Triple child killer cleared for release

[Volvo1956]

JuanCarlosFandango said:

This sums up very neatly why I believe in capital punishment in exceptional circumstances.

Forgive the gratuitous compliment but almost as neatly as TS Eliot:

After such knowledge, what forgiveness?

There's no 'normal life' after you murder 3 children left in your care. You might have a normal life after stealing a car or injuring somoene in a drunken brawl if you do your time and genuinely change your ways. If I ever woke up to find that some former 'me' had committed such crimes I can't imagine that I would want to carry on living.

Excellent point. How the hell anyone thinks he's fit to live in society after forty odd years inside is beyond me.
These are so called experts. God help us all with half wits like this running the show.

[Volvo1956]

La Liga said:

n assessment of reoffending isn’t binary. They aren’t saying someone won’t re-offend because that’s not possible. There’s always the risk someone will, no matter how small.

They best they can do is make an assessment as to how probable it is someone will re-offend. If they judge it as unlikely someone will re-offend, and that’s the correct assessment based on the information they have, then it’d be irrational to hold them to account if that person does go on to re-offend.

When you had limited control of the outcome, then accountability comes through how well the process was applied.

Oh well that makes it all right then.
Everyone can escape responsibility for their actions by stating on the information I had I didn't think there would be a reoccurrence.
So in this case his previous track record as a psychopath is to slaughter three innocent children in the most horrendous circumstances.
So what your saying is.... we can't be sure he won't offend again but we don't think so.
So we will give him a chance and hope he doesnt slaughter anymore children..... but if he does it won't be our fault.
For how long has it been medically possible to cure a psychopath?

There's people in Broadmoor and Rampton who've done less than him and will never be released.
No wonder you left the police or the police left you.
You're the first person I know of who supports that Parole Board Decision and I think in due course it will go the same way as the perverse Wourbuoys decision.
Where the head of the Parole Board threw his ticket in as the sacrificial lamb.
Where do the Parole Board get these people from.
They've certainly not lived in the real world.
As someone else said a condition of their perverse decision they should house McGreavy for twelve months each then you could have him for two years to make sure he doesn't reoffend.
Or better still have him come and live in your street.
You'd have no problem with that would you.

You couldn't make this ste up.

[anonymous-user]

Someone took the bait.

[otolith]

I'm not particularly concerned, in this case, with the risk of reoffending. He's an old man.

We do have the concept of whole life tariffs for the most heinous crimes, and I think that is right and proper. We don't have the death penalty, correctly in my view, but for some crimes I think it's right to say "Your life is over. You will die in prison". I don't know what options the judge had at the time, or what term he envisaged that McGreavy would eventually serve when he sentenced him to at least 20 years, but it seems to me that someone who commits such a horrific crime should never be released.

[V8covin]

otolith said:

I'm not particularly concerned, in this case, with the risk of reoffending. He's an old man.

We do have the concept of whole life tariffs for the most heinous crimes, and I think that is right and proper. We don't have the death penalty, correctly in my view, but for some crimes I think it's right to say "Your life is over. You will die in prison". I don't know what options the judge had at the time, or what term he envisaged that McGreavy would eventually serve when he sentenced him to at least 20 years, but it seems to me that someone who commits such a horrific crime should never be released.

Late 60's is not old.
Being late 60's does not prevent someone from committing serious crimes... especially when they're as crazy as this guy obviously is.

[FiF]

I haven't read the other thread, but it's big news round here in Worcester and surrounding area. Even before this latest issue the original crime was talked about, common knowledge particularly to those who live around the area of the crime. The mother has been very voluble and has had input to each of his parole reviews, and plainly doesn't understand how if he has not been suitable for parole after 32, 35, 37 and 39 years, then why now. Clearly the fact she was not allowed ever to return to her home and lost everything is still very raw.

My question is one that aiui, if under the sentencing guidelines today, he would almost certainly get a whole life tariff. This does not seem a supportable parole decision.

Yes, offenders should be given a second chance if possible, and listened to a double murderer yesterday who pleaded very passionately and eloquently for that reinforced that locking up and throwing away the key isn't humane. Neither were the crimes.

It seems one local concern is that if he is released he should never be permitted to return to Worcester or the county. Given the stretched resources of police and probation service not sure how that can be prevented.

[The Surveyor]

otolith said:

I'm not particularly concerned, in this case, with the risk of reoffending. He's an old man.

We do have the concept of whole life tariffs for the most heinous crimes, and I think that is right and proper. We don't have the death penalty, correctly in my view, but for some crimes I think it's right to say "Your life is over. You will die in prison". I don't know what options the judge had at the time, or what term he envisaged that McGreavy would eventually serve when he sentenced him to at least 20 years, but it seems to me that someone who commits such a horrific crime should never be released.

I thought they had removed the 'whole life' tariff off the sentencing guidelines, indicating that locking somebody up without any potential for release was unlawful?

Personally, I'm drawn on this case, as horrific as the crime was, it was a single barbaric drunken act and very different to the multiple murders undertaken by others. He was sentenced to serve at least 20 years after pleading guilty and has now served 45, 'if' he no longer represents a risk (and taking the emotion of the crime out of the equation) I can't see why he shouldn't be released under strict terms like any other murderer.

[otolith]

The Surveyor said:

I thought they had removed the 'whole life' tariff off the sentencing guidelines, indicating that locking somebody up without any potential for release was unlawful?

Personally, I'm drawn on this case, as horrific as the crime was, it was a single barbaric drunken act and very different to the multiple murders undertaken by others. He was sentenced to serve at least 20 years after pleading guilty and has now served 45, 'if' he no longer represents a risk (and taking the emotion of the crime out of the equation) I can't see why he shouldn't be released under strict terms like any other murderer.

I think the emotion is the point. I know that academics are sniffy about the idea that an important function of the criminal justice system is the satisfaction of the public that the wrongdoer got what was coming to them, but that's the deal that stops us lynching the bds. And if murdering, mutilating and gibbeting three little children isn't enough to get the ultimate sanction the system supports, what is?

Whole life tariffs were upheld, by the way. The thing we were stopped from doing was politicising parole decisions.

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/jan/17/europe...

[GOATever]

The Surveyor said:

it was a single barbaric drunken act

No, it really really wasn’t. It was multiple acts, carried out over a good length of time, and just got more and more horrific as time went on.

[esxste]

I don't necessarily agree with this guys release. What he's done is monstrous; and it makes even me question whether actually he deserves to be alive.

But the principle must remain, revenge is not justice. Respect for life is important; even for the worst of people.

Justice would be him feeling heavily the guilt, and carrying it throughout his life, weighing on him, invading his thoughts every few moments. Justice would be that he sees the world after his release; and truly understands what he stole from those children; and their family. Justice would be him feeling the guilt so badly that he himself wants to end it with suicide, but never going through with it; knowing he deserves to feel the guilt for as long as he naturally lives.

[Penelope Stopit]

Life is cheap in the UK, the system is broken and requires people with common sense to fix it
The man should have been put to sleep in the same way as a very ill animal is, there is no doubt whatsoever that he commited these atrocious murders
The time has come for the UK and other countries to make big changes

[otolith]

esxste said:

I don't necessarily agree with this guys release. What he's done is monstrous; and it makes even me question whether actually he deserves to be alive.

But the principle must remain, revenge is not justice. Respect for life is important; even for the worst of people.

Justice would be him feeling heavily the guilt, and carrying it throughout his life, weighing on him, invading his thoughts every few moments. Justice would be that he sees the world after his release; and truly understands what he stole from those children; and their family. Justice would be him feeling the guilt so badly that he himself wants to end it with suicide, but never going through with it; knowing he deserves to feel the guilt for as long as he naturally lives.

I think that's wishful thinking. In many of these cases the perpetrators are simply incapable of those feelings.

[Volvo1956]

otolith said:

I'm not particularly concerned, in this case, with the risk of reoffending. He's an old man.

We do have the concept of whole life tariffs for the most heinous crimes, and I think that is right and proper. We don't have the death penalty, correctly in my view, but for some crimes I think it's right to say "Your life is over. You will die in prison". I don't know what options the judge had at the time, or what term he envisaged that McGreavy would eventually serve when he sentenced him to at least 20 years, but it seems to me that someone who commits such a horrific crime should never be released.

Oh well in that case let's release everyone over the age of 60.
From all the prisons Secure psychiatric hospitals Rampton Broadmoor.
Because once you reach 60 you're old and not capable of anything.
Do you realise what you've just said... I'm glad you're not in charge of the keys.
Unbelievable comment.
Please tell me you said it as a joke.

[Volvo1956]

[quote=La Liga]

Someone took the bait. [

/quote]

Is baiting the hook binary or non binary.
Is this another current buzz word..... seems to crop up a lot.
Another example of bullst attempting to baffle brains. Unfortunately it's often the case that the authors of bullst don't usually understand what they're saying.

[Volvo1956]

FiF said:

I haven't read the other thread, but it's big news round here in Worcester and surrounding area. Even before this latest issue the original crime was talked about, common knowledge particularly to those who live around the area of the crime. The mother has been very voluble and has had input to each of his parole reviews, and plainly doesn't understand how if he has not been suitable for parole after 32, 35, 37 and 39 years, then why now. Clearly the fact she was not allowed ever to return to her home and lost everything is still very raw.

My question is one that aiui, if under the sentencing guidelines today, he would almost certainly get a whole life tariff. This does not seem a supportable parole decision.

Yes, offenders should be given a second chance if possible, and listened to a double murderer yesterday who pleaded very passionately and eloquently for that reinforced that locking up and throwing away the key isn't humane. Neither were the crimes.

It seems one local concern is that if he is released he should never be permitted to return to Worcester or the county. Given the stretched resources of police and probation service not sure how that can be prevented.

Nobody understands the Parole Board Decision never mind her.
What has changed so remarkably in the last few years?
That's something that's not explained.
The bottom line here is.
If the people responsible for this decision knew before decision made that this offender wad coming to live in their street would they release him.
Answer I guess a resounding no.
If no why not?
One of three things will happen in my view.
He will reoffend and be back inside obviously.
He will be executed by someone.
His life will be made he'll and he will want to go back inside.
Or possibly he won't be able to cope after 40 years inside.
If he'd been slotted at the time these problems wouldn't arise

I can envisage a permanent police presence outside his gaff.
No problem with that plenty of police available... plenty of money. Watch this space.

[Volvo1956]

The Surveyor said:

I thought they had removed the 'whole life' tariff off the sentencing guidelines, indicating that locking somebody up without any potential for release was unlawful?

Personally, I'm drawn on this case, as horrific as the crime was, it was a single barbaric drunken act and very different to the multiple murders undertaken by others. He was sentenced to serve at least 20 years after pleading guilty and has now served 45, 'if' he no longer represents a risk (and taking the emotion of the crime out of the equation) I can't see why he shouldn't be released under strict terms like any other murderer.

Whole life tariff still exists after a battle.
Was removed for a time due to the experts at the European Court of Human Rights/ Justice. Stating it was excessive/ inhumane to bang someone up with no prospect of release.
Didn't matter what they'd done or how many killed.
Now back on the books thankfully.

[NoNeed]

I would imagine he had already been given a lot of closely supervised freedoms to prepare him for life outside. People don't see the amount of work prison staff do to prepare people and minimise the risks. The parole board too would have to be very sure that the person will try to lead a normal life.

[Volvo1956]

The Surveyor said:

I thought they had removed the 'whole life' tariff off the sentencing guidelines, indicating that locking somebody up without any potential for release was unlawful?

Personally, I'm drawn on this case, as horrific as the crime was, it was a single barbaric drunken act and very different to the multiple murders undertaken by others. He was sentenced to serve at least 20 years after pleading guilty and has now served 45, 'if' he no longer represents a risk (and taking the emotion of the crime out of the equation) I can't see why he shouldn't be released under strict terms like any other murderer.

A single drunken barbaric act.
Is that what you call it.
Anybody would think he smashed a window and threw a goldfish out.
So drunkenness excuses the frenzied and tortured murder of three toddlers.
You need to read up on what this savage did to those children.

[otolith]

Volvo1956 said:

otolith said:

I'm not particularly concerned, in this case, with the risk of reoffending. He's an old man.

We do have the concept of whole life tariffs for the most heinous crimes, and I think that is right and proper. We don't have the death penalty, correctly in my view, but for some crimes I think it's right to say "Your life is over. You will die in prison". I don't know what options the judge had at the time, or what term he envisaged that McGreavy would eventually serve when he sentenced him to at least 20 years, but it seems to me that someone who commits such a horrific crime should never be released.

Oh well in that case let's release everyone over the age of 60.
From all the prisons Secure psychiatric hospitals Rampton Broadmoor.
Because once you reach 60 you're old and not capable of anything.
Do you realise what you've just said... I'm glad you're not in charge of the keys.
Unbelievable comment.
Please tell me you said it as a joke.

Interesting that you feel that everyone who is incapable of reoffending should be immediately released - please tell me that it's a joke?

(I like your game of misrepresenting other people's arguments, it's fun)

[Volvo1956]

Penelope Stopit said:

Life is cheap in the UK, the system is broken and requires people with common sense to fix it
The man should have been put to sleep in the same way as a very ill animal is, there is no doubt whatsoever that he commited these atrocious murders
The time has come for the UK and other countries to make big changes

Absolutely spot on. However finding the people with the common sense and big enough balls is the problem.
I fear we've gone to far down the track where offenders are higher up the pecking order than victims and their families.
As you say we have no issue putting an ill or dangerous animal down humanely.
But an ill dangerous human being has to be nurtured and protected.
For whose benefit I'm not sure. Certainly not societies.
If Brexit can't be sorted and decisions made in three years then there's no chance of of any meaningful changes in the Justice System.