Should the ripper get a release date?

[R1Geezer]

Good old ooman rites being used by criminal scum again! you couldn't make it up! personally I'd give him a release date of 21/01/2099! (front page of the Express)

[steg]

"Bit of a difference between the two Steg."

yes there is, one is a man and the other is a woman

[craft1948]

I think they should let him out...........then publish his adress.

[charmer73]

let him out he should have been hung by the neck and drawn and quartered,even the idea of letting him out in the futere is a disgrace.♥♥

[jackthehat]

If he *is* ever released I really don't suppose he'll be around long enough to cause concern or harm.

[123everton]

I get your point Steg, I don't feel that it is the case though.
One went out with malice afore thought, the other had a nervous breakdown.
One killed for sexual gratification, the other couldn't cope.

[youngmafbog]

Exactly no matter which way you look at it the ripper is a risk to the general public.

However this is no doubt by some lawyer scum to make a quick profit out of the public purse. Perhaps he shoudl be released and forced to stay with his brief.

[jackthehat]

Despite subsequently being diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, he was tried as a 'sane' man, and therefore should be subject to the same rules as 'ordinary' criminals.

[steg]

one was a child murderer and one murdered adults, both were mentally unstable

[tiggerblue10]

I don't think the family members of his victims would be happy for him to be released.

[jake-the-peg]

I think steg has a very interesting point sticking out of a sea of knee jerk reactions and it rather goes to the heart of how we think of mental illness and crime.

Most people are just saying what they think - which is boring rather than why they think them - which is interesting.

Opinions are like hemmerhoids - most ar$eholes have them!

One of the criteria for a whole life tarrifs is

murder of two or more persons, where each murder involves any of the following :

* a substantial degree of premeditation or planning,
* the abduction of the victim, or
* sexual or sadistic conduct,

So Sutcliffe clearly falls into this category - the question is whether or not his schizophrenia reduced his responsibility enough to make that sentence wrong.

At the original trial the schizophrenia was rejected (clearly wrongly and probably for political reasons) which made this somewhat contraversial.

It's academic really though - perhaps he should be given a fixed term sentence rather than a whole life term - but he'd still be detained under an IPP (imprisonment for public protection).

Tabloid headlines suggesting that he'd end up getting released are just mischivious designed to wind up the public

So far so good in that department then

[123everton]

Yes, all killers are wicked.
It is easy to hypothesise what you would say do or feel in the comfort of one's living room over something you hopefully will never experience.
If it were my child, I might feel differently.

[jake-the-peg]

That's why sentences are set by Judges and not by victims and their relatives

[123everton]

Yes, and rightly so.

[jno]

while I'm happy for judges to do the sentencing on behalf of society (including me), I sometimes think it could do with more transparency. Life should mean life (though it should be used sparingly), 20 years should mean 20 years not 10, and so forth. Like price reductions should be shown on the tags, not be applied later at the till. I think people - the prisoner and the public - are entitled to know what they're getting.

If it's accepted that prisoners should be able to earn time off for good behaviour, then perhaps something like the US system of 'five to 10' could be used.

[ludwig]

No he shouldn't. Anyone who can do what he did (for whatever reason) is obviously always going to be dangerous.