
Nov 15th, 2002, 09:37 PM
catch them, have a trial, sentence them if found guilty, try to reform them, and then release them when a parole board recommends it, or when the trial judge's sentence has been served. political intervention is not desirable in judicial matters

I'd normally agree with you on this, except for cases which involve torturing and murdering children.

raquel
Nov 15th, 2002, 09:39 PM
Originally posted by baleineau


sorry for disbelieving you raquel, but i'm in disbelief that anybody could think of broadcasting the tape.

no, its ok. the programme was on channel five, so i think they were not worried about playing them - they just wanted ratings. i was really shocked myself when the tape started, and had to turn over after about five seconds.

baleineau
Nov 15th, 2002, 09:41 PM
Originally posted by raquel

she made herself gravely ill, it said on the news she smoked heavily for 40 years.

which is a sign that the prison system has faults, and should take better care of the health of its prisoners. some prisoners are still kept in appalling conditions, with little scope for exercise. food is also very unhealthy, and i suspect that smoking and illegal drugs are rife, simply because (a) life is so bad there that prisoners use coping mechanisms to deal with the boredom and stress and (b) corrupt officers make an income on the side by encouraging addictions among a group of people that society has largely forgotten to care about.

yes, Myra smoked herself to death, it can be argued, but she clearly had an addiction and required treatment for it.

prisoners don't lose their fundamental human rights. they lose their freedom to participate in society, but still have rights.

BritneySpearsIsHot
Nov 15th, 2002, 09:44 PM
So people condone what she did? And IF she did it again you would not feel guilty?

No point in the arguement now, she's snuffed it.

If you don't like my opinion you don't have too, but please respect it

I'm talking serious crime, not if someone nicks something from someone, you nick something back

The world would be a better and safer place if something proper was done

Why not let Bin Laden off? He won't do it again surely? Or Saddam? He had sanctions but on hearsay, weapon inspectors are going back, surely we should just leave Saddam alone then?

raquel
Nov 15th, 2002, 09:44 PM
Originally posted by baleineau




prisoners don't lose their fundamental human rights. they lose their freedom to participate in society, but still have rights.
well what about the right to a life that the children she helped kill deserved? she didn't care about their rights. i have absolutely no sympathy for her with regards to the way she was treated in prison

baleineau
Nov 15th, 2002, 09:44 PM
Originally posted by Tine


I'd normally agree with you on this, except for cases which involve torturing and murdering children.

so, a politician is best placed to handle these cases, and make political decisions? or all child torturers should be given mandatory, unequivocally inflexible whole life sentences?

it's different if you beleive in whole life sentences for some crimes. fair enough with views on hindley. BUT, given that whole life sentences are exceptional (and something that hindley was not given until 33 years into her sentence), how can it then be justified to make it a whole life sentence?

this is the main argument of hindley in her battles with the english legal system and the european court of human rights.

BritneySpearsIsHot
Nov 15th, 2002, 09:45 PM
Forget rights, someone that evil should have no rights

JonBcn
Nov 15th, 2002, 09:47 PM
Good grief.

BritneySpearsIsHot
Nov 15th, 2002, 09:48 PM
You do that sort of thing to anyone, let alone kids, you should lose all rights

People shouldn't stand for the life of someone so evil, unless they believe what they done is right

gentenaire
Nov 15th, 2002, 09:49 PM
The victims have rights too and if I have to choose between their rights and those of the killer, I choose the former! The parents of those children deserve a good life more than Hindley does. Either you make the victim's parents unhappy again or you make Hindley unhappy, not a very hard decision to make. Laws are there to create order, doesn't mean they aren't open to interpretation. Certain things simply cannot be written in the law.

BritneySpearsIsHot
Nov 15th, 2002, 09:51 PM
Apologies to anyone who may be offended by my comments, i don't believe in going around shit, just get straight to the point, spare no feelings, just say it

People i know think i'm radical :s and my f/m8 thinks i'm a nutter :s

But if you think i'm bad , Britain is a very hateful place

baleineau
Nov 15th, 2002, 09:52 PM
Originally posted by raquel

well what about the right to a life that the children she helped kill deserved? she didn't care about their rights. i have absolutely no sympathy for her with regards to the way she was treated in prison

yes, the rights of the children were cruelly violated by hindley and brady, as have the rights of all murder victims, victims of war etc. this is why society steps in and punishes the perpetrators accordingly. brady was treated more severely as he was the main perpetrator and physically killed the children. hindley was considered in a lesser role, though still extremely important to the crimes happening. distinctions, when sentencing, though are critical. there always has to be an extra penalty to taking the next step.

imagine if I speed in my car and kill a child, but stop and call an ambulance. if i were to get 20 years for my crime, should a person who did the same but sped away, leaving the child to die, be treated the same? no. there has to be an extra penalty to try to stop me from also not reporting it. if you give a whole life sentence for, say, robbing a bank, then it's possible that some bank robbers will also be prepared to kill the bank clerks, simply because there's be no extra penalty for doing so.

to take away a person's human rights to live is wrong. full stop. what i'm at issue with is the fact that once a decision was reached to punish hindley with a 25-year minimum sentence and release allowed only on parole board approval, she had her sentence extended, and without trial, despite the parole board saying she was fit for release.

gentenaire
Nov 15th, 2002, 09:55 PM
Without Hindley, these murders would have never happened. Hindley could have stopped it, she didn't. I think Brady and Hindley are equally guilty.

BritneySpearsIsHot
Nov 15th, 2002, 09:56 PM
Agree with Tine

baleineau
Nov 15th, 2002, 09:58 PM
Originally posted by Tine
The victims have rights too and if I have to choose between their rights and those of the killer, I choose the former! The parents of those children deserve a good life more than Hindley does. Either you make the victim's parents unhappy again or you make Hindley unhappy, not a very hard decision to make. Laws are there to create order, doesn't mean they aren't open to interpretation. Certain things simply cannot be written in the law.

you're not being asked to choose between the rights of the parents and the rights of hindley. it's a simple matter of maintaining consistency within the judicial system. if all prisoners could only be released subject to the consideration of whether the victims were happy, then all prisoners would stay in prison.

i'm afraid the victims have to find a different avenue for comforting themselves. the judicial system does it's best, but it's not their to exact revenge on behalf of the victims.

in this case, the victims' families were badly manipulated by the tabloids. they were never left to try to get on with their lives. had more money been spent on the search for the bodies, and some on compensating the families, then perhaps they'd have found some peace.

baleineau
Nov 15th, 2002, 10:00 PM
Originally posted by Tine
Without Hindley, these murders would have never happened. Hindley could have stopped it, she didn't. I think Brady and Hindley are equally guilty.

well, hindley was instrumental, yes, but brady was a psyhopath and took hindley on with a view to commiting these acts. once involved, it would be very hard to escape, though she made the wrong decision and justifiably pays the price.

but i have little doubt that if it wasn't hindley, it would have been someone else as his accomplice. brady had shown years of hatred towards society before the killings. hindley had shown none at all.

gentenaire
Nov 15th, 2002, 10:05 PM
I've always seen prisons purely for people who're a danger to society. I was actually for the Bulger killers to be released since they'd have to be released at some point anyway, it's safer to let them back into society when they can still make a future for themselves. They were very young when they murdered little Jamie, I do think they could be reformed.

I don't believe two adults who committed such awful crimes can ever be reformed. They were fully aware of what they were doing, they planned and plotted these murders, they enjoyed it immensly. The majority of pedophiles reoffend. Certain people will always be a danger to society and should therefore be locked up for life, never mind what the judicial system says.

Double Fault
Nov 15th, 2002, 10:29 PM
I heard that tape too. Hindley was VERY instrumental in the murders.

It makes me sick when I think about what those children went through. Tortured to death!!

The original trial judge made a mistake IMO. Hindley and Brady should have been sentenced to life. And that means FOREVER. Only to be released in a coffin upon their death.

May she ROT IN HELL. If there is an after life. I hope those children can forgive her. She showed them NO MERCY what so ever.

I would never wish pain on anybody. I'll make an exception for this monster though.

The parents and families of those TORTURED children have had a life sentence. I'm sorry, but Hindley should have been hung many many years ago.

I know you weren't asking for an opinion on this, but rather the judicial system. Can't help it!

Princess Fiona
Nov 15th, 2002, 11:27 PM
Myra Hindley a "victim"? Excuse me? :confused: This woman (if one can call her that) renounced any "rights" a loooong time ago...

Why should such a "person" get a second chance? I found the actions of Lord Longford and co. completely bewildering - what about those children? Did THEY get a second chance? It's just completely repugnant to me...

baleineau
Nov 16th, 2002, 04:14 AM
Originally posted by Franziska
Myra Hindley a "victim"? Excuse me? :confused: This woman (if one can call her that) renounced any "rights" a loooong time ago... Why should such a "person" get a second chance? I found the actions of Lord Longford and co. completely bewildering - what about those children? Did THEY get a second chance? It's just completely repugnant to me...

you could say this about every criminal and their victim though. no-one's saying myra didn't do terrible things. i'm just asking whether anyone thinks that (a) the judicial system has to be fair to all criminals and (b) Hindley was a political prisoner who had her sentence retrospectively extended by the government, not the judiciary, from 25 years to whole life, depite parole board recommendations that she no longer posed a threat to society.

i'm not asking whether you think she should have been locked up forever, or hung. that's a different matter. i'm asking whether you think she was a political prisoner in the end, even if you agree that she should have actually stayed in prison and died there.

Hurley
Nov 16th, 2002, 04:57 AM
You guys, particularly JDIH, are missing the point of the thread. The question isn't what sort of sentence this woman deserves, but whether she is being treated fairly by the British judicial system.

She was given a life sentence, which in UK parlance means "25 years," and doesn't ever deviate from that, if y'all are to be understood correctly. So whether she deserves a week in jail or to be slowly maimed until she dies is not the point -- the point is she was sentenced to 25 years and you are not allowed to extend a prisoner's sentence, period! If they wanted to keep her in jail for her natural life, they should have given her the same sentence her conspirator received.

Hurley
Nov 16th, 2002, 05:01 AM
Christ, I don't get this...if anything like this was even tried to be pulled off in the States, good God, we'd never hear the end of it. The ACLU would be sicced on these people so fast it'd make your head spin. The lawyers and judge who would try to allow this sort of thing would be disbarred!

I'm sorry, the fault lays in the sentence. The UK needs to change their "25 years" policy. If she got out and did this again, yes it would be awful, but this is not just to her, and her rights have to come ahead of the potential outcomes of her freedom.

Picol
Nov 16th, 2002, 05:19 AM
She served her time in accordance to her sentance. We have never seen a qualified report to say she was still a danger to society. Therefore she has met all conditions set out for her. She should of been released when the 25 years were up. She is a victim of Poltics. I wonder if she would of lived her days out in jail if she was not white?

baleineau
Nov 16th, 2002, 06:46 AM
i don't think this case warrants a race factor at all. a gender factor perhaps, but not a a race factor. if she was black, i don't see how her treatment in the legal system would differ.

baleineau
Nov 16th, 2002, 06:56 AM
Originally posted by Hurley
She was given a life sentence, which in UK parlance means "25 years," and doesn't ever deviate from that, if y'all are to be understood correctly. So whether she deserves a week in jail or to be slowly maimed until she dies is not the point -- the point is she was sentenced to 25 years and you are not allowed to extend a prisoner's sentence, period! If they wanted to keep her in jail for her natural life, they should have given her the same sentence her conspirator received.

actually in UK parlance, "life" often translates to 15 years, but it is arbitrary. rather than say that somebody gets a fifteen year sentence, they get a "life" sentence, with the trial judge setting a minimum tariff e.g. 20 years, 30 years, depending on the severity of punishment needed, and the time it would need for reform to be given a chance. the trial judge set it at 20 years in 1966. In 1987 it got extended to 25 years by the Home Secretary, a politician. In 1990, it got extended again to 30 years by a different Home Secretary. In 1996, it was changed again to whole life, by yet another Home Secretary, although the Home Secretary had to promise to keep looking at the case to see if it was still warranted. In 1998, the new Home Secretary upheld the whole life tariff.

it raises big questions as to why a politician should decide a sentence for some criminals, whilst a judge determines the sentence of all with the exception of a few special cases. and not only decide the sentence, but to change the goalposts repeatedly despite nothing new happening since the last increase - except the falling of the sands of time toward release. this was definitely a political decision, and whether you agree with the outcome of this political decision or not, I am surprised at how few people are prepared to admit it has been a political decision.

also, i think it is important to note that when sentencing brady and hindley, the trial judge on the basis of the evidence stressed that whilst he thought Brady was beyond hope of reform, the same could not be said of Hindley once removed from Brady's influences. He also noted that Hindley's role was terrible, though lesser than brady's, and therefore any sentencing of the two must reflect this distinction.

to decide to treat teh two equally 30 years later, because of tabloid-driven hostility towards hindley is an injustice for hindley, and therefore an injustice to all.

Picol
Nov 16th, 2002, 07:08 AM
I can think of at least a dozen orgo's that would of spent money and other resources to free her if she happened to be non-white.

I am just taking your point and expanding on it further.

I know in my country there is a law preventing certain people being locked up past a certain period of time as it offends the spiritual believes of the race.

You started this thread to point out that the judicial system is quite erratic and some may say unfair at times. I am just pointing out other areas of the judical system that is just as if not more unfair.

Picol
Nov 16th, 2002, 07:12 AM
and I noticed that you only picked out a small section of what I said. I will repost the rest of what was said by me, just in case you missed it.


"She served her time in accordance to her sentance. We have never seen a qualified report to say she was still a danger to society. Therefore she has met all conditions set out for her. She should of been released when the 25 years were up. She is a victim of Poltics."

Princess Fiona
Nov 16th, 2002, 10:43 AM
Originally posted by Picol
She served her time in accordance to her sentance. We have never seen a qualified report to say she was still a danger to society. Therefore she has met all conditions set out for her. She should of been released when the 25 years were up. She is a victim of Poltics. I wonder if she would of lived her days out in jail if she was not white?

I'm sorry, but I could not agree less... *shaking head* What if one of your children had been slain by that beast, Picol? Would you use the word "victim" in accordance with Hindley? Just to reiterate, why on earth should she have been released from prison to get a second chance at life when her victims (the "real" victims) were so brutally denied this?

The fact that she was still actively seeking parole suggests to me that she wasn't the repentant figure her lawyers are (still!) claiming. I think it's just disgusting (and I have not been manipulated by any tabloid, thanks).

I agree with Hurley in that the problem is with the judicial system but I'm just uncomfortable with the idea that Hindley had "rights" that's all...

gentenaire
Nov 16th, 2002, 10:49 AM
Originally posted by Franziska


The fact that she was still actively seeking parole suggests to me that she wasn't the repentant figure her lawyers are (still!) claiming. I think it's just disgusting (and I have not been manipulated by any tabloid, thanks).


I agree! Every time she asked for parole, she was hurting the victim's families again. She should have just accepted her fate, a fate she choose for herself, and sit out her days quietly in prison. If she was truly repentant, she wouldn't have been playing the victim all the time.

Crazy Canuck
Nov 16th, 2002, 10:56 AM
I can't believe what some of you are saying.

You are saying that it is okay for the criminal "justice" system, to just step in and change the sentence on a crime that occured decades before.

If you commit a crime in the 1960's or whatever, and were charged and sentenced at that time - you serve the sentence that they gave to you at the time!

You can't just change sentencing procedures and apply them to crimes that happened in the past.

Disgusting!

The question is not wether or not she deserved to be free based on what she did, the question was, is this right for the criminal justice system to do.

Quite frankly I find it frightening that people support this.

Crazy Canuck
Nov 16th, 2002, 10:58 AM
Why not let Bin Laden off? He won't do it again surely? Or Saddam? He had sanctions but on hearsay, weapon inspectors are going back, surely we should just leave Saddam alone then?

This has to be one of the most ridiculous comparisons you could have possibley came up with.

You're comparing a murderer (no matter how evil) - to a man who possibley spear headed the killings of THOUSANDS simply because they were American, and Sadam who goes without saying as well.


Really.

Picol
Nov 16th, 2002, 11:02 AM
Yes, Rebecca is right. Some of you are so full of hate and bitterness you can not see the question that is being asked. Only 4 or 5 of us actually answered the questioned that was posed, the rest of you dribbled of into self satisfaction.

gentenaire
Nov 16th, 2002, 11:07 AM
She got a LIFE sentence, she wasn't sentenced for 25 years but for life! When she got her sentence, she didn't get the garantee she'd be released after 25 years, she simply could seek parole after 25 years. Her sentenced hasn't been prolonged or changed, she was denied parole.

Crazy Canuck
Nov 16th, 2002, 11:08 AM
I understand people are upset about this person and the crimes that she played a part in - I really do understand to a degree. There is a woman in Ontario who will get out of jail in 2 years or so, who helped to rape and kill several teenage girls (one of them being her own sister). She plea bargained so that they could pin her husband at the time. Only later did they find the tapes that showed her active role.

Some theories now suggest that she may have been the master mind (karla homolka and paul barnardo, for those who might recollect).

Regardless - they system messed up, and she gets out.

They can't just change her sentance because they feel like it.

gentenaire
Nov 16th, 2002, 11:11 AM
So because the system messed up, dangerous criminals get out? I'd rather have the system mess up again and act in favour of the victims, than put the law above all else.

veryborednow
Nov 16th, 2002, 11:18 AM
She never told those parents where their children were. She deserved to rot in there because of that alone.

It's not right that Home Secretaries change her sentence, but the public opinion meant she was better off in there, she would have been killed if she was released.

Crazy Canuck
Nov 16th, 2002, 11:20 AM
I'm not saying what happened in Canada is okay. I don't even totally understand it.

My point is you can't just CHANGE sentences.

If you let too much subjectivity into the justice system - there already is a LOT - then innocent people will be taken advantage of.

If you guys are okay with that, that is your opinion.

Mine is that it is flat out WRONG, and I'm digusted this was allowed to happen.

It sure as hell can't happen here (can it?)

Crazy Canuck
Nov 16th, 2002, 11:22 AM
So why don't we just let public opinion decide ALL cases, if that is what the problem them was?

*sarcasm alert*

Picol
Nov 16th, 2002, 11:22 AM
Tine you are not understanding. She got life and in England it = 25 years, no more no less. I stress again, the question being asked is "Does the judicial system have a right to extend senteneces when you have all ready been punished for it" The answer is plainly NO. You can not re punish somone for a crime they have already committed. She did her time and should of been released in 91. She should never of died in Jail.

gentenaire
Nov 16th, 2002, 11:23 AM
But her sentence hasn't been changed! She got a life sentence, didn't she?

Crazy Canuck
Nov 16th, 2002, 11:25 AM
LIFE meant 25 years. IT WAS CHANGED.

gentenaire
Nov 16th, 2002, 11:26 AM
Life= after 25 years you can get out
I don't think life means you're certain to get out after 25 years, simply that there's a possibility of an early release, no guarantee.

Picol
Nov 16th, 2002, 11:26 AM
Originally posted by veryborednow
She never told those parents where their children were. She deserved to rot in there because of that alone.

It's not right that Home Secretaries change her sentence, but the public opinion meant she was better off in there, she would have been killed if she was released.

Even I have seen tape after tape of her trying to find the graves. she did not committ them, she was a accessory in them, she admits and Ian Brady admitted that Myra never has known where they were buried. get your facts right.!

veryborednow
Nov 16th, 2002, 11:29 AM
1st of all life should = life, then we shouldn't have this debate now.

Given one sentence, and then she continually lied about her position in the murders. First she didn't know about them, then she did, but he didn't know where the bodies were, then she did, then she had nothing to do with them.

She was going to be released this year. But there should have been a condition that she told the parents where their children were, they'll never know now.

She's dead. I don't think anyone is upset about it (apart from her mother)

If it had happened a few weeks before she would have been hanged, so she can thank her lucky stars that she lived to this point.

Crazy Canuck
Nov 16th, 2002, 11:30 AM
Well Tine, I am not 100% on the workings of the British system.

However in Canada - which is based on the British system - you are out after 25 years. 25 years, is the setence. It is not some magic, discretionary number they made up to amuse us.

In Canada, you only stay longer than 25 years if you are serving consecutive sentences, or if you are classified as a "dangerous offender".

Someone enlighten me on if Britain is different?

Crazy Canuck
Nov 16th, 2002, 11:33 AM
once again - the point isn't her crimes, it isn't wether or not she was guilty and sick as hell - it is about wether or not you think it is right to change peoples sentences LONG after they have been charged.

I give up in here.

I have no problem with people disagreeing with me, but I don't feel that a lot of people are willing to adress the actual problem, without considering the actual crimes.

Picol
Nov 16th, 2002, 11:34 AM
Anyway the question is "Is the Judicial system out of control" I say yes if a government allowed a woman to spend a further 11 years on her sentance that eventually costed a life. She was due and should of been released in 1991, reguardless of what you bleeding hearts say!

Do not even talk to me unless you are going to answer the fucking questioned asked.

Princess Fiona
Nov 16th, 2002, 11:36 AM
Originally posted by veryborednow
1st of all life should = life, then we shouldn't have this debate now.

Given one sentence, and then she continually lied about her position in the murders. First she didn't know about them, then she did, but he didn't know where the bodies were, then she did, then she had nothing to do with them.

She was going to be released this year. But there should have been a condition that she told the parents where their children were, they'll never know now.

She's dead. I don't think anyone is upset about it (apart from her mother)

If it had happened a few weeks before she would have been hanged, so she can thank her lucky stars that she lived to this point.

I agree with this post.

Princess Fiona
Nov 16th, 2002, 11:38 AM
Originally posted by Picol
Anyway the question is "Is the Judicial system out of control" I say yes if a government allowed a woman to spend a further 11 years on her sentance that eventually costed a life. She was due and should of been released in 1991, reguardless of what you bleeding hearts say!

Do not even talk to me unless you are going to answer the fucking questioned asked.

And you accuse other posters of being full of "hate and bitterness"? :rolleyes: Excuse me?

gentenaire
Nov 16th, 2002, 11:38 AM
She would have died a lot sooner had she been released.

gentenaire
Nov 16th, 2002, 11:40 AM
she did not committ them, she was a accessory in them,

From the torture tapes, it's clear that she did more than just help, that she more than a accessory. She wouldn't have committed these crimes if she hadn't met Brady, but neither would Brady have committed them if he'd never met Hindley. It was a partnership.

Picol
Nov 16th, 2002, 11:41 AM
No, do not excuse me, I answered the question that was asked, what did you do?

Princess Fiona
Nov 16th, 2002, 11:43 AM
Originally posted by Picol
No, do not excuse me, I answered the question that was asked, what did you do?

I think if you look through the thread you'll find I have also provided input (without being aggressive too).

Picol
Nov 16th, 2002, 11:45 AM
Originally posted by Tine


From the torture tapes, it's clear that she did more than just help, that she more than a accessory. She wouldn't have committed these crimes if she hadn't met Brady, but neither would Brady have committed them if he'd never met Hindley. It was a partnership.

and I will ask you and Frankzina (sP) Answer the fucking question you were asked or fuck off out of the thread. You both have came in here with bull shit. Answer the fucking question or piss off out of the thread completely.

gentenaire
Nov 16th, 2002, 11:45 AM
Oh, please stop this "my opinion is worth more than yours because I answered the question properly".

The question was: "Myra Hindley - evil acts, but essenctially a victim herself?" and we answered no, we don't think she's a victim at all. If yes is the only good answer, the question simply shouldn't have been asked.

gentenaire
Nov 16th, 2002, 11:47 AM
Originally posted by Picol


and I will ask you and Frankzina (sP) Answer the fucking question you were asked or fuck off out of the thread. You both have came in here with bull shit. Answer the fucking question or piss off out of the thread completely.

We did answer the question, our answer just happens to be different from yours.

Princess Fiona
Nov 16th, 2002, 11:47 AM
So basically, yours is the only opinion that matters, right, or you become abusive? I see...

Picol
Nov 16th, 2002, 11:48 AM
Bloody bleeding hearts, next you will be telling me that Serena let Kim win out of compassion :(

Crazy Canuck
Nov 16th, 2002, 11:48 AM
Well I'm glad so many of you live in a world where it is alright for the system to change sentences because they feel like it.

veryborednow
Nov 16th, 2002, 11:48 AM
Rebecca you are right. 25 years. The thing is now that the EU is having a greter role in our judicial proceedings.

Do you remember the murders in Liverpool by the two 10 year olds? Jamie someone. Well, the Home Secretary declared that their sentences were going to be extended, but the EU courts said no, that wasn't going to happen, and it didn't. So it's a state of affairs that won't happen again.

I think Myra Hindley had (unfairly) her sentence extended because she is from the generation than hung murderes, like I said before it was literally a few weeks after capital punishment was abolished. Because of the shocking nature of the times I think that public opinion kept her in jail because she would have been killed if released.

So no, it isn't fair, and yes we have to believe in rehabilitation like with the Jamie (something) murderers, but she was from the generation that didn't believe in that and she didn't have the EU and Lords backing her up as she has now.

But personally, from what she did to those children (and yes, she had a big part in the tortures they experienced) she lost her rights as a human being then.

Picol
Nov 16th, 2002, 11:56 AM
Well All I see is a Woman got 25 years, when that was up, they chucked another 5 on it, when that was up, they chucked another 5 on it, when that was up they chucked another 5 on it, except this time she died during the process. To the best of my knowledge you were not allowed to be sentenced 4 times for the same crime. I ask you again, think about the question that was asked

gentenaire
Nov 16th, 2002, 11:58 AM
and I say, I don't care if her sentence was prolonged! She gave up her right to whine and complain and cry about rights when she tortured and killed those children. This was option 2 in the poll, answer 2 to the question.

Princess Fiona
Nov 16th, 2002, 12:00 PM
Originally posted by Tine
and I say, I don't care if her sentence was prolonged! She gave up her right to whine and complain and cry about rights when she tortured and killed those children. This was option 2 in the poll, answer 2 to the question.

*very much agreeing with Tine*

We DID think about the question asked, thanks... :rolleyes:

BritneySpearsIsHot
Nov 16th, 2002, 12:14 PM
Originally posted by Hurley
You guys, particularly JDIH, are missing the point of the thread. The question isn't what sort of sentence this woman deserves, but whether she is being treated fairly by the British judicial system.

She was given a life sentence, which in UK parlance means "25 years," and doesn't ever deviate from that, if y'all are to be understood correctly. So whether she deserves a week in jail or to be slowly maimed until she dies is not the point -- the point is she was sentenced to 25 years and you are not allowed to extend a prisoner's sentence, period! If they wanted to keep her in jail for her natural life, they should have given her the same sentence her conspirator received.

Ooh pardon me for breathing :p

For me 'the point' of this thread is not worth discussing. Was she differently, yes she was, does the British system need to change life to actual life, yes it does,, can someones sentence be extended in British law, yes it can under certain circumstances, do any of us know the full true story? no we don't, does she deserve the right to have a thread started on whether she was treated fairly or not, no, people like her deserve all she gets, full stop, whether it's 'right or wrong' who gives a fuck?

Quite simply, if she had got out, she wouldn't have lived, the sentence was extended for HER protection

Trust me, i would have been jostling for 1st place in the queue to detach her limbs one by one

Anyone who would have welcomed her back into the outside world is as sick as she was, she deserved nothing but torture and pain, she was complete scum, she would not have survived the British public, possibly the most angry public in the world when it comes to stuff like this

I feel sentences should be extended, but there is one simple solution.......................

Make LIFE mean LIFE

And she did say once, she couldn't promise she wouldn't do it again, maybe that is why she was kept in?

Picol
Nov 16th, 2002, 12:15 PM
In the end it doesn't matter too much, she is dead and both of your opinions mean jack shit to me. End of story :)

ClijstersHewitt
Nov 16th, 2002, 01:22 PM
I think she should've been released after 25.

Regardless of the crime committed, her sentence was for 25 years(explain to me how exactly the Poms came to the conclusion that life=25) at least from what I understand. Tacking on extra time to her sentence just because of public opinion or political pressure defeats the purpose of a "justice" system imo.

Crazy Canuck
Nov 16th, 2002, 04:05 PM
I feel sentences should be extended, but there is one simple solution.......................

Make LIFE mean LIFE


What SHOULD and SHOULDN't be, is totally irrelevant here.

The FACT is, that life does NOT mean life. No matter how much you would like it to.

So is it okay to extend the setences of every single person who was give "life" in jail according to you?

You are comfortable handing your justice system the power to sentence someone initially - but have it mean nothing, because they can change it when they feel like it later?

I can just say that I'm glad people who think like this have no control over MY system (well if they do, I don't know about them).

baleineau
Nov 16th, 2002, 05:58 PM
Originally posted by Tine
So because the system messed up, dangerous criminals get out? I'd rather have the system mess up again and act in favour of the victims, than put the law above all else.

i hope, for my own sake, that the system cannot deliberately mess up. if i commit i crime, i want to know that the sentence i get is the one i'll serve, and not have it arbitrarily extended because i've become infamous.

in response to your comment that Hindley was sentenced to life. She received two life setences for two murders, and seven years for acting as an acessory to a third murder. a life sentence is just a name in English law - it doesn't mean whole life, but it could if the person is shown to still be a risk to society. myra posed no risk to society.

she wasn't given the chance for a parole hearing!!!!! she did not get her parole application rejected!!!! she got her tariff extended to prevent her from being eligible parole. why? because the parole board would say that (a) she has reformed and showed good progress in prison and (b) she no longer posed a threat to society i.e. it was beyond all reasonable doubt that she'd do something similar again.

baleineau
Nov 16th, 2002, 06:02 PM
Originally posted by veryborednow
She never told those parents where their children were. She deserved to rot in there because of that alone.

It's not right that Home Secretaries change her sentence, but the public opinion meant she was better off in there, she would have been killed if she was released.

you can't deny somebody freedom because you think they might get killed by a member of the public.

she did tell where the body of pauline reade was buried, and she tried to locate the grave of keith bennett but was unsuccessful. it didn;t help that she was taken from prison, to the moors, in the middle of winter with a lot of snow on the ground. i think she tried, but it's not clear if she ever knew the exact location of keith's grave. it also happened at night. it would have been pitch black.

not making excuses for her. i just don't think it's logical that she would have helped to locate pauline reade but deliberately not helped to find keith bennett.

baleineau
Nov 16th, 2002, 06:09 PM
Originally posted by Tine
Life= after 25 years you can get out
I don't think life means you're certain to get out after 25 years, simply that there's a possibility of an early release, no guarantee.

please understand tine. when a prisoner is given a life sentence, it does not mean whole life. the reason whole life is never/rarely set (it wasn't for Hindley initially) is because the judge feels there is hope of reform. it's part of human rights leglislation. it gives the prisoner something to live for. to works towards reform. in this context, the judge sets a life sentence(s) and places a minimum tariff - e.g. 20 years, 25 years, which is the minimum time the prisoner must serve. after this tariff has been served, the prisoner can be considered for release (i.e. apply for parole), and any decision to release the prisoner has to be approved by the parole board. the parole board considers the prisoner's progress in jail, and any threat they might still pose.

Hindley never got the chance to apply for her parole, because her minimum tariff was extended, first to 30 years, and then to 'whole life' meaning she'd never be eligible for parole. However, it was the view of the parole board that Hindley had been a model prisoner and no longer posed a threat.

the home secretary knew that unless the minimum tariff was increased, there'd be no option but to release Hindley, to public/tabloid horror! The simple solution, which IMHO was unjust, was to increase her tariff and be done with her.

baleineau
Nov 16th, 2002, 06:14 PM
Originally posted by Tine


From the torture tapes, it's clear that she did more than just help, that she more than a accessory. She wouldn't have committed these crimes if she hadn't met Brady, but neither would Brady have committed them if he'd never met Hindley. It was a partnership.

be careful not to beleive everything you read. there was one torture tape, not several. the tape in question revealed that she was present during the torture, but does not prove that she committed the murder. all of the evidence with regard to the other murders places Brady as the murderer, and Hindley as the accessory (abducting/driving/keeping look out). This does not absolve Hindley as these acts are despicable, but legally she had a lesser role.

it's true that Hindley was instrumental to these murders. Brady couldn't drive for example. But I don't think anybody who has looked at this case would say that if Hindley had not Brady, she'd have done anything like this. the same cannot be said about Brady, as he had a record of cruelty towards children and animals and had a criminal record.

baleineau
Nov 16th, 2002, 06:15 PM
Originally posted by Tine
She would have died a lot sooner had she been released.

no-one can know this, so it's a silly statement to make. apparently Hindley couldn't care if she only lived for a week of freedom before somebody killed her. to her, that was better than spending a further X years in jail.

baleineau
Nov 16th, 2002, 06:28 PM
Originally posted by Britney_SMG_MJH
Make LIFE mean LIFE

i think you'll find that there are very convincing human rights arguments for LIFE not meaning LIFE. they're not dissimilar to the arguments that were used to get rid of the death penalty.

imposing a whole life sentence on a prisoner serves little purpose, and the prisoner may as well hang. the purpose of prison is not just to take away the criminal's liberty and protect the public, it's also to "try" to reform the character of the criminal, to show that society doesn't toss people away as though they're human garbage. prison isn't just punitive. it has a constructuve element.

The EU Court of Human Rights considers it a breach of human rights for a prisoner to be serving a whole life sentence without regular review i.e. nobody should be consigned to spend the rest of their natural life behind bars without hope of release and something positive to work towards. they may as well commit suicide, like Fred West. Some life prisoners who become eligible for parole are often turned down as they still present a danger - it depends on the outcome of that prisoner's review, which is normally undertaken by the parole board.

However in England and Wales, the Home Secretary has the right to modify the minimum time to be served before somebody becomes eligible for parole application. It happens with all 'lifers' but we only hear about the high profile ones. In most cases, the Home Secretary usually does not manipulate the minimum tariff and lets the experts (the parole board) make a decision. In the Hindley case, the Home Secretary increased the tariff and then made it whole life, despite there being no justification for it. He feared the parole board would grant her parole.

BritneySpearsIsHot
Nov 16th, 2002, 06:31 PM
Baleineau - you seem very interested in this. Out of interest, are you studying this or are you just interested in the topic?

You are putting in alot of effort to the thread.

Not a criticism at all, it is nice to see, even if we have differing views

baleineau
Nov 16th, 2002, 06:33 PM
i've followed the case over many years. i'm in britain, and i also studied criminality and gender during my sociology training. women who kill etc.

i'm not that familar with the legal process though, so please forgive my technicality failings :)

but yeah, this case gets me riled!

BritneySpearsIsHot
Nov 16th, 2002, 06:37 PM
Are you British or just living here?

I'm not overly familiar with the legal process myself but have views like anyone

Fair enough though, would be boring if we all thought the same

Hurley
Nov 16th, 2002, 07:16 PM
Originally posted by Britney_SMG_MJH
For me 'the point' of this thread is not worth discussing.

And that's why I criticized you. Instead of answering the question and discussing it like a mature adult, you turned it into Death Wish V.

I don't care that you disagree with me, but don't chastise other people when you turned a whole thread into Your Issues.

BritneySpearsIsHot
Nov 16th, 2002, 07:18 PM
Whatever Mr Moderator

Ever heard of the Peter Principal?

Hurley
Nov 16th, 2002, 07:20 PM
Dear...God.

Wow. LOL.

BritneySpearsIsHot
Nov 16th, 2002, 07:21 PM
For you to criticse my maturity after you and your gang started mocking religion, really is a joke, don't you think

*Cue excuses and his merry men and women to back him up*

Hurley
Nov 16th, 2002, 07:22 PM
Anyway, before I put you on ignore, no I have not heard of the "Peter Principal." Was he your principal? As for you, perhaps you're a grand example of the Peter Principle.

Again, if you don't care about points of threads, don't post in them.

BritneySpearsIsHot
Nov 16th, 2002, 07:25 PM
I won't post in them then, although i feel i have the right to post where i like and have my own opinions and put forward and arguement

Peter Principal = promoted beyond capabilities

*Cue ban because i dare have differing views than the 'in' crowd

*Rolleyes*

*Back to my stone*

Hurley
Nov 16th, 2002, 08:28 PM
"Principle," not "principal." The principal is your PAL. :-D

BritneySpearsIsHot
Nov 16th, 2002, 08:39 PM
My English never has been great.............and i'm English :-p

Hope we have put our issues aside now with out PM's, maturely resolved, signs of a GOOD moderator :-)

*enough ass kissing*?

Princess Fiona
Nov 16th, 2002, 10:32 PM
Originally posted by baleineau
no-one can know this, so it's a silly statement to make. apparently Hindley couldn't care if she only lived for a week of freedom before somebody killed her. to her, that was better than spending a further X years in jail.

Maybe she should have thought about that before committing such heinous crimes? :o

baleineau, your posts are interesting but I guess I can't get past the fact that people are thinking of Hindley, HINDLEY and her "rights" when I think more of the real victims (the children and their families). So THIS gets me riled too... I'm sorry, maybe I should leave this thread!!

Shane54
Nov 16th, 2002, 10:42 PM
First of all, the crimes are horrible and she should have been sentenced to life without parole in the first place. But I don't see how they can just go and add the to sentence.

I am surprised they did not do that to Mary Belle. Anyone have any news on her. I think she is trying to write a book if I am not mistaken

veryborednow
Nov 16th, 2002, 10:46 PM
Lesley Ann Downey was 10 years old when she was kidnapped by Hindley and Brady from a fairground in Manchester.

She was stripped, gagged, sexually assaulted and strangled before being buried in a shallow grave on Lancashire's bleak Saddleworth Moor.

Mrs West saw photographs taken by her daughter's killers showing Lesley Ann tied up and helpless in the hours leading up to her death.

She also had to listen to Brady and Hindley's tape recording of her daughter's cries for mercy.

Mrs West was adamant that it was Hindley's hands which squeezed out her daughter's final breath and had threatened to kill her on many occasions.
When the death penalty was abolished [in 1965, one year before Hindley's conviction], it was a very serious step to take.


It is difficult to imagine circumstances in which [a life term] would be a more necessary punishment

Michael Howard
It was decided as part of that momentous decision that special arrangements should be put in place to deal with people who were convicted of murder, in recognition of the fact that murder is a uniquely heinous crime.

It was decided that the sentence for murder, the mandatory sentence, should be life imprisonment.

That would not always mean that the person would spend the rest of their life in prison, but it would in some circumstances.

Frankly, it is difficult to imagine circumstances in which it would be a more necessary punishment, than in the dreadful case of Myra Hindley.

The point is that the tariff which the home secretary sets reflects the appropriate punishment for the act that was committed, and these were unspeakably dreadful acts.

They were I think perhaps unparalleled in the course of recent criminal history.

If life imprisonment can in some circumstances mean that a person should spend the rest of their life in prison, then it is very difficult to imagine a case in which that is a more appropriate punishment than this one

Last one from Michael Howard

~ The Leopard ~
Nov 16th, 2002, 11:10 PM
Originally posted by Britney_SMG_MJH
Yes it is justified. I believe all prisoners should have there sentences checked every 5 years or so

As for being a political prisoner? Who cares

Christ, I care very strongly. Very strongly, indeed. The rule of law is all that stands between us and barbarism. Whether or not the original sentence was too lenient in this particular case, we must not be at the mercy of arbitrary government power. Governments must act only in accordance with law.

A lot of people on this thread are missing the issue. Yes, I probably would have shot the woman concerned, shot her in the street like a mad dog, but that was not the sentence imposed.

If baleineau is correct (and I have no way of knowing this one way or the other), this is very close to a situation where a government is breaching the rule of law. That cannot be allowed. One day it might be some evil scum who is harmed by it. Fine. The next day it might be trade unionists, or students exercising their freedom of speech, or homosexuals, or people who manufacture an unpopular product of some kind, or people like me who just have a lot of unconventional views. No one is safe.

We must draw bright red lines around what governments can or cannot do, and those lines must NEVER be crossed.

I'm glad some of you people don't wield any political power. I would have thought that everything I have written above was totally uncontroversial (it is NOT an example of my unconventional views :) )and understood by everyone in our society. Yet very few of you seem to understand it. Frankly, this frightens me.

veryborednow
Nov 16th, 2002, 11:15 PM
Bearing in mind the EU stops the Secretary of State from doing this any more ...

baleineau
Nov 16th, 2002, 11:19 PM
where does Michael Howard say it's justifiable to increase the tariff, once it has already been set? That is the issue here - first, his right to set a tariff, rather than abiding by the judge's tariff and second, the right to upgrade the tariff. Tariff's are not normally messed with - the Home Secretary abides by the judge's tariff and the parold board then decide, once the tariff has been served, whether the prisoner is fit for release. Hindley's case is unique, hence her fight to get the whole-life tariff dropped. of course, now that she's dead, the coming law lrds vote on this very issue is highly likely to rule that tariffs must be set only by the judiciary, not by politicians.

Michael Howard is, of course, the Home Secretary who converted her tariff from 30 years to whole life. it's unsurprising that he defends his actions by claming Hindley should have stayed in for the whole of her life. but if punishment by whole-life imprisonment is neither set at after the trial, nor is available (which it isn't) then administering it to keep someone in jail at all costs is not technically defensible. The system of justice must look at both sets of rights: victim and perpetrator. you don't totally lose your rights when you commit a crime. you temporarily lose your freedom.

the "circumstances" that Howard refers to are those which are looked at by the parole board. has she made progress in prison? has she reformed? has she shown remorse? has she been cooperative? is she a danger to society? Hindley would win parole, had she had the chance to apply.

yes, the Leslie Ann Downey case was horrific, but uniquely horrific? most child murderers tend to follow the same pattern - abduct a child, sexually abuse the child, kill the child, dispose of the body. that they made a recording was unique in those days - agreed.

Mrs West may have been adamant it was Hindley that killed Leslie Ann, but there's no evidence to support this feeling/hunch, and the evidence available for this particular murder pointed more to Brady's cuplability than Hindley's. It is known that the other murders were committed by Brady.

~ The Leopard ~
Nov 16th, 2002, 11:24 PM
btw, I can't vote for either option. As so often, the options are not exhaustive. I can't vote for an option that says you lose all your legal rights when you commit an horrific crime. But nor am I sure that she is a "political prisoner"; I'd want to research the facts of the case independently before I supported that conclusion.

baleineau
Nov 16th, 2002, 11:35 PM
Originally posted by Franziska

I can't get past the fact that people are thinking of Hindley, HINDLEY and her "rights" when I think more of the real victims (the children and their families).

well, i really hope that you do get past it, and realise it's possible to care about both sets of rights. for me, there is no way of making up for the devastation caused to the victims of this crime, and i have every sympathy for them. this does not mean that I don't care a toss about Hindley or Brady. I don't care for them much at all in fact, but I do care, as Jouissant alludes to, about the potential for the State to take the law into it's own hands for political reasons.

In Britain at the moment, there is a strike among firefighters relating to pay and conditions. the fundamental human right to withdraw one's labour is increasingly at stake unless the government abides by current leglislation. it's possible they'll try to make it illegal for firefighters to strike, as it is for some occupations (the armed forces for certain). if they succeed, then that will be the law and firefighters will have to abide by it. but until it's law, firefighters cannot be sacked or harassed for striking, as they still have the right to strike.

for those struggling to understand the concept tothis thread, i try to think of it like this: i live in a society that has rules. i know that if i break a rule, there's a chance i'll be punished for it. i probably wouldn't like to be punished (i'm no masochist :o ), but i understand that this is the consequence of my breaking a rule. i then expect to be given my punishment (the severity depending on what i've done wrong), and when it's over, i expect to be back at square one. it is not permissable to continue to punish me beyond the agreed level of punishment for my crime. in that sense, i become a victim of injustice.

Picol
Nov 17th, 2002, 12:29 AM
I didn't exactly handle this debate well *cough*

Sorry about that.

reading it in the cold light of the morning I can see where everyone is coming from. Especially Tine and Franziska.

I am sorry I was not more patient and didn't take the time to see it from your point of view even if I do disagree with it.

Crazy Canuck
Nov 17th, 2002, 12:34 AM
For you to criticse my maturity after you and your gang started mocking religion, really is a joke, don't you think

*Cue excuses and his merry men and women to back him up*

Once you started doing this, it was clear that you no longer had a point worth debating with you about.

BritneySpearsIsHot
Nov 17th, 2002, 12:43 AM
*getting major insecurity vibes*

Hurley and myself have sorted any issues out, we aren't buddies but have agreed to move on, not that it's any of your business really

Crazy Canuck
Nov 17th, 2002, 12:48 AM
I don't think I asked about your interaction with Hurley. He sticks up for himself quite well, as do you.

I commented that once you started making comments like that, I saw there was no point in debating with you on this topic. I didn't ask about the state of your relationship.

And I really don't think you should be commenting on anothers "insecurities".

BritneySpearsIsHot
Nov 17th, 2002, 12:54 AM
You quoted something i said to Hurley? Was that not interaction with Hurley?

Should I not comment? I'll comment on what i like, if you have a problem with that, it's yours, not mine

Double Fault
Nov 17th, 2002, 01:02 AM
Yes the judicial system messed up. On this occasion I'M GLAD it did. I am more worried about the rights of those tortured children. I couldn't give a shit about that witches rights. She lost her damn rights when she did what she did.

btw, Tine is right. Life means 25 years. After which one can apply for parole. That parole doesn't have to be granted. It wasn't in this case. GOOD JOB TOO.

Crazy Canuck
Nov 17th, 2002, 01:03 AM
*senses major paranoia*

I do not see where I told you that you can't comment on what you please. I think you slagging me for so called "insecurities" is very BIG of you and all, but I didn't tell you not to comment. Simpley that it was hmmmm - ironic?

I'm not sure what you are replying to actually.

All I was getting at was that once you brought in something totally irrelevant and slagged someone like that, any point you had was pretty much not worth debating with you anymore.

BritneySpearsIsHot
Nov 17th, 2002, 01:06 AM
Slagging?

Oh deary me http://216.40.249.192/mysmilies/contrib/sarge/Whatever_anim.gif

Crazy Canuck
Nov 17th, 2002, 01:12 AM
If I misused the word, i appologize. I would hate to get the "principal" of things all wrong :)

BritneySpearsIsHot
Nov 17th, 2002, 01:14 AM
Can't see the smiley as they are missing, will pick it up when they are back, if i remember the thread is here

Crazy Canuck
Nov 17th, 2002, 01:26 AM
It was the plain old smiling smiley, if you were talking to me.

The : ) one.

Unless you were talking about intending to post another rolleyes one of some nature at me. In which case, I can see them.

baleineau
Nov 17th, 2002, 02:08 AM
Originally posted by Double Fault
Life means 25 years. After which one can apply for parole. That parole doesn't have to be granted. It wasn't in this case. GOOD JOB TOO.

sorry, double-fault, but you've really missed the point. parole wasn't granted, because hindley never became eligible for parole. she would have been eligible had home secretaries not increased the minimum length of time she had to serve before becoming eligible.

life doesn't mean 25 years. it's an indeterminate sentence. it could mean "whole life" if parole boards turn down your application once you've become eligible i.e. served your tariff. the tariff can be 15 years (most common) or 120 years. in hindley's case, the tariff was originally 25 years, then 30 years, the whole life.

the legal question is (a) whether 'whole life' tariffs are discordant with European Court of Human Rights leglisation and (b) should sentencing decisions/tariffs be set only by the judiciary, or can the Secretary of State intervene?

i'm not sad that she spent the rest of her life in prison. her crimes were terrible. but I consider the person best qualified to make a decision on sentences is the trial judge in question. they presided over the trial, heard all the statements, saw all the evidence. he recommended 25 years. she served 36 years in prison and died there. why? because it was politically too sensitive to release her. how? three politicians in succession increased the goal posts to prevent her from becmoing eligible for parole. would she have got parole? yes, most likely. do i feel she has been the victim of an injustice? yes. do I care? yes, because I too live within the same jurisdiction. do i feel sorry for her? no. my sympathy lies with the victims' families, not with hindley. but i still see a miscarriage of justice here.

BigB0882
Nov 17th, 2002, 02:12 AM
I'm sure they kept extending her sentence for good reasons. Perhaps they did NOT feel she was "cured" or "reformed" as they say. Perhaps they felt she would remain a threat to society and releasing her would have been unethical. That woman NEVER deserved to get out. Sure, its not that cool to keep saying someone is about to get out and then keep them in longer, but she never should have been allowed to live as far as I am concerned.

~ The Leopard ~
Nov 17th, 2002, 02:53 AM
Originally posted by BigB0882
I'm sure they kept extending her sentence for good reasons. Perhaps they did NOT feel she was "cured" or "reformed" as they say. Perhaps they felt she would remain a threat to society and releasing her would have been unethical. That woman NEVER deserved to get out. Sure, its not that cool to keep saying someone is about to get out and then keep them in longer, but she never should have been allowed to live as far as I am concerned.

I'd be happier with this if the "they" was a properly convened parole board, rather than a politician who supposedly acted for political reasons rather than in accordance with guidelines set by law.

TS
Nov 17th, 2002, 06:14 AM
After reading this thread it amuses me how the opinions of some affect others.

Get over it. Move on.

If you debate something, expect a difference in opinion (naturally), but whats the point of hurling personal insults?

Anyway, I've read lots on this case over the years and Im not going to comment. It's all been said, and quite frankly I cant be arsed. She is dead, rot in hell.