| Welcome to Coffeetalk. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Penalties for Murder; What is Just? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jun 11 2008, 04:10 PM (406 Views) | |
| Regullus | Jun 11 2008, 04:10 PM Post #1 |
|
Reliant
|
I was perusing the Daily Mail and there was some story about Myra Hindley and the Moors Murders. I was surprised to see the headline as I thought she was dead, she is. Some people thought Hindley should be released after serving 20 yrs because she had reformed in prison, she had been unduly influenced by her boyfriend and she had been treated differently than other life term prisoners. The victims in the case were young:
Here are the links to the murders and Myra Hindley: Moors Murder Myra Hindley A horrendous case, there's the youth of the victims, the heinousness of their deaths, and the extreme suffering of the families. The mother of Lesley Ann Downey had to listen to the tape of her daughter's torture at the hands of Brady and Hindley. Both the murderers were from unhappy homes. MH's father beat her and the family however this is not necessarily rare today and was not uncommon place then. I let those who are interested draw their own conclusions. I guess my question is why should Myra Hindley (and her ilk) be given a second chance? They are no second chances, no re-dos for the victims and their families. As Bex said, sometimes the punishment seems too extreme for the mistake. Myra Hindley's mistake was to pursue and fall under the sway of a deranged man and enable him to commit multiple crimes against children. What were the children's crimes? |
| |
![]() |
|
| Eral | Jun 11 2008, 11:39 PM Post #2 |
|
Kopi Luwak
|
How long is long enough? How much punishment is enough? I am coming back to this one. |
![]() |
|
| Joe | Jun 12 2008, 01:39 AM Post #3 |
|
Coffea Canephora
|
The punishment for male murders should be having to listen to Eral's feminist rants! Bahahaha. Aaaah. You know I love you, Eral; let's shag all night long. Don't worry, I'll go down first. |
|
In the shadow of the light from a black sun Frigid statue standing icy blue and numb Where are the frost giants I've begged for protection? I'm freezing | |
![]() |
|
| Eral | Jun 14 2008, 01:55 AM Post #4 |
|
Kopi Luwak
|
Joe, I detect a note of insincerity in your expression of devotion. Please refrain from ewww- making suggestions, it's hard to get vomit out of the keyboard. Mr.FPS says to tell you he doesn't normally like punching people, but will make an exception in your case. As I was saying. Should people serve longer than their original prison sentences?Should anyone other than a judge be able to decide on them? The legal system is meant to be impartial and just: precedent and law are meant to guide judgements, not emotions. That means bad people should get treated fairly. That's a challenge to those of us who react to a crime emotionally. Hindley served longer than her original sentence: special laws had to be enacted to keep her prison. Her treatment was a violation of civil liberty. We had the same dilemma with a child murderer who was sentenced to thirty years. When his sentence was served, our state government passed a law to keep him in jail for life. It caused huge concern amongst lawyers and judges, and was strongly supported in the community. Because of the case, some people have been sentenced "never to be released". I didn't feel any compassion for Hindley, but if I had known her, I wonder if I would have. Hindley didn't make a mistake: she purposefully murdered a string of children. She was certainly influenced by Brady: but she chose to participate. I imagine that a need for power and control drove both her and Brady. I wonder whether her campaign for release was a way of continuing to seek notoriety and inflict pain on her victims' families. If she was really repentant, accepting the punishment meted out would be much more in keeping with the 1960's Catholic POV. |
![]() |
|
| lara | Jun 14 2008, 03:08 AM Post #5 |
|
Kopi Luwak
|
In Canada, the longest sentence is life without chance of parole for 25 years. That does not mean people necessarily get out after 25 years. Clifford Olsen, who killed multiple children and is has admitted he'd kill more if he were released, will spend the rest of his life in jail. On the other hand, Karla Homolka, who, with her boyfriend, abducted, tortured and killed two teenage girls, and played a part in the drugging death of her sister, whom she drugged so her boyfriend could rape her, is out after serving 10 years because police decided she was the less guilty of the pair and made a deal with her to get her boyfriend. It wasn't until later that they found a recording that showed a much more willing participant than they'd imagined. They screwed up, and when police or the justice system screw up, people sometimes go free. On the other hand, they also sometimes spend many years in jail. We are people, we make errors. More recently, Canada enacted dangerous offender legislation. Since it was enacted, people who commit violent crimes, who are sentenced to at least 10 years in prison for those crimes, and are considered at high risk to continue to offend, basically are locked up and the key's thrown away. The only way they can get out is if they convince a judge -- and likely, a string of judges, because the Crown will appeal -- that they are no longer at risk to reoffend. The law, however, is not retroactive, so it does not apply to crimes committed before the legislation was passed. In Canada, there is no such thing as double jeopardy. The Crown can continue to appeal judges' decisions all the way to the Supreme Court. I think it's a fairly good system. |
![]() |
|
| Eral | Jun 15 2008, 12:42 AM Post #6 |
|
Kopi Luwak
|
The "dangerous offenders" legislation was in response to cases like Hindley's, I take it? People had served their twenty-five years and were up for release? The "dangerous offenders" legislation satisfies the part of me that feels there are some crimes for which you should lose your freedom forever. But I'm not sure making judgements based on our perceptions and emotions e.g. that a person has reformed or is likely to re-offend makes the system safer. The impartial system means people like Hindley should be released. The emotional/perception system increases the risk of injustice. We have victim impact statements pre-sentencing. The person who was the target of the offence, or their surviving family describe their pain and suffering to the court, and the judge/jury weighs that up in considering the length of the sentence. Some lawyers are concerned that means a person who has come to terms with their loss might see the perpetrator get a lighter sentence. Very very wrong. |
![]() |
|
| lara | Jun 15 2008, 03:00 AM Post #7 |
|
Kopi Luwak
|
Well, first off, our system is predicated not on punishment for crime, but on deterrence and reform. The judgment whether a person will reoffend is generally based on the opinion of experts. How much psychiatrists actually know about people is up for debate, but there does have to be evidence of repeated offences and lack of desire or ability to reform. I think the dangerous offender legislation was enacted to acknowledge that while reform and deterrence are great goals, some people pose such a danger to society that for the good of society, they shouldn't be given their freedom. It's certainly not easy to get a person declared a dangerous offender and such a ruling is generally appealed as far as possible. In the end, justice systems are always based on the perceptions of those judging, whether they're judges or juries. Two people tell different stories. Who do you believe? You look at who seems more trustworthy, etc., but in the end, sometimes it just comes down to perception and emotion. You can't separate those things from judgment, one of the reasons I don't think capital punishment is a good idea. (There are others -- like my pacifist ideals -- but beyond those, a system based on people judging other people, while necessary, is so open to error.) |
![]() |
|
| Eral | Jun 15 2008, 11:57 PM Post #8 |
|
Kopi Luwak
|
Oh, our justice system is predicated on deterrence and reform, too - same imperial power, remember? But prison isn't a deterrent, our rehabilitation support services are negligible, and having jail on your resume is a ticket to the unemployment office. It's a punishment. Victim's families certainly see it that way. How much should our perception that the perpetrator is evil affect their sentence? |
![]() |
|
| lara | Jun 16 2008, 02:59 AM Post #9 |
|
Kopi Luwak
|
I think the ideals of our justice system are good. I don't think perception of evil should play a part. Or is that a hypothetical question? I don't think all victims and victims' family members want revenge. Some want what the justice system is set up for. To follow your questions, is the justice system set up for victims and victims' families? Should it be? |
![]() |
|
| Regullus | Jun 16 2008, 02:04 PM Post #10 |
|
Reliant
|
I think you are forgetting about the victims and the damage that was caused by these types of acts. The question to my mind is not why did someone do something, it's why so many people don't. Many crimes I think we can understand or sympathize and then there are others, the Dahmers, the Bundy, the Hindleys, the Homolkas that are incomprehensible. Once someone has done the unthinkable, I don't think prison is any longer about deterrence and rehabilitation. It's about punishement, and the removal of a danger to society. Second chances for a Ted Bundy? Why? There was another case of an English husband/wife sexual sadistic serial killers (not picking on England). They tortured/killed a couple of their children, as well as various girls and young women. One of the children, a son, was later convicted for having sex with an underage girl. I think the son should be treated with a certain compassion but not to the detriment, risk to society. It's hardly surprising a child raised in such a depraved househould would have boundary issues. I think compassion, rehabilitation, redemption have a place within a justice system but there are crimes that are too heinous to ever allow freedom. For all the crimes that make headlines, there are a million more that we never hear about. I have a friend who works in a Western prison. She processes the prisoners. The case that shocked her the most was a man who sexually abused his girlfriend's daughter, The mother was complicit in the abuse. He filmed the sexual abuse. The daughter was five when the abuse started and seven when it was stopped. He had the child have sex with both he and the mother. Among other depraved acts he had the child eat his ejaculate from the mother's vagina. He was all bummed out he got 40 yrs in prison. Didn't think it was fair. The mother got a lighter sentence. He didn't think that was fair either. Here is a question, why are these women being treated more lightly? Again, in these types of extreme cases, why should the perpetrators get second chances? Why? What benefit is it to anyone? They've done acts so egregious they should be permanently removed from society. |
| |
![]() |
|
| Eral | Jun 19 2008, 02:55 AM Post #11 |
|
Kopi Luwak
|
One of the purposes of the justice system is to re-affirm our value for life and the rights of all. If we don't take into account the effect of crimes, we de-value life. A woman who was instrumental in having victims' rights become a part of sentencing consideration was raped. The magistrate gave the perpetrator a lighter sentence because he didn't kill her, describing the crime as "a common garden-variety rape." We don't want sentencing to become an exercise in lynching, but some sensitivity to suffering would be good. Balancing the rights of all is the tricky part. There are some people who we really don't value. But if we kill them, or treat them unfairly we can't say that's justice and therefore allowable. I think 'dangerous offenders' legislation is ideal. It stops the system becoming even more hit-and-miss than it is, but allows for special cases. I imagine the woman got a lighter sentence than her partner because she was a collaborator, not an instigator. She was viewed as the man's victim, too. She may have feared for her life if she didn't comply. I'd hate to think I would let a child suffer in order to protect myself. |
![]() |
|
| lara | Jun 19 2008, 06:00 AM Post #12 |
|
Kopi Luwak
|
I pretty much agree with what Eral says. I don't know the case well enough to know whether the woman warranted the lesser sentence. My opinions on victims' rights are heavily influenced by my religion, which emphasizes pacifism and forgiveness. There's a Mennonite family in Winnipeg whose 13-year-old daughter was grabbed off the street on her way home from school, tied up and left in a shed to die. Her frozen body was found seven weeks later, bound so she wouldn't have been able to move. Her parents worked hard to forgive her killer. I admire that. That's the kind of person I'd like to be. Her mother wrote the following after a man was arrested last year and charged with Candace's first-degree murder, 23 years after she died: An article by Candace's mom |
![]() |
|
| Regullus | Jun 19 2008, 12:47 PM Post #13 |
|
Reliant
|
lara could you explain forgiveness in the practical sense? I mean, what is supposed to happen to a person dangerous to society, the sexual predator/murderer in Candace's story, forinstance? In the article, the mother said she rejoiced that the women of Winnipeg were safer after his arrest which would indicate that there is a belief in, if not punishment, the protection of society from dangerous people. In an ideal society how would the perpetrator of extreme crimes be treated? Is the goal of forgiveness the redemption of the criminal, societal reconciliation, etc. ? |
| |
![]() |
|
| Nibsi | Jun 19 2008, 02:13 PM Post #14 |
|
Te zijner tijd
|
I wonder if victims really forgive people like that, or if it's just a word coming from their mouths. Isn't there a bit of anger still? What if she were to see this murderer in person? Reg, I'm not sure what you mean by ideal society, since there is no such thing. Even if there was, there wouldn't be any murderers. BTW, maybe it's just me, but the picture of Candace doesn't really strike me as that of a thirteen year old. She looks much more mature. |
| -Nibby | |
![]() |
|
| Regullus | Jun 19 2008, 02:55 PM Post #15 |
|
Reliant
|
Poorly phrased, Nib, I meant under the Pacifist/Mennonite ideal. What would happen to and how would these criminals be treated? In the abstract, I don't hate Myra Hindley, in fact, as with most monstrous people, I think she is aberrant and pathetic but she willingly murdered children. She caused immeasurable and inconceivable damage to not only the victims but their families. Who knows what damage she did to society? Who knows what these people might have achieved or added to society in even small ways. She and others, broke covenant with society. She committed the worst crimes and her personal redemption is immaterial to me. I'm glad she saw the error of her ways but so what? Why the second chance? Why the forgiveness on a state or societal level? Yes, I understand her sentence was 25 yrs and then they changed term although I would argue the judge was ambiguous in stating the length of the term. So the State decided she hadn't served enough time for her crimes (and I would agree.), her crimes were extraordinary. It's not particularly the fear she would offend again, it's she doesn't have the right to freedom anymore. That right was lost when she killed. Candace's article did strike me as personal forgiveness. |
| |
![]() |
|
| Bex | Jun 19 2008, 04:47 PM Post #16 |
|
puppet dictator
|
This is just a quote from a short story I read a while ago. The author is talking about the Nazis, but I think it works as a cautionary statement regarding the treatment of any criminal. I think that for those who have suffered unjustly, justice alone is not enough. They want the guilty to suffer unjustly too. Only this will they understand as justice. -Tadeusz Borowski "The People Who Walked On" There is justice and there is vengeance. Possibly more later.... |
|
I belong to one of those families that does not speak to or see its members as often as we should, but if someone needed anyone to fall on a sword for her, there would be a queue waiting to commit the deed. -Min Jin Lee | |
![]() |
|
| Krazy | Jun 19 2008, 04:51 PM Post #17 |
|
I haz powah!
|
Oh yes, capital punsihment, bring it back for the lowest of crimes like stealing an apple. Watch as crime rates fall along with the heads of those axed - oh yes, public execution by a headsman no less. Bloody, brutal and a worthy spectacle for all to watch. Have a dedicated TV channel, "The Axe!", watch all the blood spraying action in slow motion from our special camera-in-the-basket or basket-cam as we call it. Never miss a drop! We take reforming literally. I'm right, if you think about it, you know it would work...admit it!!! |
| "Well, ‘course dis one’s betta! It’s lotz ‘eavier, and gots dem spikey bitz on de ends. " | |
![]() |
|
| Nibsi | Jun 19 2008, 05:50 PM Post #18 |
|
Te zijner tijd
|
LOL well, the way you put it does make it seem kinda entertaining. |
| -Nibby | |
![]() |
|
| Eral | Jun 21 2008, 12:14 AM Post #19 |
|
Kopi Luwak
|
Public executions as public entertainment : human are never going to be able to get that past Buddha. "Love your enemies" doesn't mean that punishment for trangression shouldn't occur. It's more that you should avoid calling for the head of the person who offended. Candace's mother is a very brave person.
I agree that applies to Hindley, and others who commit crimes like hers. But I think it has to be a part of the system: it has to be encoded in law so that it applies to everyone. It also has to be stated at the time of sentencing. |
![]() |
|
| lara | Jun 21 2008, 05:22 AM Post #20 |
|
Kopi Luwak
|
Forgiveness does not mean a person should not be held accountable. I forgive my daughter for the things she does wrong but that does not mean there are no consequences. She still has to clean up the mess, apologize to the kid she hurt, behave appropriately. My dictionary says "cease to feel angry or resentful towards; pardon." But I don't take that to mean pardon the way it is used when a criminal is pardoned. By letting go of anger and resentment, we can look at the bigger picture, the one beyond our own hurt and our own needs. That bigger picture includes not only the transgressor, but the rest of society, so: what is best for not only the transgressor, but for society as a whole? We also, if we succeed in forgiving, return power to ourselves. Anger and resentment are very powerful emotions that can lead to people doing hurtful, ugly things. If I work through and move beyond those emotions, the person who transgressed loses power over me -- my feelings about that person no longer affect me that way. I think that dictionary definition is missing something, for me. My Mennonite Christian definition of forgiveness has to do with the old symbol of Jesus washing away sin -- but my sin. By forgiving someone, I let go of an angry, violent reaction to that person's actions, and allow myself to, well, the way I think of it is to restore peace for myself. I find peace again. I cleanse myself of those negative emotions. And I think that anger is often an important step in the process towards forgiveness. it's one of the emotions that has to be worked through before a person can move on.
Well, I don't believe an ideal society is possible on this earth. I think our dangerous offender legislation works fairly well. It often catches those who can't be reformed and keeps society safe from them.
I think, perhaps, the goal of forgiveness is redemption of myself. Out of that might spring good for humanity, and perhaps something for the criminal, as well, or for potential future criminals. But forgiveness is a personal thing that allows me not to desire harm for another person. It's my ideal, although I don't know that I could accomplish what Ms Derksen has. I don't think revenge is something I should rightfully want or seek. It does not produce anything positive. |
![]() |
|
| Krazy | Jun 21 2008, 11:34 AM Post #21 |
|
I haz powah!
|
Pfft, it is this sort of quasi-religious wishy-washy thinking that lets the perpetrators off the hook! So you make the problem yours and work you way through your emotions blah de blah de blah neatly side-stepping the actual problem, which is "what to do with them?" |
| "Well, ‘course dis one’s betta! It’s lotz ‘eavier, and gots dem spikey bitz on de ends. " | |
![]() |
|
| Regullus | Jun 21 2008, 02:12 PM Post #22 |
|
Reliant
|
But we're (Society) not being emotional. To abhor and forbid the crimes of Myra Hindley is not being emotional or vengeful. The idea that she should (have been) be released is emotional. In its ideal, the state is impartial. The state transcends the emotionalism of man, the vengance, the petty vindictiveness of humanity. It doesn't dance around shouting "Rot in Hell!! Myra Hindley or Ted Bundy, or Dahmer." The state fails because it is comprised of individuals who bring their vanities to the system or their humanity. It is also the humanity which tempers the impartiality of justice. It is humanity that decides one murder is worse than another. Take the son of the sado/sexual murderous couple: Yes, he should be treated with compassion but perhaps he was irrevocably twisted by his upbringing and then it is the State's role/need to protect others in society from him. It's not fair that the son was possibly twisted by his parents, nor is it 'fair' that one child is born damaged while another is born whole but at some point compassion is pointless and the greater safety needs to be considered and take precedence over compassion. There was a case here, I'm not sure of the details but the general story is this: A child is born with defect and she is below average iq but above total incapacity. She is also born to a troubled family. From an early age the state is involved in her life. In the beginning social services, as she aged social services and the criminal system. By the time she was a teenager it was known that she was dangerous to society, it was believed she would harm others. It was believed that if she wasn't in state control she would harm herself and others. She wasn't remanded into state control. She became involved in drugs which decreased her already poor self control. Outside of many non-violent crimes, she became increasingly involved in violent crime. She ended up killing her (her lesbian lover whom she abused) lover. She went to jail, served her time which wasn't long term due to compassion for her many problems. She was released and killed her next lover. She was sentenced to life in State custody. She will have parole hearings and possibly she may again be released or not. I think the State behaved properly but two people died unnecessarily. Obviously the State shouldn't have the power to randomly commit people to State care. Thanks, lara, I understand exactly what you mean. |
| |
![]() |
|
| Krazy | Jun 21 2008, 08:08 PM Post #23 |
|
I haz powah!
|
See. I would beg to differ the State acted properly in this case - the moment she killed her first lover that should have been enough to lock the door and throw away the key. I would say that second death was entirely preventable and the State should have intervened earlier. You can't have unnecessary deaths and claim the State acted properly, not in this case anyway. Now you can see why my system would still result in two deaths, but at least there wouldn't be any possibility for the dangerous person (however sympathetic we are to her cause) to commit more murders because well, she'd be Six Feet Under by then. |
| "Well, ‘course dis one’s betta! It’s lotz ‘eavier, and gots dem spikey bitz on de ends. " | |
![]() |
|
| lara | Jun 21 2008, 08:51 PM Post #24 |
|
Kopi Luwak
|
Um... lock 'em up and throw away the key until they've both served their time and shown they're no longer a danger to society -- which is likely never. |
![]() |
|
| Eral | Jun 21 2008, 11:23 PM Post #25 |
|
Kopi Luwak
|
How do you show you are not a danger to society? That depends entirely on how you are perceived. Until we can foresee the future, that's never going to result in satisfactory outcomes. The case of the young woman Regullus described shows that sympathy for an offender can cause as much injustice as hostility towards them. Our system of parole and sentence reduction exists entirely because of the expense involved in running a prison system. If we could afford to keep offenders in jail for life, we would be. As it is, we draw a line in the sand and say "You get this much punishment" and draw another line for someone else. There's always going to be a case that can't be processed neatly. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Table 32 · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2







4:31 PM Jul 13