Double rapist and murderer of two children released today.

"Double child killer Colin Pitchfork has been released from prison, the Ministry of Justice has confirmed.

He was jailed in 1988 for raping and murdering 15-year-olds Lynda Mann and Dawn Ashworth in Leicestershire.

In June, the Parole Board concluded it was safe to release Pitchfork, who was the first murderer to be convicted using DNA evidence.

The MoJ said Pitchfork, 61, would remain under supervision for the rest of his life.

Pitchfork raped and strangled Lynda Mann in Narborough in November 1983 and killed Dawn Ashworth three years later.

He was caught following an unprecedented mass screening of 5,000 men using pioneering DNA profiling technology.

He pleaded guilty to both murders and was given a life sentence in January 1988."






https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-58408210

A life sentence seldom ever means what it says...sadly.

Revenge or rehabilitation?

Original Quill wrote:Revenge or rehabilitation?

Justice.

It'll be interesting to see if he can control himself

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Revenge or rehabilitation?

Justice.

Yeah. Because in theory, one could be rehabilitated quickly. I'm not sure that's the only reason for incarceration. Conversely, one can do their time and be as evil as they day they entered, and they still get released.

I'm not sure why this man was not given a life sentence that meant life.
I think if this happened today a double child rapist and murderer would never be released...rehabilitated or not.

He is either mad or bad, whichever it is he should not be released, - revenge and justice.
There are quite a few people released only to kill again, then we hear the @lessons will be learned'

The parole board that looks at these cases, privately, and often don't seem to be answerable for the decisions they make, should be scrapped and a more open procedure should be implemented when it comes to release of people who have committed such heinous crimes.

Personally, I would vote to bring back the death penalty for people such as him....but that's a different topic.

He should have been strung up.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Revenge or rehabilitation?

Justice.

I'm just trying to focus the discussion...and it worked.

Sometimes imo, people just don't have the right to be rehabilitated fit to be amongst society again.
Rehabilitate them so they can make decent prisoners, that should be the aim.

People like Hidley and Brady, Fred and Rose West, Nilson, Shipman, etc..and amongst these should be all child rapists and murderers.

I have no interest in revenge, that serves no purpose, either full life sentence, or the quick and easy alternative.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

Justice.

I'm just trying to focus the discussion...and it worked.

So what is your opinion Quill?

My opinion is that the justice system should focus on keeping society safe, so if someone is going to be locked up for a long time, or executed, the justice system should be ready to support the notion that that person poses a continuing danger to society. Someone who does something terrible but is unlikely to do it again should receive a lesser sentence than someone with an insatiable appetite for killing or raping, for example.

That's also why I don't believe in locking people up for selling or using drugs, so long as they haven't hurt anybody in the process (which is completely different from selling or using drugs).

Syl wrote:The parole board that looks at these cases, privately, and often don't seem to be answerable for the decisions they make,  should be scrapped and a more open procedure should be implemented when it comes to release of people who have committed such heinous crimes.

Personally, I would vote to bring back the death penalty for people such as him....but that's a different topic.

The parole board is probably full of paedophiles.

Syl wrote:Sometimes imo, people just don't have the right to be rehabilitated fit to be amongst society again.
Rehabilitate them so they can make decent prisoners, that should be the aim.

People like Hidley and Brady, Fred and Rose West, Nilson, Shipman, etc..and amongst these should be all child rapists and murderers.

I have no interest in revenge, that serves no purpose, either full life sentence, or the quick and easy alternative.

Punishment has five recognized purposes: 1) deterrence; 2) incapacitation, or removal; 3) rehabilitation; 4) revenge, or retribution; and 5) restitution. https://open.lib.umn.edu/criminallaw/chapter/1-5-the-purposes-of-punishment/

Permanent prisoners. It sounds like you are for the 2nd, removal, in this case.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I'm just trying to focus the discussion...and it worked.

So what is your opinion Quill?

I like Ben's reasoning...using maximum social good as the measure. It's really a form of Utilitarianism, but as JS Mill found, there are certain values that are themselves absolutes. But it serves as a useful public policy guide.

(ps: I accidentally clicked 'dislike' on your post. Soz, didn't mean to.)

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I'm just trying to focus the discussion...and it worked.

So what is your opinion Quill?

I like Ben's reasoning...using maximum social good as the measure.  It's really a form of Utilitarianism, but as JS Mill found, there are certain values that are themselves absolutes.  But it serves as a useful public policy guide.

(ps: I accidentally clicked 'dislike' on your post.  Soz, didn't mean to.)

Sure -- giving a crime like murder something that society deems a harsh penalty isn't only about justice; it's a symbol of how heinous society at large finds a particular deed; it's a reflection of society's values. Thus you can't be strictly utilitarian, as in -- We know that although this man killed this other man, because of a very particular set of reasons we can be sure he'll never kill again, so he shouldn't be imprisoned at all. No, that doesn't work, because punishment for a crime is part of society's way of saying how bad that crime is.

Ben Reilly wrote:My opinion is that the justice system should focus on keeping society safe, so if someone is going to be locked up for a long time, or executed, the justice system should be ready to support the notion that that person poses a continuing danger to society. Someone who does something terrible but is unlikely to do it again should receive a lesser sentence than someone with an insatiable appetite for killing or raping, for example.

That's also why I don't believe in locking people up for selling or using drugs, so long as they haven't hurt anybody in the process (which is completely different from selling or using drugs).

What if someone serves their entire sentence and is still a homicidal maniac?

Do yo make him stay longer?

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:My opinion is that the justice system should focus on keeping society safe, so if someone is going to be locked up for a long time, or executed, the justice system should be ready to support the notion that that person poses a continuing danger to society. Someone who does something terrible but is unlikely to do it again should receive a lesser sentence than someone with an insatiable appetite for killing or raping, for example.

That's also why I don't believe in locking people up for selling or using drugs, so long as they haven't hurt anybody in the process (which is completely different from selling or using drugs).

What if someone serves their entire sentence and is still a homicidal maniac?

Do yo make him stay longer?

This gets into genetically disposed criminal types.  If we could identify them, we could put them in prison while still in the crib.

A study at the University of Texas, Dallas, suggested that genes might influence criminal behavior.  The study focused on whether genes are likely to cause a person to become a life-course persistent offender, which is characterized by antisocial behavior during childhood that can later progress to violent or serious criminal acts later in life.

"The overarching conclusions were that genetic influences in life-course persistent offending were larger than environmental influences,"  UT Dallas criminologist, Dr. J.C. Barnes, said. "For abstainers, it was roughly an equal split: genetic factors played a large role and so too did the environment. For adolescent-limited offenders, the environment appeared to be most important."

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120125151841.htm#:~:text=The%20study%20focused%20on%20whether,criminal%20acts%20later%20in%20life.

We lock up mentally disturbed people...why not criminals? We should discuss this.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:Sometimes imo, people just don't have the right to be rehabilitated fit to be amongst society again.
Rehabilitate them so they can make decent prisoners, that should be the aim.

People like Hidley and Brady, Fred and Rose West, Nilson, Shipman, etc..and amongst these should be all child rapists and murderers.

I have no interest in revenge, that serves no purpose, either full life sentence, or the quick and easy alternative.

Punishment has five recognized purposes: 1) deterrence; 2) incapacitation, or removal; 3) rehabilitation; 4) revenge, or retribution; and 5) restitution.  https://open.lib.umn.edu/criminallaw/chapter/1-5-the-purposes-of-punishment/

Permanent prisoners.  It sounds like you are for the 2nd, removal, in this case.

For the most heinous of crimes, I have no problem with removal.

The main reason is for the families of the victims. Nothing can bring their children back, but if the person who took them is gone, rather than forever taunting them from their cells, as in the case of the moors murderers for eg, it would help them come to some sort of finality.

There is no help for the victims, or their families. You can't put toothpaste back in the tube. The idea of 'closure' is something made up by some police officer, who at the time was thinking of himself and what he was going to do with the file.

The theories of punishment are all prospective. When you speak of having "the person who took them...gone" you mean capital punishment. CP is just a more extreme form of removal.

Original Quill wrote:There is no help for the victims, or their families.  You can't put toothpaste back in the tube.  The idea of 'closure' is something made up by some police officer, who at the time was thinking of himself and what he was going to do with the file.

The theories of punishment are all prospective.  When you speak of having "the person who took them...gone" you mean capital punishment.  CP is just a more extreme form of removal.

I disagree. Victims families can be helped by not forever being reminded that the person who raped and murdered their kids, who are forever being mentioned and talked about in the media and have do-gooders campaigning for their release....they could be spared all that if capital punishment was legalised again.

Can sexual deviancy even be cured? I doubt that. The sexual drive is our strongest human emotion or act, and not many people can resist it when say, we're in the throes of a mutually consensual situation. So, why should a paedo or rapist be any different. They're 'normal' is to seek out and abuse. It's what they get off on and crave. I can't see that kind of twisted sexuality ever being truly rehabilitated.

How can a double child rapist and murderer be allowed free but this guy is still in jail...?


https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2858939/charles-bronson-prison-prisoner-wife-paula-williamson/

HoratioTarr wrote:Can sexual deviancy even be cured?  I doubt that.  The sexual drive is our strongest human emotion or act, and not many people can resist it when say, we're in the throes of a mutually consensual situation.  So, why should a paedo or rapist be any different.   They're 'normal' is to seek out and abuse.  It's what they get off on and crave. I can't see that kind of twisted sexuality ever being truly rehabilitated.

I don't think they can ever be cured, I suppose the best that can be done is a person can control their urges.

Once someone has acted out their urges, not once but twice, three years apart, why should a 30 year break, where he hasn't had the opportunity to rape and murder another child, mean he has been 'cured'?
He should stay where he is.

Tommy Monk wrote:


How can a double child rapist and murderer be allowed free but this guy is still in jail...?


https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2858939/charles-bronson-prison-prisoner-wife-paula-williamson/

He has been released a couple of times and just reoffends, plus the way he acts inside keeps him there.
Had he toed the line, either repented, or played the game, he would have been freed years ago.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:There is no help for the victims, or their families.  You can't put toothpaste back in the tube.  The idea of 'closure' is something made up by some police officer, who at the time was thinking of himself and what he was going to do with the file.

The theories of punishment are all prospective.  When you speak of having "the person who took them...gone" you mean capital punishment.  CP is just a more extreme form of removal.

I disagree.  Victims families can be helped by not forever being reminded that the person who raped and murdered their kids, who are forever being mentioned and  talked about in the media and have do-gooders campaigning for their release....they could be spared all that if capital punishment was legalised again.

So, it's the media you are pissed at. You guys don't have a First Amendment. Why not shut 'em down?

As for your last comment, I have nothing against capital punishment, as long as you've got the right person, and it doesn't turn into Dachau.

HoratioTarr wrote:Can sexual deviancy even be cured?  I doubt that.  The sexual drive is our strongest human emotion or act, and not many people can resist it when say, we're in the throes of a mutually consensual situation.  So, why should a paedo or rapist be any different.   They're 'normal' is to seek out and abuse.  It's what they get off on and crave. I can't see that kind of twisted sexuality ever being truly rehabilitated.

Same for pick-pockets! I was in Lisbon one time and this old woman kept hounding me, bumping into me, trying to get my wallet. She only broke it off when I approached two cops. God, what a nuisance. You punch 'er out, and you are a mean guy, picking on an old woman. You let 'er have your wallet, and you're in a foreign country with no money.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

I disagree.  Victims families can be helped by not forever being reminded that the person who raped and murdered their kids, who are forever being mentioned and  talked about in the media and have do-gooders campaigning for their release....they could be spared all that if capital punishment was legalised again.

So, it's the media you are pissed at.  You guys don't have a First Amendment.  Why not shut 'em down?

As for your last comment, I have nothing against capital punishment, as long as you've got the right person, and it doesn't turn into Dachau.

Unfortunately we live in a world where stories about horrors sell papers.
If someone's child has been the victim of an infamous killer....as long as that killer is alive, they can't escape from being reminded everytime a story is circulated. There are constant stories of appeals, of do-gooders claiming they should be released now they have found God day trips out, love affairs etc etc...

For years the families of murdered kids here set up a stall on local markets collecting signatures for the none release of a couple of child torturers and killers. Those forgotten victims only found peace when they either died themselves or the perpetrators died....which thankfully, they both have now.

Syl wrote:...as long as that killer is alive, they can't escape from being reminded everytime a story is circulated. There are constant stories...

I imagine the child rape victim of Bob Dylan is in the same position.  Every time she hears about how great a songwriter he is, or what awards he has, or is now receiving, she is reminded of the misery that he has caused her and how she can never have a 'normal' life again.

As you say, "[t]hose forgotten victims only found peace when they either died themselves or the perpetrators died...."

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:...as long as that killer is alive, they can't escape from being reminded everytime a story is circulated. There are constant stories...

I imagine the child rape victim of Bob Dylan is in the same position.  Every time she hears about how great a songwriter he is, or what awards he has, or is now receiving, she is reminded of the misery that he has caused her and how she can never have a 'normal' life again.

As you say, "[t]hose forgotten victims only found peace when they either died themselves or the perpetrators died...."

Dylan has not been found guilty of any crime, and it's a completely different topic anyway.
Dylan is certainly not accused of murdering children, which is what this topic is about.
His self-proclaimed 'victim' is seeking money not peace.

A victim is not allowed to sue for justice.  Only the state can do that.  Dylan's victim is doing the most she can.

And, are we gonna argue degrees of crimes to measure severity?  Are rapists good guys, and only murderers bad guys?  The difference between crimes is generally measured by the sentencing range...or dollars in the civil case.  You can't undo a crime; you can generally only measure such things by dollars or years.

The only relevant thing you say is, Dylan has not been found guilty yet.  But his victim still feels her pain.  Give it time; she's doing the right thing...and doing the best she can.

Original Quill wrote:A victim is not allowed to sue for justice.  Only the state can do that.  Dylan's victim is doing the most she can.

And, are we gonna argue degrees of crimes to measure severity?  Are rapists good guys, and only murderers bad guys?  The difference between crimes is generally measured by the sentencing range...or dollars in the civil case.  You can't undo a crime; you can generally only measure such things by dollars or years.

The only relevant thing you say is, Dylan has not been found guilty yet.  But his victim still feels her pain.  Give it time; she's doing the right thing...and doing the best she can.

You are comparing an innocent man with men who have committed child rape and then murdered them.
Can you get this into perspective please.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:A victim is not allowed to sue for justice.  Only the state can do that.  Dylan's victim is doing the most she can.

And, are we gonna argue degrees of crimes to measure severity?  Are rapists good guys, and only murderers bad guys?  The difference between crimes is generally measured by the sentencing range...or dollars in the civil case.  You can't undo a crime; you can generally only measure such things by dollars or years.

The only relevant thing you say is, Dylan has not been found guilty yet.  But his victim still feels her pain.  Give it time; she's doing the right thing...and doing the best she can.

You are comparing an innocent man with men who have committed child rape and then murdered them.
Can you get this into perspective please.

A point that I emphasized to you, when you tried to brush-off the suit against Dylan.  She's wrong in even bringing the issue, fgs!  But I said then, and I say now...let the process play out.

What I'm saying - same as you now - is the pain endures from the start, even though the guilt doesn't begin until the conviction.

You twisted completely what I was saying....which was, the families of the murdered children can never get peace from the constant reminders in the press, till either they, or the murderer is dead.

Syl wrote:You twisted completely what I was saying....which was, the families of the murdered children can never get peace from the constant reminders in the press, till either they, or the murderer is dead.

No...you switched sides. I was bringing you back to the point that we were making on the Dylan thread: One has to go through the process.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:You twisted completely what I was saying....which was, the families of the murdered children can never get peace from the constant reminders in the press, till either they, or the murderer is dead.

No...you switched sides.  I was bringing you back to the point that we were making on the Dylan thread: One has to go through the process.

I haven't switched sides because the topics are completely different.


Post in the Dylan thread your Dylan comments, this is about proven child rapists and murderers, their sentencing, and the families that are left behind.

HoratioTarr wrote:Can sexual deviancy even be cured?  I doubt that.  The sexual drive is our strongest human emotion or act, and not many people can resist it when say, we're in the throes of a mutually consensual situation.  So, why should a paedo or rapist be any different.   They're 'normal' is to seek out and abuse.  It's what they get off on and crave. I can't see that kind of twisted sexuality ever being truly rehabilitated.

I watched a documentary once about men who we’re sexually attracted to children. They hadn’t committed crimes but had checked themselves into a centre to try to be cured. One man, I’ll never forget him, was crŷing on camera saying he wanted to be castrated totally - balls and penis - so that he would never be tempted.

It was the first time I’d ever seen the “other side” of the story.

eddie wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:Can sexual deviancy even be cured?  I doubt that.  The sexual drive is our strongest human emotion or act, and not many people can resist it when say, we're in the throes of a mutually consensual situation.  So, why should a paedo or rapist be any different.   They're 'normal' is to seek out and abuse.  It's what they get off on and crave. I can't see that kind of twisted sexuality ever being truly rehabilitated.

I watched a documentary once about men who we’re sexually attracted to children. They hadn’t committed crimes but had checked themselves into a centre to try to be cured. One man, I’ll never forget him, was crŷing on camera saying he wanted to be castrated totally - balls and penis - so that he would never be tempted.

It was the first time I’d ever seen the “other side” of the story.

I saw that too. I remember the man crying and pleading for help.
He was so afraid he would act on his urges. It really did put a human face on paedophilia.

I know Syl. It really did open my eyes to the fact that there are many men out there who really do need help, as much as we find them repellent.

eddie wrote:I know Syl. It really did open my eyes to the fact that there are many men out there who really do need help, as much as we find them repellent.

The worse thing is, what help can be given?
Apart from separating them from society, and if no crime has been committed that cant happen, these men (mostly) only have their own self control to stop them, sadly, for vulnerable kids, that isn't always enough.