| A petty criminal! 16:07 - Jun 25 with 2855 views | dilligas |
How Ian Brady describes himself! |  | | |  |
| A petty criminal! on 16:09 - Jun 25 with 2454 views | Yorkshire_Dale |
not Karen Brady this time? | | | |
| A petty criminal! on 16:11 - Jun 25 with 2438 views | rafc1984 |
Proper diluted, is he a bury fan. |  | | |
| A petty criminal! on 16:28 - Jun 25 with 2390 views | SuddenLad |
If that doesn't tell everyone that he's a crackpot, nothing will. |  |
| “It is easier to fool people, than to convince them that they have been fooled†|
| |
| A petty criminal! on 19:49 - Jun 25 with 2240 views | ChaffRAFC |
I think he's full in control of what he says and thinks, he's just pure evil. |  |
| If I hadn't seen such riches, I could live with being poor |
| |
| A petty criminal! on 20:41 - Jun 25 with 2202 views | olympicdale |
He's a madman, but a very smart cookie, a deadly combination. |  |
| |
| A petty criminal! on 08:19 - Jun 26 with 2049 views | Albert_Whitehurst |
He described himself as a petty criminal alongside the likes of Bush and Blair.
Not an unreasonable comment when put into context. |  | | |
| A petty criminal! on 18:08 - Jun 26 with 1956 views | bilbobaggins |
| A petty criminal! on 08:19 - Jun 26 by Albert_Whitehurst |
He described himself as a petty criminal alongside the likes of Bush and Blair.
Not an unreasonable comment when put into context. |
HE SHOULD OF BEEN HUNG YEARS AGO |  | | |
| A petty criminal! on 20:53 - Jun 27 with 1873 views | finberty |
| A petty criminal! on 18:08 - Jun 26 by bilbobaggins |
HE SHOULD OF BEEN HUNG YEARS AGO |
When Brady & Hindley committed their crimes, the death penalty for murder was still in force.
It was suspended some time between their arrest in October 1965 and their trial in May 1966 and I think abolished on a permanent basis in 1967. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| A petty criminal! on 10:15 - Jun 28 with 1812 views | pioneer |
| A petty criminal! on 18:08 - Jun 26 by bilbobaggins |
HE SHOULD OF BEEN HUNG YEARS AGO |
Although I agree completely with the notion of the despicable low life masquerading as a human being in that man - on the basis of believing he should have had the rope, so would Stefan thingy (convicted of murdering the young girl in the late 60s)- and many years later he was found innocent.
Afraid folks like IB need to locked up and the key thrown away. | | | |
| A petty criminal! on 11:30 - Jun 28 with 1794 views | dale1968 |
| A petty criminal! on 10:15 - Jun 28 by pioneer |
Although I agree completely with the notion of the despicable low life masquerading as a human being in that man - on the basis of believing he should have had the rope, so would Stefan thingy (convicted of murdering the young girl in the late 60s)- and many years later he was found innocent.
Afraid folks like IB need to locked up and the key thrown away. |
Still think we are far too soft in this Country.
The Death Penalty is a Must if we are to crack down on these people.
|  |
| |
| A petty criminal! on 12:19 - Jun 28 with 1778 views | D_Alien |
| A petty criminal! on 11:30 - Jun 28 by dale1968 |
Still think we are far too soft in this Country.
The Death Penalty is a Must if we are to crack down on these people.
|
Only when we've found a way to revive innocent dead bodies |  |
| |
| A petty criminal! on 12:23 - Jun 28 with 1774 views | judd |
Well the tvvat ain't leaving Ashworth,if there's any sort of consolation to be gleened from that. |  |
| |
| A petty criminal! on 12:38 - Jun 28 with 1760 views | Dale_Pea |
| A petty criminal! on 11:30 - Jun 28 by dale1968 |
Still think we are far too soft in this Country.
The Death Penalty is a Must if we are to crack down on these people.
|
The death penalty is never a must in any country. |  |
| Best buddy of' Irish_rafc' xox |
| |
| A petty criminal! on 13:43 - Jun 28 with 1730 views | Vespa |
| A petty criminal! on 18:08 - Jun 26 by bilbobaggins |
HE SHOULD OF BEEN HUNG YEARS AGO |
The problem is tho' if you kill one convicted child murderer you've got to kill them all......Even the Innocent ones like Stefan Kiszko.
Best to give them life in prison, at least if the court makes a mistake it can make some amends later.
|  |
| Up the Dale, C'mon Hornets |
| |
| A petty criminal! on 23:48 - Jun 28 with 1659 views | BrighouseDale |
The difference between Stefan Kiszko, Ian Brady etc (apologies for using those two individuals in the same sentence) and modern day cases, is that admissible evidence has come on leaps and bounds in the last forty odd years. Back in the 70s, CCTV and DNA were practically unheard of. I personally think that the death penalty should be an option if someone was UNDOUBTEDLY guilty of murder. And I don't think that's out of the question in 2013. |  |
| I am the resurrection and I am the light. |
| |
| A petty criminal! on 23:56 - Jun 28 with 1654 views | Dale_Pea |
| A petty criminal! on 23:48 - Jun 28 by BrighouseDale |
The difference between Stefan Kiszko, Ian Brady etc (apologies for using those two individuals in the same sentence) and modern day cases, is that admissible evidence has come on leaps and bounds in the last forty odd years. Back in the 70s, CCTV and DNA were practically unheard of. I personally think that the death penalty should be an option if someone was UNDOUBTEDLY guilty of murder. And I don't think that's out of the question in 2013. |
But surely everyone who is convicted of murder are deemed 'undoubtedly' guilty? | |
| Best buddy of' Irish_rafc' xox |
| |
| A petty criminal! on 00:26 - Jun 29 with 1633 views | BrighouseDale |
| A petty criminal! on 23:56 - Jun 28 by Dale_Pea |
But surely everyone who is convicted of murder are deemed 'undoubtedly' guilty? |
I take your point. In the present, whenever that may be, we always believe we have the most advanced technology at our disposal, so ten years ago we thought a Nokia 6310 was the dogs testicles. Little could we have imagined that modern day phones would serve as digital cameras, sat navs, music players and so on. So technology is always moving on. But I don't believe we'll ever see detectives tricking suspects into making fake confessions to the same extent that we did forty years ago, because like it or not, science is on our side. Anyway, what were we talking about again?
| |
| I am the resurrection and I am the light. |
| |
| A petty criminal! on 00:32 - Jun 29 with 1622 views | D_Alien |
| A petty criminal! on 00:26 - Jun 29 by BrighouseDale |
I take your point. In the present, whenever that may be, we always believe we have the most advanced technology at our disposal, so ten years ago we thought a Nokia 6310 was the dogs testicles. Little could we have imagined that modern day phones would serve as digital cameras, sat navs, music players and so on. So technology is always moving on. But I don't believe we'll ever see detectives tricking suspects into making fake confessions to the same extent that we did forty years ago, because like it or not, science is on our side. Anyway, what were we talking about again?
|
Whilst there are polices forces willing to use taxpayers money to try to taint innocent people such as the family of Stephen Lawrence, no-one can ever be sure that the evidence that they (the police) give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth | |
| |
| A petty criminal! on 00:48 - Jun 29 with 1609 views | roccydaleian |
| A petty criminal! on 00:32 - Jun 29 by D_Alien |
Whilst there are polices forces willing to use taxpayers money to try to taint innocent people such as the family of Stephen Lawrence, no-one can ever be sure that the evidence that they (the police) give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth |
And here's another case
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_Clark
She would have been murdered by the state on the account of a so called expert, who was proved wrong. As much as i don't like it, the death penalty is to harsh. You can't kill innocent people. Sometimes the state gets it wrong. |  | | |
| A petty criminal! on 03:01 - Jun 29 with 1594 views | MBoothman |
The problem with the death penalty is that it doesn't actually work as a deterrent. Murderers don't expect to be caught, they don't think of the consequences. |  |
| |
| A petty criminal! on 13:16 - Jun 29 with 1552 views | TomRAFC |
Having worked exstensively as an advocate on forensic psychiatric wards people of Ian Brady's method are not uncommon. It is often scary to see how those capable of some of the most shocking crimes have often cultivated some of the deepest and most effective intellect I have ever seen.
With regards to the death penalty it is always tempting to think it would be the short, sharp, shock some people believe the british jutice sorely system needs however there is little evidence to suggest that in countries where the death penalty is an option that crimes worthy of that penalty are less common.
A friend of mine who is a legal eagle specialising in this sort of thing told me thar after all the appeals the death penalty can often work out more expensive for the state than life imprisonment. | |
| |
| A petty criminal! on 13:51 - Jun 29 with 1545 views | SuddenLad |
| A petty criminal! on 13:16 - Jun 29 by TomRAFC |
Having worked exstensively as an advocate on forensic psychiatric wards people of Ian Brady's method are not uncommon. It is often scary to see how those capable of some of the most shocking crimes have often cultivated some of the deepest and most effective intellect I have ever seen.
With regards to the death penalty it is always tempting to think it would be the short, sharp, shock some people believe the british jutice sorely system needs however there is little evidence to suggest that in countries where the death penalty is an option that crimes worthy of that penalty are less common.
A friend of mine who is a legal eagle specialising in this sort of thing told me thar after all the appeals the death penalty can often work out more expensive for the state than life imprisonment. |
But not as expensive as the reported (minimum) £16 million that it has cost the taxpayers of this country to keep him safe, fed and warm during his 47 years of incarceration. That doesn't include the funds paid out to those who represent him at all the various tribunals and who use him as a pawn in their own games.
Where it still exists, the advances in scientific detection should be used as a legal safeguard against anyone wrongfully convicted of any capital offence. DNA is scientifically irrefutable. The rights of the accused are paramount when death is an option for sentencing. Emotion has no part to play in the decision making process.
Parts of the British Commonwealth still pass sentences of death on conviction for capital offences, but our Queen, as head of the Commonwealth, merely signs documents to commute the sentence to one of 'life imprisonment'. No death sentences are carried out anywhere where the offender is tried under the jurisdiction of Britain.
For all the many disputed and blatantly wrong convictions (Kiszko simply would not have been convicted had DNA been available) there was a high-profile public campaign for 40+ years to clear James Hanratty who had been convicted and executed for the A6 shooting murder and the abduction & rape of Valerie Storey.
Ultimately, with the advancement of DNA, the courts ordered his exhumation, tissue samples were taken and it was then proved conclusively that he was responsible for the crime for which people were claiming he was innocent. Conviction and sentence upheld. End of campaign.
Any re-introduction of a capital punishment is not possible in the UK because all member countries of the EC have signed a treaty which makes it illegal. There are now no capital offences remaining on the statute books of the UK - despite popular talk of Arson in HM Dockyards and Defacing Westminster Bridge. Not even treason carries the Death Sentence any more.
Brady & Hindley were very fortunate that at the time of their crimes, trial and convictions, the implementation of the death penalty had been 'temporarily placed in abeyance' whilst a review was under way as to its' efficacy and as we all now know it was never reinstated and was ultimately abolished. For the sake of a few months, they were spared the death penalty - which is more than can be said for any of their victims.
We will never see the death penalty restored again (as things stand) and our Parliament is now forbidden from even debating it, but it is still a hotly debated topic.
Whether we would reintroduce it and under what conditions is largely academic and there are good reasons either way. What saddens me is that Brady & Hindley were guilty, everyone (including them) accepted their guilt, it was never disputed and (in my opinion) they deserved to be despatched at the end of a rope.
It would have been perfectly just and proper for them to have been executed.
| |
| “It is easier to fool people, than to convince them that they have been fooled†|
| |
| A petty criminal! on 14:03 - Jun 29 with 1540 views | TomRAFC |
| A petty criminal! on 13:51 - Jun 29 by SuddenLad |
But not as expensive as the reported (minimum) £16 million that it has cost the taxpayers of this country to keep him safe, fed and warm during his 47 years of incarceration. That doesn't include the funds paid out to those who represent him at all the various tribunals and who use him as a pawn in their own games.
Where it still exists, the advances in scientific detection should be used as a legal safeguard against anyone wrongfully convicted of any capital offence. DNA is scientifically irrefutable. The rights of the accused are paramount when death is an option for sentencing. Emotion has no part to play in the decision making process.
Parts of the British Commonwealth still pass sentences of death on conviction for capital offences, but our Queen, as head of the Commonwealth, merely signs documents to commute the sentence to one of 'life imprisonment'. No death sentences are carried out anywhere where the offender is tried under the jurisdiction of Britain.
For all the many disputed and blatantly wrong convictions (Kiszko simply would not have been convicted had DNA been available) there was a high-profile public campaign for 40+ years to clear James Hanratty who had been convicted and executed for the A6 shooting murder and the abduction & rape of Valerie Storey.
Ultimately, with the advancement of DNA, the courts ordered his exhumation, tissue samples were taken and it was then proved conclusively that he was responsible for the crime for which people were claiming he was innocent. Conviction and sentence upheld. End of campaign.
Any re-introduction of a capital punishment is not possible in the UK because all member countries of the EC have signed a treaty which makes it illegal. There are now no capital offences remaining on the statute books of the UK - despite popular talk of Arson in HM Dockyards and Defacing Westminster Bridge. Not even treason carries the Death Sentence any more.
Brady & Hindley were very fortunate that at the time of their crimes, trial and convictions, the implementation of the death penalty had been 'temporarily placed in abeyance' whilst a review was under way as to its' efficacy and as we all now know it was never reinstated and was ultimately abolished. For the sake of a few months, they were spared the death penalty - which is more than can be said for any of their victims.
We will never see the death penalty restored again (as things stand) and our Parliament is now forbidden from even debating it, but it is still a hotly debated topic.
Whether we would reintroduce it and under what conditions is largely academic and there are good reasons either way. What saddens me is that Brady & Hindley were guilty, everyone (including them) accepted their guilt, it was never disputed and (in my opinion) they deserved to be despatched at the end of a rope.
It would have been perfectly just and proper for them to have been executed.
|
Cheers for that sudden. Really interesting.
You evidently know the criminal side of it far better than I do.
Mental health is my field so they only get stuck with me once they have been sentenced! | |
| |
| A petty criminal! on 15:02 - Jun 29 with 1526 views | Vespa |
| A petty criminal! on 00:26 - Jun 29 by BrighouseDale |
I take your point. In the present, whenever that may be, we always believe we have the most advanced technology at our disposal, so ten years ago we thought a Nokia 6310 was the dogs testicles. Little could we have imagined that modern day phones would serve as digital cameras, sat navs, music players and so on. So technology is always moving on. But I don't believe we'll ever see detectives tricking suspects into making fake confessions to the same extent that we did forty years ago, because like it or not, science is on our side. Anyway, what were we talking about again?
|
Science may be on our side and the science may well be perfect, the problem is that the science is carried out by people (imperfect one sometimes), imagine being being charged with a capital offence and your fate being put into the hands of a lab' tech' on a Monday morning after he/she had just done a weekend at Glastonbury. Knackered and still doped up.
DNA or any other forensic procedure is not perfect, there's been many cases where it's failed and help send an innocent person to prison (and those are just the ones we know about).
http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2012/10/lgc-forensics-lab-error-rape-accused
http://netk.net.au/DNA/DNA164.asp
Even one of the pioneers of the technique warns about putting too much trust in it.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/inventor-of-dna-fingerprint-testing-w
The death penalty wasn't abolished so that society could go soft on murderers and pedophiles.
It was abolished to protect the innocent from being put to death.
| |
| Up the Dale, C'mon Hornets |
| |
| A petty criminal! on 15:17 - Jun 29 with 1519 views | Vespa |
| A petty criminal! on 13:51 - Jun 29 by SuddenLad |
But not as expensive as the reported (minimum) £16 million that it has cost the taxpayers of this country to keep him safe, fed and warm during his 47 years of incarceration. That doesn't include the funds paid out to those who represent him at all the various tribunals and who use him as a pawn in their own games.
Where it still exists, the advances in scientific detection should be used as a legal safeguard against anyone wrongfully convicted of any capital offence. DNA is scientifically irrefutable. The rights of the accused are paramount when death is an option for sentencing. Emotion has no part to play in the decision making process.
Parts of the British Commonwealth still pass sentences of death on conviction for capital offences, but our Queen, as head of the Commonwealth, merely signs documents to commute the sentence to one of 'life imprisonment'. No death sentences are carried out anywhere where the offender is tried under the jurisdiction of Britain.
For all the many disputed and blatantly wrong convictions (Kiszko simply would not have been convicted had DNA been available) there was a high-profile public campaign for 40+ years to clear James Hanratty who had been convicted and executed for the A6 shooting murder and the abduction & rape of Valerie Storey.
Ultimately, with the advancement of DNA, the courts ordered his exhumation, tissue samples were taken and it was then proved conclusively that he was responsible for the crime for which people were claiming he was innocent. Conviction and sentence upheld. End of campaign.
Any re-introduction of a capital punishment is not possible in the UK because all member countries of the EC have signed a treaty which makes it illegal. There are now no capital offences remaining on the statute books of the UK - despite popular talk of Arson in HM Dockyards and Defacing Westminster Bridge. Not even treason carries the Death Sentence any more.
Brady & Hindley were very fortunate that at the time of their crimes, trial and convictions, the implementation of the death penalty had been 'temporarily placed in abeyance' whilst a review was under way as to its' efficacy and as we all now know it was never reinstated and was ultimately abolished. For the sake of a few months, they were spared the death penalty - which is more than can be said for any of their victims.
We will never see the death penalty restored again (as things stand) and our Parliament is now forbidden from even debating it, but it is still a hotly debated topic.
Whether we would reintroduce it and under what conditions is largely academic and there are good reasons either way. What saddens me is that Brady & Hindley were guilty, everyone (including them) accepted their guilt, it was never disputed and (in my opinion) they deserved to be despatched at the end of a rope.
It would have been perfectly just and proper for them to have been executed.
|
"But not as expensive as the reported (minimum) £16 million that it has cost the taxpayers of this country to keep him safe, fed and warm during his 47 years of incarceration. That doesn't include the funds paid out to those who represent him at all the various tribunals and who use him as a pawn in their own games."
Hmmmm.......Risk putting an innocent person to death to save money? Lets hope that never happens to someone you love.
Brady is in the right place, locked up for life where he can't harm anyone else. It was right that Hindley was never released from prison. It can never be right to kill an innocent person, or even risk killing an innocent person, especially just to save money. [Post edited 1 Jan 1970 1:00]
| |
| Up the Dale, C'mon Hornets |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
