Ian Huntley Attacked In Prison
Discussion
Just heard on the radio that following the attack Ian Huntley will probably be in line to receive Approx £15,000 in compensation. Surely NOT!!!!!
I know the authorities have a duty to ensure he is safe in prison, but lets not forget it was his own actions that put him there when he made the decision to murder two innocent young girls with their whole lives ahead of them!
If he receives a single penny it will be wrong !
Makes my blood boil !
I know the authorities have a duty to ensure he is safe in prison, but lets not forget it was his own actions that put him there when he made the decision to murder two innocent young girls with their whole lives ahead of them!
If he receives a single penny it will be wrong !
Makes my blood boil !
JustinP1 said:
Blackpig2 said:
WTF is he going to spend it on?.
Indeed. May as well give him £15m.
That would probably been more of a punishment. He is not going to get out of prison until he is drawing his pension, and for the next 35 years being in solitary or beaten up.
.
Why would Huntley be able to get any compensation? Serious question here.
If the Prison Service is admitting that they are negligent then fair enough (ish) but the simple fact that a prisoner (who is probably not too keen on following like, rules or he wouldn't be there) has circumvented the system isn't evidence that the Prison Service is negligent. Maybe they were, of course, but it's a little early in the day to jump to that conclusion.
Presumably they make sure that he is at least moderately protected, is on a protected wing with other vulnerable prisoners, weapons searches etc. are in place and generally the environment is as safe as it can be without being unworkably intrusive and labour intensive. If that's the case, I can't see how they are at fault unless there was a deliberate or negligent action (rather than inaction) by a member of HMPS.
On the other hand you could consider that he is a victim of crime and therefore entitled to Criminal Injuries Compensation. The only problem with that is that well er... he has a criminal record. You may have noticed this. As such, any award would be reduced at the CICA's sole discretion by "up to" 100%. It's very rare for them not to exercise this discretion to reduce; in this case, it would be guaranteed.
So he's entitled to £15k less a 100% reduction for his previous convictions. I think that's fair enough to be honest.
If the Prison Service is admitting that they are negligent then fair enough (ish) but the simple fact that a prisoner (who is probably not too keen on following like, rules or he wouldn't be there) has circumvented the system isn't evidence that the Prison Service is negligent. Maybe they were, of course, but it's a little early in the day to jump to that conclusion.
Presumably they make sure that he is at least moderately protected, is on a protected wing with other vulnerable prisoners, weapons searches etc. are in place and generally the environment is as safe as it can be without being unworkably intrusive and labour intensive. If that's the case, I can't see how they are at fault unless there was a deliberate or negligent action (rather than inaction) by a member of HMPS.
On the other hand you could consider that he is a victim of crime and therefore entitled to Criminal Injuries Compensation. The only problem with that is that well er... he has a criminal record. You may have noticed this. As such, any award would be reduced at the CICA's sole discretion by "up to" 100%. It's very rare for them not to exercise this discretion to reduce; in this case, it would be guaranteed.
So he's entitled to £15k less a 100% reduction for his previous convictions. I think that's fair enough to be honest.
Davel said:
Then it should go to his victims families, not him.
I'm sorry but I hope he rots in hell.
His victims would now be apporximately 18 years old. If they were still alive, limitation in a personal injury case would run from their eighteenth birthdays (but I'm not sure of the position sure when the victim is deceased). I'm sorry but I hope he rots in hell.
If that's the case then their estates could bring a claim against him for personal injury until their 21st birthdays and any assets would be eaten up by damages and costs.
Alternatively, a case could be brought following A -v- Hoare which allows the Court to exercise its discretion under s.33 Limitation Act 1980 to allow a claim out of time.
Edited by DavidHM on Monday 22 March 16:06
I hope none of you guys work in criminal justice.
Let's remember that:
a) Huntley's life is to all intents and purposes over. A few grand is going to make f*** all difference to him.
b) Nothing is going to bring those girls back or take away the pain inflicted on their family.
To arbitrarily say that a certain person should permanently lose the protection of the law just because we feel particularly offended by what they have done, is a witless knee-jerk reaction.
Of course, if you want to argue that once behind bars offenders should take whatever they get and serve them right, and if you want to apply this principle equitably, then by all means make your case. But first consider the implications of such a policy.
Huntley has been sentenced to imprisonment, not to random beatings administered by people who are supposed to be learning more civilised behaviour. If you think that's wrong, campaign for the reinstatement of the pillory, or the gibbet. But I don't think attempting to lessen the rule of law in prisons, where there is an inherent potential for disorder, is a sensible move.
Of course the pragmatic response is that the human rights lawyers would think all their Christmases had come at once at the mere suggestion of what has been suggested, we'd spend a hell of a lot more than 15k trying to defend it, and what profit would there be? (See points a and b...)
Let's remember that:
a) Huntley's life is to all intents and purposes over. A few grand is going to make f*** all difference to him.
b) Nothing is going to bring those girls back or take away the pain inflicted on their family.
To arbitrarily say that a certain person should permanently lose the protection of the law just because we feel particularly offended by what they have done, is a witless knee-jerk reaction.
Of course, if you want to argue that once behind bars offenders should take whatever they get and serve them right, and if you want to apply this principle equitably, then by all means make your case. But first consider the implications of such a policy.
Huntley has been sentenced to imprisonment, not to random beatings administered by people who are supposed to be learning more civilised behaviour. If you think that's wrong, campaign for the reinstatement of the pillory, or the gibbet. But I don't think attempting to lessen the rule of law in prisons, where there is an inherent potential for disorder, is a sensible move.
Of course the pragmatic response is that the human rights lawyers would think all their Christmases had come at once at the mere suggestion of what has been suggested, we'd spend a hell of a lot more than 15k trying to defend it, and what profit would there be? (See points a and b...)
DavidHM said:
Why would Huntley be able to get any compensation? Serious question here.
Not sure is the short answer.I heard it on the radio earlier. (Smooth FM)
Had a chap on there from the prisoners handbook IIRC. saying that Ian Huntley will probably end up receiving between £10 and £15k in compensation and a lengthy and costly investigation into the prison service will follow that will probably cost the taxpayer at least double this amount?
Z.B said:
To arbitrarily say that a certain person should permanently lose the protection of the law just because we feel particularly offended by what they have done, is a witless knee-jerk reaction.
Rubbish.I've worked as a defence and prosecution barrister. I don't do it any more.
Having spent many years around people like him I tell you this. When you commit an offence, you should leave your human rights at the gates of the prison.
Besides, trust me, the inmates won't kill him. They'll maim him, again and again and again. He's too much entertainment value to use up all at once. Where's the fun in killing him when you can torture him daily for life?
Home made knives? Check
Boiling sugar water ("Prison Napalm") - Check
Broomhandles up the Gary Glitter - Check
Beatings with pool balls in socks? - Check
Bleach dripped into his eyes? - Check
Scalding showers? - Check
Forced to drink salt water? - Check
Faeces in his food? - Check
All to come, you evil b
d. Enjoy.Edited by Soovy on Monday 22 March 16:43
I often wonder what Kevin Wells (I see him around) thinks to people trying too do Huntley in. I try and put myself in his shoes and I have come to the conclusion i'd rather Huntley just rotted in prison than keep popping up in the media.
Its odd. You know that deep, numbing pain you get when someone close to you dies, I get a twinge of it every time I see "that" pic of the girls (in the Man U strip) and Kevin Wells.
It's a horrible feeling.
Its odd. You know that deep, numbing pain you get when someone close to you dies, I get a twinge of it every time I see "that" pic of the girls (in the Man U strip) and Kevin Wells.
It's a horrible feeling.
Soovy said:
Z.B said:
To arbitrarily say that a certain person should permanently lose the protection of the law just because we feel particularly offended by what they have done, is a witless knee-jerk reaction.
Rubbish.I've worked as a defence and prosecution barrister. I don't do it any more.
Having spent many years around people like him I tell you this. When you commit an offence, you should leave your human rights at the gates of the prison.
Besides, trust me, the inmates won't kill him. They'll maim him, again and again and again. He's too much entertainment value to use up all at once. Where's the fun in killing him when you can torture him daily for life?
Home made knives? Check
Boiling sugar water ("Prison Napalm") - Check
Broomhandles up the Gary Glitter - Check
Beatings with pool balls in socks? - Check
Bleach dripped into his eyes? - Check
Scalding showers? - Check
Forced to drink salt water? - Check
Faeces in his food? - Check
All to come, you evil b
d. Enjoy.Edited by Soovy on Monday 22 March 16:43
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff