Baby Peter disclosure today Options

[Andy1]

Maybe we should have Death Row as they do in some parts of the U.S. Serve a prison sentense then get the dealth penalty.

The other problem is that the abused children of today, obviously the ones who survive their childhood, are they not more likely to growup and becomes abusers. So what becomes of them ?

[GMR]

I must add that I would much prefer a life sentence being a life sentence with hard labour thrown in. I think that would be better justice than the death penalty. They can then spend the rest of their life reflecting on what they’ve done.

The reason I say the death penalty now because the justice they get is not really justice. Life doesn’t always mean life and when they are in a cell they get all the comforts of home and more. The only thing they actually lose is not being able to walk outside their front door; i.e. outside the prison.


As for Andy1’s comments about the abused becoming abusers; we’ve all got hard luck stories; paedophiles being born that way, serial killers can’t help it. But we control our compulsions. A crime is a crime is a crime; in other words if they commit a crime they must suffer the consequences.

As for being on Death Row for years and years waiting and hoping; I agree that is wrong. Kill them, give them life or absolve them.

[Iommi]

As for Andy1’s comments about the abused becoming abusers; we’ve all got hard luck stories

I think it's more than a hard luck story. At least a 1/3 of abused children turn into abusers. It would be good, therefore, to be able to break that cycle. In my view, people who are responsible for the most heinous of crimes are mentally ill.

[Bloggo]

I think GMR and dannyboy both have a valid point and this is why this is such a difficult question, a moral maze if you like.

Yes so do I and it is a situation that I would hope never to find myself in

At the end of the day, a society that lets sociopaths out early is not likely to be one that will endorse the death penalty. So the argument is rather pointless in this regard.

Sad but true

Moving back on topic somewhat, Steve Barker wasn't convicted of murder, it is unlikely, therefore, he would have hung for this offence alone.

No but he should have.

Iommi, JeffG thanks for you help. Pretty isn't it?

[GMR]

I think it's more than a hard luck story. At least a 1/3 of abused children turn into abusers. It would be good, therefore, to be able to break that cycle. In my view, people who are responsible for the most heinous of crimes are mentally ill.

I can’t fault your comments about ‘breaking the cycle’. My point was – about using the words ‘hard luck story’ – that once they’ve stepped over the line then they will have to be treated as any other criminal. But I do accept that we must help where we can beforehand.

As for ‘mentally ill’; that is how Joe public sees such people, but that facts remain that most of them are as normal as you and I.

[Andy1]

I must add that I would much prefer a life sentence being a life sentence with hard labour thrown in. I think that would be better justice than the death penalty. They can then spend the rest of their life reflecting on what they’ve done.

The reason I say the death penalty now because the justice they get is not really justice. Life doesn’t always mean life and when they are in a cell they get all the comforts of home and more. The only thing they actually lose is not being able to walk outside their front door; i.e. outside the prison.


As for Andy1’s comments about the abused becoming abusers; we’ve all got hard luck stories; paedophiles being born that way, serial killers can’t help it. But we control our compulsions. A crime is a crime is a crime; in other words if they commit a crime they must suffer the consequences.

As for being on Death Row for years and years waiting and hoping; I agree that is wrong. Kill them, give them life or absolve them.

As a sane person your comment goes without saying. I think however if your hardluck story was that you were abused daily from a very young age, needn't go into details, then it would be a different thing. However without going through the experience I wouldn't know.

[Iommi]

As for ‘mentally ill’; that is how Joe public sees such people, but that facts remain that most of them are as normal as you and I.

What's normal?

I don't like to swat a wasp, let alone anything else. I would also regard myself as normal and I can't begin to think about harming anyone, other than maybe, in self defence.

[Chesapeake]

I can’t fault your comments about ‘breaking the cycle’. My point was – about using the words ‘hard luck story’ – that once they’ve stepped over the line then they will have to be treated as any other criminal. But I do accept that we must help where we can beforehand.

As for ‘mentally ill’; that is how Joe public sees such people, but that facts remain that most of them are as normal as you and I.

I don't agree with you I'm afraid GMR.

Most of them are not as normal as you and I (unless you have something to tell us that is). I have certainly not nor have I ever been in the state of mind that meant that I felt that I could abuse an animal, a human being or the law. People who carry out such heinous crimes always have a 'cause' of some kind behind the crime that they committed. A man or child of sane mind does not abuse a child even though it cries in pain. A man or child does not mutilate a kitten and then throw it on a bonfire even though it mews in pain. People who commit awful, sadistic crimes have awful stories behind their actions be it prolonged, subtle, mental abuse or the more obvious physical abuse. People damage children and children grow up damaged. Some cope but others don't.

[GMR]

I don't agree with you I'm afraid GMR.

Most of them are not as normal as you and I (unless you have something to tell us that is). I have certainly not nor have I ever been in the state of mind that meant that I felt that I could abuse an animal, a human being or the law. People who carry out such heinous crimes always have a 'cause' of some kind behind the crime that they committed. A man or child of sane mind does not abuse a child even though it cries in pain. A man or child does not mutilate a kitten and then throw it on a bonfire even though it mews in pain. People who commit awful, sadistic crimes have awful stories behind their actions be it prolonged, subtle, mental abuse or the more obvious physical abuse. People damage children and children grow up damaged. Some cope but others don't.

Hi my friend,

There is no problem with you disagreeing... there is if you agree though; you kill off the topic straight way

It is not just my views that they are normal but professionals and psychiatrists views. It is a subject that always has interested me and I’ve read many books on the subject from a psychological angle. Of course that doesn't apply to everybody and I agree that there are damaged children out there; I didn't say it applies to everybody.

Carry on disagreeing... that is what I pay you for

Glenn

[Chesapeake]

Hi my friend,

There is no problem with you disagreeing... there is if you agree though; you kill off the topic straight way

It is not just my views that they are normal but professionals and psychiatrists views. It is a subject that always has interested me and I’ve read many books on the subject from a psychological angle. Of course that doesn't apply to everybody and I agree that there are damaged children out there; I didn't say it applies to everybody.

Carry on disagree... that is what I pay you for

Glenn

Oh Glen, you are so much fun.

I too am very interested in Psychology and have 'dabbled' in it more than a little. Fascinating and never ending stuff.

We'll cross again soon I am sure. That's not a threat by the way.

[dannyboy]

Would you be happy if a member of your family was murdered – say a child - and the culprit (the murderer/ abuser) after a limited time – probably because of good behaviour – was set free, while that family member will never have the privilege of seeing life again? Is that justice? One would have thought that the murderer got the better deal out of it, while the ones left behind (the family of the murdered child) continue their life sentence of suffering. Is that fairness?

"Would you shrug your shoulders & say, well, at least the" murderer got his life back at the end of the day... I am satisfied.. would you say that?

you miss the point yet again.

[dannyboy]

I think GMR and dannyboy both have a valid point and this is why this is such a difficult question, a moral maze if you like.

At the end of the day, a society that lets sociopaths out early is not likely to be one that will endorse the death penalty. So the argument is rather pointless in this regard.

Moving back on topic somewhat, Steve Barker wasn't convicted of murder, it is unlikely, therefore, he would have hung for this offence alone.

None of them were. Which is why they'll be out relatively quickly. If it had been one person in the house at the time of death, they'd be in for a lot longer.

[dannyboy]

The other problem is that the abused children of today, obviously the ones who survive their childhood, are they not more likely to growup and becomes abusers. So what becomes of them ?

they are victims too. Society needs a better way of dealing with such children - sending them off to childrens homes etc does not really give them what every childs needs - love.

[dannyboy]

As for ‘mentally ill’; that is how Joe public sees such people, but that facts remain that most of them are as normal as you and I.

Fred West, Peter Sutcliffe, Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, Dennis Nielsen - as normal as you or I - speak for yourself!!!

[GMR]

Oh Glen, you are so much fun.

I too am very interested in Psycology and have 'dabbled' in it more than a little. Fascinating and never ending stuff.

We'll cross again soon I am sure. That's not a threat by the way.

When that happens it will be a pleasure

[GMR]

you miss the point yet again.

Dear Dannyboy, I didn’t miss the point but decided to answer it in my own way. But if you like I will answer your direct question. No I wouldn’t like it if it was one of my family, however, if the death penalty did come back today then the proof would have to be 100%. People like the Moor’s murderers, Dahmer, Gacy etc there was no doubt that they did murder; case closed.

Are you happy with that answer?


Now I've done the honour and answered your question would you return that honour and answer my question? Thank you.

[GMR]

Fred West, Peter Sutcliffe, Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, Dennis Nielsen - as normal as you or I - speak for yourself!!!

Dannyboy... it is always a pleasure to do business with you (it is pity there wasn’t more like you, and I mean that as compliment... not sarcasm).

To your question; I am neither a professional doctor, psychologist nor psychiatrist, however, what I am is keen amateur. These professionals I have mentioned have stated that not all serial killers are mad. These names you have mentioned were not classified by the courts or the clinical and forensic psychiatrists who judged them. You are also not a professional body in the lines I have mentioned either; because of that you and I must bow to their professionalism, experience and judgement. However, and saying all that and going with everything I’ve read on the subject matter I concur with their professional judgement.

[Iommi]

I think, GMR, your choice of 'normal' is questionable. Being a sociopath, although a trait found in humans, I don't think is 'normal', especially in the developed world. Also, being mentally ill, doesn't necessarily mean being mad either.

Although this is merely based on a groundless opinion, I wouldn't trust a psychologist as far as I could throw one. I think many of them are fullash*te.

[GMR]

Although this is merely based on a groundless opinion, I wouldn't trust a psychologist as far as I could throw one. I think many of them are fullash*te.

OK, so where does that leave us? You are right and they are wrong?

A sociopath under British law: "In the United Kingdom, "Psychopathic Disorder" is legally defined in the Mental Health Act (UK) as, "a persistent disorder or disability of mind (whether or not including significant impairment of intelligence) which results in abnormally aggressive or seriously irresponsible conduct on the part of the person concerned."

Most serial killers - not all - where not classified as such. They stood trial as normal and rational human beings. Same in America.

I agree that there is a question mark over normal.... what is normal to some, is abnormal to others; but I was talking about legal definition.

[Iommi]

OK, so where does that leave us? You are right and they are wrong?

Come on GMR, putting words in one's mouth is a regrettable feature of some of your less than successful arguments. I made it abundantly clear that mine was just an unqualified opinion. My reply was in response to your detailing how you come to your conclusion that mass murders are 'normal' and this is backed up by books you have read from psychologists and the like.

I am sure that for every psychologist that says 'it is like this', there will be one that says 'it is like that'.

A sociopath under British law: "In the United Kingdom, "Psychopathic Disorder" is legally defined in the Mental Health Act (UK) as, "a persistent disorder or disability of mind (whether or not including significant impairment of intelligence) which results in abnormally aggressive or seriously irresponsible conduct on the part of the person concerned."

To be honest, I'm not sure what this passage is posted for, so I can't comment.

Most serial killers - not all - where not classified as such. They stood trial as normal and rational human beings. Same in America.

And this might be where the problem with care in the community up to the death penalty, starts to fail. A failure to recognise these issues. If anything the Wiki passage starts to convince me more that perhaps the death penalty isn't right, in some, if not many cases.

I understand that it is debatable, but is felt that psychopathy leans towards the hereditary whereas sociopathy tends towards the environmental.

I agree that there is a question mark over normal.... what is normal to some, is abnormal to others; but I was talking about legal definition.

As you argue sometimes yourself, as we come to understand more, as we develop, we should be seeking better solutions to man's ills, solutions that reflect better our understanding of what makes us tick and what can make us better humans.