Capital punishment

[Guest pelmetman]

CliveH - 2013-07-11 4:52 PM

 

There is a genuine concern about lenient sentences and killers being released to kill again.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16638227

 

These figs indicate an average number of murders being about 600 a year.

 

The article cites 29 murderers who repeated and 6 murderers who went on to commit Manslaughter.

 

So a bit on licence and that = 35 over 10 years.

 

So as a percentage of all murders that is c. 0.58%. Low of course - but I would suggest that given the average person probability of committing such a crime this 0.58% is worryingly high.

 

 

A number which is far higher than those who have been imprisoned "unfairly" for murder in the last ten years I expect? ;-)..................

[CliveH]

Well Dave - I am sure most people in prison would say they are innocent!! :-S

 

But I have always been concerned at the discrepancy between the likelihood/probability of being murdered by anyone in the population (which bearing in mind it is 62M! ) compared to the likelihood/probability of someone being murdered by someone experienced in that particular crime.

 

O.58% could well look low - but compare that to the probability of anyone in the population murdering you given the number of murders in the UK is just 640 and whilst my simple analysis here, of the figures is no way accurate statistically - the order of magnitude is considerable.

 

8-)

[John 47]

pelmetman - 2013-07-11 5:18 PM

 

A number which is far higher than those who have been imprisoned "unfairly" for murder in the last ten years I expect? ;-)..................

 

You "expect"? In other words, you have no figures to back up your claim - and you are still ignoring that awkward question.

 

However, this is not simply a case of "my figures are better than your figures". Any figure is too high if the victim is one of your friends or family, which is why we should be more concerned with catching them in the first place and then ensuring that the future risk to the public is minimal. In many cases this will mean longer sentences but not in all. It is a fact that most murders are committed by people who are close to their victims (many of them husband/wife) and the resulting risk to the wider population is small or non-existent. Further, many victims are from the same background as their killers - eg they are in rival gangs. All of which means the risk to the majority of the population is much lower than the headline figures might make you believe. It would be interesting therefore to know how many of those "repeat" victims fit into these categories. The killers who are a real danger to the wider public are the ones that get a high profile - like Brady, Cregan and so on - and it is highly unlikely that any of these will ever be released. So all the glib statements about the "liberal elite" (whoever they are) need to be taken with a pinch of salt.

[John 47]

CliveH - 2013-07-11 4:52 PM

 

There is a genuine concern about lenient sentences and killers being released to kill again.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16638227

 

These figs indicate an average number of murders being about 600 a year.

 

The article cites 29 murderers who repeated and 6 murderers who went on to commit Manslaughter.

 

So a bit on licence and that = 35 over 10 years.

 

So as a percentage of all murders that is c. 0.58%. Low of course - but I would suggest that given the average person probability of committing such a crime this 0.58% is worryingly high.

 

 

While agreeing that one murder is one too many, the percentage risk you quote is too high. Only 13 of those released had been convicted of murder (the rest had been convicted of manslaughter and so would have eventually been released even when we had capital punishment). So it works out at just over one per year - and, if we are discussing statistics rather than personal disasters, that has to be set against the wrongful convictions and the "ones that got away" because juries are reluctant to convict if the penalty is death.

 

Also, as I said in reply to pelmetman, the risks to the public are not spread evenly because most victims are know to their killers, so - as Nick Ross might say - don't lose sleep over it.

[CliveH]

The issue was not about how the perpetrator is punished John.

 

The figures that concern me is that on a one to one basis with c.62M in the population, 35 killers went on to kill again .

 

OK so some killings were defined as manslaughter - i am sure that made all the difference to the victims families B-)

 

It is the fact that within the population as a whole 640 people are murdered and so the likelihood of someone murdering you is 640:62,000,000 or 1:96875 very low.

 

The number of murders expressed Expressed as a percentage of the population is 0.001percent.

 

But over ten years 35 people that had experience of killing someone - killed again.

 

That is 3.5 people a year out of that 640 murders. - and I have no figs but many murderers kill more than one person and so that 640 murdered people may have been killed by only, 500 people, say.

 

So of the people that murder every year - we could estimate that between 0.58% and 0.7% have done it before.

 

Now i appreciate that statistically I am way off beam here because i am comparing two totally differing data array's. I accept that. I also accept that whilst I am possibly inferring a correlation, I am not inferring causation.

 

But the data is worrying enough and shows a trend that I cannot help but feel requires greater exploration.

 

:-D

[John 47]

CliveH - 2013-07-11 8:03 PM

 

The issue was not about how the perpetrator is punished John.

 

The figures that concern me is that on a one to one basis with c.62M in the population, 35 killers went on to kill again .

 

OK so some killings were defined as manslaughter - i am sure that made all the difference to the victims families B-)

 

It is the fact that within the population as a whole 640 people are murdered and so the likelihood of someone murdering you is 640:62,000,000 or 1:96875 very low.

 

The number of murders expressed Expressed as a percentage of the population is 0.001percent.

 

But over ten years 35 people that had experience of killing someone - killed again.

 

That is 3.5 people a year out of that 640 murders. - and I have no figs but many murderers kill more than one person and so that 640 murdered people may have been killed by only, 500 people, say.

 

So of the people that murder every year - we could estimate that between 0.58% and 0.7% have done it before.

 

Now i appreciate that statistically I am way off beam here because i am comparing two totally differing data array's. I accept that. I also accept that whilst I am possibly inferring a correlation, I am not inferring causation.

 

But the data is worrying enough and shows a trend that I cannot help but feel requires greater exploration.

 

:-D

 

I accept your points but unless you are saying that there is a case for changing the punishment then I cannot see where you are going. The only significant conclusion I can draw from the evidence is that the figures today are no worse than they have ever been - hence I find your use of the word "trend" misleading. And, as I pointed out before, there tends to be a "class of victims" and so to generalise across the whole population does not work. However, I am all for greater exploration of any statistics, so I can wholeheartedly agree with you on that one :-D

[CliveH]

I suppose I am saying that to let a known killer out has its dangers.

 

I also feel it wise for crimes so dreadful that elected officials can dictate true life sentences.

 

Maybe by "profiling" it could possible to identify the dangerous ones.

 

If it were my child for example that was on the receiving end of Brady's psychotic pleasure I suspect I would want him hung, drawn and quartered in front of me.

 

But for me now - I want him to be kept alive in a living hell because he wants to die. A true life sentence. Let his God chose when he dies, not him.

[Guest pelmetman]

CliveH - 2013-07-11 10:24 PM

 

But for me now - I want him to be kept alive in a living hell because he wants to die. A true life sentence. Let his God chose when he dies, not him.

 

Sorry Clive, but there is the mistake that many people make *-)....................he enjoy's being in the limelight................he has no intention of topping himself.................why else would he be eating *-)...........he's working the system, and to give the b**tard his dues he's a maestro and the authorities are his puppets >:-(

 

He's probably even reading this thread >:-).................but not allowed to post ;-).................yet 8-)

[Guest pelmetman]

Another poor misunderstood scumbag has had his sentence reduced, at no doubt considerable cost to the taxpayer *-)

 

Nellie Geraghty ashes murder: Mark Royle's jail term cut

 

Royle was captured on CCTV cycling away from the scene

Continue reading the main story

Related Stories

 

Man jailed for ashes widow murder

Drug addict denies killing widow

Widow 'died after ashes snatched'

A man jailed for murdering a 79-year-old woman while stealing a handbag containing her husband's ashes has had his sentence reduced.

 

Nellie Geraghty was found on the ground still clutching the torn strap of the bag in Shaw, Oldham, in November 2011. She died later in hospital.

 

Mark Royle, 37, was ordered to serve a minimum term of 28 years at Manchester Crown Court.

 

The Court of Appeal in London reduced his minimum sentence to 25 years.

 

At his trial at Manchester Crown Court, the former drug addict pleaded not guilty to charges of robbery, murder and manslaughter.

 

As well as being found guilty of murder, Royle was also convicted of robbery for stealing Mrs Geraghty's bag.

 

Drugs excuse

Mrs Geraghty, who lived closed to the alleyway between Elizabeth Grove and Kershaw Street where she was found, suffered head injuries likely to have been caused by a kick or stamp.

 

Royle, of no fixed address but formerly from Shaw, claimed he was buying and smoking drugs when the attack happened.

 

 

Nellie Geraghty's handbag contained the ashes of her late husband Frank

However he was captured on CCTV cycling away from the area where the attack happened.

 

Police said he used the money that was in Mrs Geraghty's bag to buy drugs, then changed his clothes and disposed of his bike to evade arrest.

 

Mrs Geraghty's bag was later recovered from a nearby river, but her husband's ashes were never found.

 

Mrs Geraghty's husband had died some years ago and she was so devoted to him she carried his ashes in her shoulder bag when she went out.

 

Following the crime, Shaw residents organised search parties to look for Mr Geraghty's ashes, without success.

 

 

Yus yus.............it all makes work for the lawyering trade yis yis indeedee >:-)

[CliveH]

pelmetman - 2013-07-11 11:05 PM

 

CliveH - 2013-07-11 10:24 PM

 

But for me now - I want him to be kept alive in a living hell because he wants to die. A true life sentence. Let his God chose when he dies, not him.

 

Sorry Clive, but there is the mistake that many people make *-)....................he enjoy's being in the limelight................he has no intention of topping himself.................why else would he be eating *-)...........he's working the system, and to give the b**tard his dues he's a maestro and the authorities are his puppets >:-(

 

He's probably even reading this thread >:-).................but not allowed to post ;-).................yet 8-)

 

You may well be right Dave.

 

 

[CliveH]

pelmetman - 2013-07-11 11:33 PM

 

Another poor misunderstood scumbag has had his sentence reduced, at no doubt considerable cost to the taxpayer *-)

 

Nellie Geraghty ashes murder: Mark Royle's jail term cut

 

Royle was captured on CCTV cycling away from the scene

Continue reading the main story

Related Stories

 

Man jailed for ashes widow murder

Drug addict denies killing widow

Widow 'died after ashes snatched'

A man jailed for murdering a 79-year-old woman while stealing a handbag containing her husband's ashes has had his sentence reduced.

 

Nellie Geraghty was found on the ground still clutching the torn strap of the bag in Shaw, Oldham, in November 2011. She died later in hospital.

 

Mark Royle, 37, was ordered to serve a minimum term of 28 years at Manchester Crown Court.

 

The Court of Appeal in London reduced his minimum sentence to 25 years.

 

At his trial at Manchester Crown Court, the former drug addict pleaded not guilty to charges of robbery, murder and manslaughter.

 

As well as being found guilty of murder, Royle was also convicted of robbery for stealing Mrs Geraghty's bag.

 

Drugs excuse

Mrs Geraghty, who lived closed to the alleyway between Elizabeth Grove and Kershaw Street where she was found, suffered head injuries likely to have been caused by a kick or stamp.

 

Royle, of no fixed address but formerly from Shaw, claimed he was buying and smoking drugs when the attack happened.

 

 

Nellie Geraghty's handbag contained the ashes of her late husband Frank

However he was captured on CCTV cycling away from the area where the attack happened.

 

Police said he used the money that was in Mrs Geraghty's bag to buy drugs, then changed his clothes and disposed of his bike to evade arrest.

 

Mrs Geraghty's bag was later recovered from a nearby river, but her husband's ashes were never found.

 

Mrs Geraghty's husband had died some years ago and she was so devoted to him she carried his ashes in her shoulder bag when she went out.

 

Following the crime, Shaw residents organised search parties to look for Mr Geraghty's ashes, without success.

 

 

Yus yus.............it all makes work for the lawyering trade yis yis indeedee >:-)

 

Well you open up a good question there Dave.

 

How do we deal with drug addicts.

 

I think we pander to them far too much.

 

Others would say that if we gave them drugs they would not have to steal to fund their habit and by inference the likes of Nellie Geraghty would still be alive.

 

 

[Guest Had Enough]

One of the problems about life sentences for violent murderers is that they can continue killing in prison!

 

Prison officers at their recent conference debated this subject and they are becoming increasingly worried about the safety of their members. Someone in for life can kill with impunity as we can do no more to deter or punish him!

 

http://goo.gl/Q3PxM

 

But I still cannot comprehend that we have people who can believe that there is no crime so huge, so cruel or so bestial that is worthy of the death sentence.

 

I still shudder when I think of the Belgian paedophile Marc Dutroux who kidnapped young girls and imprisoned them in cages in his cellar where he sexually assaulted them before killing them.

 

But his worst crime was when he was imprisoned for a short period for an unrelated offence. He had a victim in his cellar and he just left her to die a slow and agonising death from thirst and starvation.

 

Can you imagine that child, crying for her mother as she starved to death, alone and frightened!

 

And we have people here who could look her parents in the eye and tell them that Marc Dutroux doesn't deserve to die.

 

This perverted and skewed ideology of the liberal left (and it's always the left!) disgusts and horrifies me. They care everything for their own moral sensibilities and nothing for the victims and their feelings and wishes.

 

 

 

[John 47]

CliveH - 2013-07-11 10:24 PM

 

I suppose I am saying that to let a known killer out has its dangers.

 

I also feel it wise for crimes so dreadful that elected officials can dictate true life sentences.

 

Maybe by "profiling" it could possible to identify the dangerous ones.

 

If it were my child for example that was on the receiving end of Brady's psychotic pleasure I suspect I would want him hung, drawn and quartered in front of me.

 

But for me now - I want him to be kept alive in a living hell because he wants to die. A true life sentence. Let his God chose when he dies, not him.

 

True - and if anyone harmed my grandchildren in that way I would be at the front of the queue to tear them apart - that is a natural human reaction (and the fact of the sentence I would receive would not alter that). However, when it comes to making a judgement in the cold light of day then we all have to be more considered in our reactions, otherwise we are no better than the perpetrators. That inevitably means that there will always be a danger of making a mistake but I know of no way of avoiding human error, tragic though the results might be,

[John 47]

pelmetman - 2013-07-11 11:33 PM

 

Another poor misunderstood scumbag has had his sentence reduced.......

 

Not quite. The MINIMUM sentence was reduced from 28 to 25 years. There is every likelihood he will spend the ret of his life behind bars.

 

[John 47]

Had Enough - 2013-07-12 7:45 AM

 

But I still cannot comprehend that we have people who can believe that there is no crime so huge, so cruel or so bestial that is worthy of the death sentence.

 

This perverted and skewed ideology of the liberal left (and it's always the left!) disgusts and horrifies me. They care everything for their own moral sensibilities and nothing for the victims and their feelings and wishes.

 

 

So you are so sure you are always right that it would be impossible to make a mistake, are you? On top of which, the barbaric behaviour of some criminals does not mean that we should stoop to their level and commit a barbaric act ourselves. Interestingly, the families of many victims also take the same view as I do - they want to show the perpetrator that they are better than him. As for your obscene suggestion that people who take my view do not care for the victims - well that is no more than I would expect from you.

 

 

 

 

[Guest pelmetman]

John 47 - 2013-07-12 10:33 AM

 

pelmetman - 2013-07-11 11:33 PM

 

Another poor misunderstood scumbag has had his sentence reduced.......

 

Not quite. The MINIMUM sentence was reduced from 28 to 25 years. There is every likelihood he will spend the ret of his life behind bars.

 

The magic 25 years *-) ............by that time he'd have rehearsed his lines on how to he's going to be a good little ex murderer, and con the authorities into letting him go >:-(

 

That's if he actually does 25 years ;-)...........with all the bleedin heart loony liberals on his side :-S............I suspect he'll be out on license well before then >:-(

[John 47]

pelmetman - 2013-07-12 10:45 AM

 

John 47 - 2013-07-12 10:33 AM

 

pelmetman - 2013-07-11 11:33 PM

 

Another poor misunderstood scumbag has had his sentence reduced.......

 

Not quite. The MINIMUM sentence was reduced from 28 to 25 years. There is every likelihood he will spend the ret of his life behind bars.

 

The magic 25 years *-) ............by that time he'd have rehearsed his lines on how to he's going to be a good little ex murderer, and con the authorities into letting him go >:-(

 

That's if he actually does 25 years ;-)...........with all the bleedin heart loony liberals on his side :-S............I suspect he'll be out on license well before then >:-(

 

The whole point of minimum sentences is that the perpetrator cannot be considered for release on licence before that minimum is served, so you are confused once again, I'm afraid - and it doesn't matter how many loony liberals you come up with! :-D

[Guest pelmetman]

John 47 - 2013-07-12 11:18 AM

 

pelmetman - 2013-07-12 10:45 AM

 

John 47 - 2013-07-12 10:33 AM

 

pelmetman - 2013-07-11 11:33 PM

 

Another poor misunderstood scumbag has had his sentence reduced.......

 

Not quite. The MINIMUM sentence was reduced from 28 to 25 years. There is every likelihood he will spend the ret of his life behind bars.

 

The magic 25 years *-) ............by that time he'd have rehearsed his lines on how to he's going to be a good little ex murderer, and con the authorities into letting him go >:-(

 

That's if he actually does 25 years ;-)...........with all the bleedin heart loony liberals on his side :-S............I suspect he'll be out on license well before then >:-(

 

The whole point of minimum sentences is that the perpetrator cannot be considered for release on licence before that minimum is served, so you are confused once again, I'm afraid - and it doesn't matter how many loony liberals you come up with! :-D

 

It might say that on the tin now ;-)....................but give the loony liberals time they'll soon be working to have that overturned as its against the poor misunderstood murderers human rights *-)..............he's already had it reduced by 3 years and he's not even been inside for that long 8-)...................so the taxpayer can all look forward to spending 10's of 1000's on lawyers as he works the system for the next umpteen years until he gets let out >:-(..............

 

Progress eh *-)

[Guest pelmetman]

To add more grist to the mill ;-)

 

The Sun, 3 January 2013

Yesterday the Sun continued its campaign saying 'no to soft justice', drawing readers' attention to figures suggesting some people convicted for murder are being released after serving less than 10 years' prison sentence.

 

It's worth putting together what we know about murder sentencing in England and Wales.

 

The source

 

In spite of the date on the news article, this story really began in October last year, when a series of parliamentary questions were asked by Conservative MP Philip Davies on the topic of short sentences for murderers.

 

On 31 October the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) responded:

"In 2010, 115 people were released from prison having served a life sentence for murder. Of these, six had served fewer than 10 years. In 2011, 160 people were released from prison having served a life sentence for murder. Of these, 26 had served fewer than 10 years."

 

That makes 32 prisoners released after serving under 10 years imprisonment for murder out of a total of 275 released in 2010 and 2011 - about one in nine. A previous parliamentary answer also confirmed the average sentence length for prisoners released during these two years is 16 years.

 

Historical figures from the MoJ show that normally between 100 and 200 people convicted for murder are released from prison per year. The average time served has been slowly rising in recent years - from 13 years in 1999 to 16 last year.

 

Poor sod's *-)...............fancy losing 16 years of your life just for taking someone else's 8-).................where's the justice in that eh? >:-)

[malc d]

When Fred West, and "Dr. " Shipman, committed suicide a lot of people felt cheated as they had avoided any long term punishment.

 

Who does the team think suffered the most lasting penalty for their crimes - Fred West or Ian Brady ?

 

 

:-|

[Guest pelmetman]

malc d - 2013-07-12 3:33 PM

 

When Fred West, and "Dr. " Shipman, committed suicide a lot of people felt cheated as they had avoided any long term punishment.

 

Who does the team think suffered the most lasting penalty for their crimes - Fred West or Ian Brady ?

 

 

:-|

 

Fred West and Shipman are now nearly forgotten and costing the taxpayer zilch ;-).....................Brady is still rubbing our noses in it *-)..........

[malc d]

pelmetman - 2013-07-12 3:45 PM

 

 

Fred West and Shipman are now nearly forgotten and costing the taxpayer zilch ;-).....................Brady is still rubbing our noses in it *-)..........

 

 

I thought for a moment that you were going to answer the question, but now want to change the subject from punishment, to cost.

 

 

 

:-D

[Guest pelmetman]

malc d - 2013-07-12 3:51 PM

 

pelmetman - 2013-07-12 3:45 PM

 

 

Fred West and Shipman are now nearly forgotten and costing the taxpayer zilch ;-).....................Brady is still rubbing our noses in it *-)..........

 

 

I thought for a moment that you were going to answer the question, but now want to change the subject from punishment, to cost.

 

 

 

:-D

 

In that case Malc ;-)...............my answer would be neither.............West and Shipman took then own life at the time of their choosing.................and despite what Brady say's about wanting to die *-)..............its plain old fashioned cobblers................or why else would he be "eating"????????? >:-(

[malc d]

pelmetman - 2013-07-12 3:58 PM

 

malc d - 2013-07-12 3:51 PM

 

pelmetman - 2013-07-12 3:45 PM

 

 

Fred West and Shipman are now nearly forgotten and costing the taxpayer zilch ;-).....................Brady is still rubbing our noses in it *-)..........

 

 

I thought for a moment that you were going to answer the question, but now want to change the subject from punishment, to cost.

 

 

 

:-D

 

In that case Malc ;-)...............my answer would be neither.............West and Shipman took then own life at the time of their choosing.................and despite what Brady say's about wanting to die *-)..............its plain old fashioned cobblers................or why else would he be "eating"????????? >:-(

 

 

I find the idea that Fred West didn't suffer at all when he hung himself, quite bizarre.

 

I'd always imagined it must have hurt a bit, for at least a couple of minutes.

 

8-)

[BGD]

pelmetman - 2013-07-12 4:58 PM

 

malc d - 2013-07-12 3:51 PM

 

pelmetman - 2013-07-12 3:45 PM

 

 

Fred West and Shipman are now nearly forgotten and costing the taxpayer zilch ;-).....................Brady is still rubbing our noses in it *-)..........

 

 

I thought for a moment that you were going to answer the question, but now want to change the subject from punishment, to cost.

 

 

 

:-D

 

In that case Malc ;-)...............my answer would be neither.............West and Shipman took then own life at the time of their choosing.................and despite what Brady say's about wanting to die *-)..............its plain old fashioned cobblers................or why else would he be "eating"????????? >:-(

 

 

Agree about Brady.

If he wanted to end his life, he'd have done so.

He's had plenty of years to figure out how to do it, and must have had a thousand opportunities......stabbing through his eyes into brain with pencils, cutting wrists with sharp metal/glass, etc etc etc etc.