Triple child killer cleared for release

[otolith]

Surprised to see this isn't already being discussed.

He's served 45 years for murdering three small children left in his care and impaling their bodies on a fence.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-wor...

[otolith]

Roofless Toothless said:

The recent picture in the article seems to have been taken in the street. Has he already been out on licence?

I find it hard to believe they are willing to release him while the mother of those children is still alive.

He's spent some time in an open prison.

From Wikipedia;

"In 2006, McGreavy again became headline news after he was transferred to an open prison and allowed to stay in a bail hostel in Liverpool. The Sun newspaper discovered and publicised this arrangement, featuring a front-page photo of McGreavy (released on temporary license) walking on a Liverpool street, which resulted in McGreavy's transfer back to a closed prison"

[otolith]

thetrickcyclist said:

Having followed a link on the afore mentioned thread I believe he should never never be allowed out.

To say he murdered 3 young children, is being inaccurate.

He turned on toddlers who he had cared for and played with for months.

He rendered those children into a condition unrecognisable as human, let alone toddlers.

With razor then pickaxe.

Then impaled the remains on a cast iron fence outside the family home, the one he had shared with them.

You cannot "cure" or "reform" someone of that level of bestiality.

What the hell are they thinking about..

https://truecrimeenthusiast.wordpress.com/2016/11/...

Jesus, that's grim.

[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.

[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...

[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.

[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)

[otolith]

The "let's execute them when we're really sure" thing is an example of a common sense solution being "simple, obvious and wrong" - because we don't convict them at all unless we are really sure.

[otolith]

La Liga said:

The death penalty is definitely not a belief held by most people.

That's a fairly recent development, though;

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32061822

[otolith]

Piersman2 said:

I've said before that IMHO juries should be able to return two guilty verdicts in murder cases:
1. As existing - guilty beyond a reasonable doubt
2. Special verdict - guilty, with no doubt whatsover.

As I have said before, under the current system if you cannot give verdict two, you must acquit - unless the difference between 1 and 2 are unreasonable doubts. As you can never eliminate unreasonable doubts, you could never execute anyone.

[otolith]

Volvo1956 said:

otolith said:

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)

are you wired up correctly ? Youre the one who said you are not concerned with this savage reoffending because hes an old man.
So if you are 67 years of age you are an old man and not capable of reoffending.
Thats what youve said.
By implication on your argument theres no point in imprisoning anyone above 67 because they wont reoffend.
You do realise what your saying do you.

Yours is the joke .. i didnt mention incapable of reoffending.. you did... one they reach 67 because they are an old man.

I merely extracted the urine out of yoor nonsense statement and release everyone above 67 because you say they are old and incapable of reoffending.

Do you get iit now? have you actually read the nonsense youve put?

Your trying to attribute your crazy idea to me.

JUST TO REPEAT BECAUSE I THINK YOU HAVE PROBLEMS WITH LITERACY. YOU SAID YOURE NOT CONCERNED WITH THIS INDIVIDUALS RISK OF OFFENDING BECAUSE OF HIS AGE BEING 67AND THAT MAKES HIM AN OLD MAN!!!!!!!
Are you drunk or on something?

My word, I bet your complexion even better resembles the gammon within. Probably best to calm down before you rupture something.

I said that my concern with releasing him was not him reoffending - he's a 67 year old man who would be out on licence, I think the risks of him getting drunk and unleashing psychotic violence on someone like he did when he was 22 years old are remote. If he's drinking heavily, he will end up back inside. He won't have access to vulnerable people. If he starts trouble with someone who isn't vulnerable, he'll get his scrawny old neck broken. I think it is quite likely that he poses very little threat.

I then explained that I thought that he should never be released.

HE SHOULD NEVER BE RELEASED (in case you missed it again)

From which you seemed to deduce that I wanted him to be released.

I'm not sure whether your problem is in your comprehension, your eyesight, or perhaps your spittle-flecked rage is foaming up your spectacles?

[otolith]

Volvo1956 said:

Piersman2 said:

I've said before that IMHO juries should be able to return two guilty verdicts in murder cases:
1. As existing - guilty beyond a reasonable doubt
2. Special verdict - guilty, with no doubt whatsover.

otolith said:

As I have said before, under the current system if you cannot give verdict two, you must acquit - unless the difference between 1 and 2 are unreasonable doubts. As you can never eliminate unreasonable doubts, you could never execute anyone.

Don't you mean verdict one.... beyond reasonable doubt.
We don't have verdict 2. A special verdict.

The point is that 1 and 2 are effectively the same, and are what we have now. If there is any doubt you must acquit. If you can't have verdict 2 because you have identified a doubt, you can't have verdict 1 either.

If you are going to get hung up on the meaning of "reasonable" - it means doubts which are based on the evidence, rather than on prejudice or flights of fancy.

[otolith]

Interesting.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/uk...

Independent said:

The UK has more prisoners serving life sentences than any other country in Europe, according to a new report by the Prison Reform Trust.

There are 8,554 inmates across the UK serving life sentences – more than France, Germany and Italy combined. The British total also exceeds the number of life-sentence prisoners held in jails in Russia and Turkey.

I wonder if a "life sentence" here is the same as a "life sentence" in those countries?

[otolith]

Cantaloupe said:

Frankly I'd have been happy for him to get his neck stretched back then but 45 years seems a [ record breaking ? ]
appropriate length of time to serve especially if you are a believer that penal servitude should be not just be punishment
but also rehabilitation and a chance of redemption.

OK he not going to turn into Albert Schweitzer or Helen Keller, but is it just possible he deserves a second chance ?

No, I don't think so. But since what I believe he deserves and what I, opposing capital punishment, am in favour of the state dispensing to him already differ, perhaps that's irrelevant. I think for a crime of that magnitude he should die in prison.