Lennon's murderer up for parole

An inspection report of North Sea Camp prison in Lincolnshire woefully
understates how prisoners there are given "inappropiate and unacceptable" work
placements. The prison, part of which is in danger od falling down, houses 300
inmates, many at the end of life sentences, who are sent out to work to help
prepare them for release and "resettlement". Last year one inmate in the 23rd
year of a life sentence for the rape of a 13-year old girl, and with a history
of indecent exposure, was sent to work at a settlement for handicapped and
vulnerable women called Norton Lees, in nearby Boston.
Here he worked as an
unsupervised odd-job man who was also allowed to assist at swimming lessons.
Fortunately his work placement passed without incident. But the same cannot be
said for the inmate serving life for murder, Paul Baines, who replaced him at
the home. He promptly tried to throttle a woman member of staff.

Private Eye (issue 1116 October 2004)

quote:

---

Originally posted by bhazen:
I agree, the execution of the innocent is problematic. I support a beyond-all-shadows-of-a-reasonable doubt-with-sober-20/20 eyesight-reliable-witnesses kind of sure. Better use of DNA evidence should help. I also think the death penalty should be in all 50 states, or none at all.

I know my view may seem a bit right-wing to the non-U.S. posters to this forum; thankfully, NZ, Australia, Great Britain etc. are far less violent places, less guns about etc.; having had a friend murdered by someone (who's walking around free now) also affects my outlook.

---

How many blacks were lynched and how many good 'ol boys were acquitted on "beyond all shadows - " etc?

And we in the UK are little better - Guilford Four, Birmingham Six, who would have been executed had we not repealed capital punishment, and whose convictions were subsequently declared "unsafe and unsatisfactory".

I do believe that capital punishment could be an alternative but in very specific circumstances:

· Defendant is “fit to plead” – i.e. not of unsound mind

· Defendant pleads guilty at the trial

· Trial judge is convinced that the guilty plea is consistent with any evidence to implicate the defendant and defendant’s account is consistent with that evidence

· Defendant is told of the court’s proposed custodial sentence

· Defendant has the option of choosing capital punishment

· Capital punishment is by automated lethal injection

· Defendant must initiate process by pushing a button (say) within 20 seconds (say) – only one opportunity

· If defendant fails to do so within time limit, custodial sentence must be served.

cheers

Nigel

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nigel Cavendish:

And we in the UK are little better - Guilford Four, Birmingham Six, who would have been executed had we not repealed capital punishment, and whose convictions were subsequently declared "unsafe and unsatisfactory".

Nigel

---

Nigel

I would disagree quite strongly here - unsafe convictions leading to execution are far removed from an unsafe conviction leading to imprisonment. The latter enable the restoration of liberty, hardly an option to the dead.

Regards

Mike

Spending money I don't have on things I don't need.

Mike

That was the point I was making.

cheers

Nigel

Perhaps the parole boards here in the UK can learn a thing or two about the Chapman decision.

Mike

Nigel

I read it as "little better" being "about as bad as"...

At least the Guidlford Four, Birmingham Six etc have their liberty.

Free the Renault 5, I say.

Regards

Mike

Spending money I don't have on things I don't need.

The key phrase is "had we not repealed capital punishment" which is why the 4&6 were alive to walk free.

I still remember the "free Nelson Mandela with every 4 gallons".

cheers

Nigel

I went to the Free Nelson Mandela gig at Wembley.

Didn't get one, though.

Regards

Mike

Spending money I don't have on things I don't need.

If life meant life I don't think many people who want capital punishment would want it so much.

I'm in favour of capital punishment for people who are paid to kill others AND where there is no doubt about them being guilty.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kevin-W:
The crucial point here is not the fact that Chapman shot John Lennon (or the merits of Lennon's music at the time), or even wether he's "done his time", but whether he represents a danger to the public.

---

Surely this cannot be the test, right? A wife who has her husband killed for the life insurance is probably NOT at risk of re-offending, right? Just how far does your test go?

Judd

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jez Quigley:
I'm not in favour of the death penalty. It's barbaric and sickening. If it's wrong to kill, it's wrong to kill - whoever is doing it and with whatever righteous justification they wrap it in.

---

But it's not always wrong to kill. That being the case, at the very least an argument can be made for the death penalty.

Judd

Sorry but that's wrong.

There can be an argument for anything.

What a person who accepts all killing is wrong really has is an opinion that all killing is wrong, they are entitled to that opinion.

Others may have an alternative opinion and are every bit as entitled to that as well.

That's why there is an argument for and against the death penalty.

Anybody who believes that what they accept has to be accepted by others without argument is bonkers.

quote:

---

Originally posted by AlexG:

I think Jez's point is that it IS always wrong to kill. That being the case, it's impossible to make an argument for the death penalty.

ag

---

Assuming you are right about Jez's position, I think the premise is wrong. For instance, killing somebody in classic self-defense is an example of a justified killing isn't it?

Assuming you agree with me on that point, then you agree that there is at least one instance where killing is justified. That being the case, one cannot use the argument that killing is always wrong as dispositive of the issue with respect to the death penalty.

I am aware, of course, that "self defense" has little bearing on the death penalty issue. But I think that the example can still be instructive. For instance, one of the arguments often advanced in opposition to the death penalty is that the execution of the offender will do nothing to restore the life of the victim. I think this is fundamentally right. However, I don't think the "balance of lives" argument is all that persuasive. If it were, why should we justify self-defense at all? Afterall, whether one uses self defense or refrains from doing so results, in either case, in the death of at least one person (ie., the offender or the innocent man). That we prefer the offending party to die rather than the innocent is based precisely in the recognition that there exists some interest more dear to us that mere life.

Which is to say, I think it is certainly fair to examine exactly why we permit the innocent man to take the life of another in self defense but not the converse. I think the answer to that question illuminates but does not fully explain why it might be OK to take the life of a death-row inmate even though that does not bring the victim back.

Judd

Besides self-defense, I think killing someone to escape an overall threatening, captive but not immediately threatening situation is okay in many situations. For example, a sex slave killing a brothel operator to escape or a German soldier killing a guard at a Russian prison camp to escape.

Survival is my word of the day.

The death penalty issue is a classical divergent problem. Such a problem will never converge toward a solid conclusion but will need a flexible or fluid answer that balances the tension.

One or other extreme of viewpoint will not solve this problem. There are valid needs that must be met at both ends of a line. In order for these opposing needs to be met there must be a recognition of the tension between them and the solution must be in balance.

Some equivalence of punishment/offence is necessary because the offence is a wrong. But brutality for brutality is wrong as well.

Etc.

Deane

quote:

---

Assuming you are right about Jez's position, I think the premise is wrong. For instance, killing somebody in classic self-defense is an example of a justified killing isn't it?

---

Judd

No doubt you'll know there are do-gooder (really 'do-badder') types around who won't agree with that point. They'll take the view that even if someone is coming at you with a hammer you should try to talk to them first, or disarm them by using only the minimum amount of force...blah blah blah.

There are many situations in which killing is fine.

I would be in total favour of the death penalty for all murderers, rapists and child molesters if I knew for certain they were guilty. Unfortunately I don't believe it is possible to be that certain all of the time, therefore I'd restrict the death sentence to those caught in the act who are paid to kill, but to a prison sentence of life meaning life for the rest. Just in case they turn out to be innocent. I think this is a reasonable enough compromise.

I wouldn't want anyone who commits crimes such as those I mention ever walking around enjoying the same freedoms I do, they should lose their liberty forever as a punishment for what they've done. In some ways that may well be worse than the death penalty, anyway.

It is easy to pick the difference between black and white. Some behaviours are such a contrast from that which is commonly acceptable that it is easy to form an opinion about them.

Unfortunately, the most important moral decisions must be made on the boundary between what is generally understood to be "good" and what is generally understood to be "bad".

Just like in a chaotic system, finer and finer distinctions must be drawn when this boundary is closely studied.

Criminal justice is fraught with difficulty because offending happens in the "boundary layer" of society, where friction causes the humans there (who show high sensitivity to initial conditions) to act in sometimes unpredictable ways.

So to alleviate to some extent the difficulties that result from this chaos, Judges (and parole boards) are given discretion by the legislators. The "three strikes" laws in the US are a perfect example of how injustice results when discretion is taken away from the judiciary.

Deane

quote:

---

Derogatory terms to describe people with a different viewpoint (such as 'do-gooders') is not helpful though.

---

I'm sure you know what I mean by the term 'do-gooder', why did you select that bit in particular?

I'm speaking here of the fear a victim's family has that someone else is spending their hours trying to find the smallest "technicality" in order to get someone off serving any sentence for a crime they HAVE committed. I'm speaking here of someone who has the fundamental belief that EVERYBODY can be rehabilitated, so they spend their time working toward the release of murderers, rapists and child molesters, when it is clear by the re-offending rate that everybody can't be rehabilitated at all. Isn't this what most people see as 'do-gooders?' If you see this term as indicating a different group of people altogether then I apologise for using the term so long as it's clear what I meant when I used it.

I am not talking about people who simply have a different viewpoint, I'd have thought that was obvious because I said earlier,

quote:

---

Anybody who believes that what they accept has to be accepted by others without argument is bonkers

---

So by "do gooders" you basically mean defence lawyers and the probation service?

And that by, respectively, attempting to ensure that justice is done and by devoting their professional lives to public service they are actually some kinf of evil crime supporting scumbag?

Matthew

Sigh.

quote:

---

So by "do gooders" you basically mean defence lawyers and the probation service?

---

That isn't what I said at all.

I'd be interested to know if anybody else reads my comment the way you do.

"Technicality" is a word often used in respect of adversarial justice. It is used to imply that the rules are bent and that injustice results from somebody "getting off on a technicality".

There are large areas of uncertainty in the law. That is because legislators cannot, and should not, try to cover every possible set of future circumstances that might fall within the law.

Generally, it is law enforcement agencies that have failed in their application of the laws, (which protect civil liberties) that govern the collection of evidence or the cautioning of suspects. The correct application of these laws is clearly set out by numerous decisions of the courts through the years. A court, and rightly so, can accept only evidence which is lawfully obtained and can prosecute only suspects who have been properly treated by the State apparatus.

Presumption of innocence must be upheld until guilt is PROVEN. If the state apparatus fails to lawfully prove an unlawful act then the accused is innocent.

Where is the "technicality" here.

Deane

Give it a rest girls please.

How?

Please tell me where I mentioned lawyers and the probation service? As neither of these groups of people crossed my mind I think you'll find it difficult, although as you have a vivid imagination perhaps I'll be surprised and you'll come up with a quote from me that I didn't make.

BTW Why did you think of these groups of people? Do you have a low opinion of them?

quote:

---

But I always thought the penal system in this country had a two-fold remit; To punish and to rehabilitate/re-educate.

---

It does. Who said it doesn't?