Ian Huntley attacked in prison.
Posted by: Tony Lockhart on 21 March 2010
I love it. This is one of the reasons I love jailing someone for life. He is in fear of this happening every single day. Brilliant. Death sentence would have seen his fear ended years ago.
Tony
Tony
Posted on: 22 March 2010 by Steve2701
Elouise,
Will you be losing sleep tonight for fear that Huntley may not be being treated fairly then?
Will you be losing sleep tonight for fear that Huntley may not be being treated fairly then?
Posted on: 22 March 2010 by Steve O
quote:Originally posted by Sniper:
..... I would like to think his relatives would have a right to visit him in a UK prison. I dont much care about his rights to have visitors but I care that his relatives should be able to visit him if they so desire. No doubt there are people in pain who love him.....
I know you wrote "if they so desire" but if he were your relative, would you wish to see him in prison? How on earth could you love a monster like Huntley? How can anyone have positive feelings for that man knowing what he did to those to girls? Crimes against defenceless children are the worst possible crimes IMO.
While I don't condone the attacks on him, I find it hard to condemn someone for reacting against him in the manner they have. I certainly won't lie awake at night worrying if he's OK.
I find myself agreeing with Steve2701 - IMO he lost any right to being classed as human when he committed an inhuman crime.
Regards,
Steve
Posted on: 22 March 2010 by David Scott
I'm surprised how delighted some of you are by your own cruelty.
Huntley's crimes are bizarre and unimaginable. It's hard to see how you could ever be certain he wouldn't do such a thing again, so there's no doubt in my mind that it will never be safe to release him. I think it's tragic that a human being - with all the potential he had for good - should have gone so appallingly wrong, but that doesn't mean I want to reform him, or that I particularly care if he lives or dies.
But if there is a right way to treat people, it applies to everyone. It isn't changed by anger or the desire for vengeance. Victims or their relatives often want to take revenge on the people who've wronged them. It's right that the law prevents them and it's right that the law - in theory - prevents Huntley's fellow inmates and some of the members of this forum from physically attacking him.
I have children. If they had been Huntley's victims I would probably want to kill him. It's absolutely right that the law would prevent me and that he'd be tried by a judge and jury and not by me.
Huntley's crimes are bizarre and unimaginable. It's hard to see how you could ever be certain he wouldn't do such a thing again, so there's no doubt in my mind that it will never be safe to release him. I think it's tragic that a human being - with all the potential he had for good - should have gone so appallingly wrong, but that doesn't mean I want to reform him, or that I particularly care if he lives or dies.
But if there is a right way to treat people, it applies to everyone. It isn't changed by anger or the desire for vengeance. Victims or their relatives often want to take revenge on the people who've wronged them. It's right that the law prevents them and it's right that the law - in theory - prevents Huntley's fellow inmates and some of the members of this forum from physically attacking him.
I have children. If they had been Huntley's victims I would probably want to kill him. It's absolutely right that the law would prevent me and that he'd be tried by a judge and jury and not by me.
Posted on: 22 March 2010 by graham55
Huntley's in jail for the rest of his life because he's deemed too dangerous to society ever to be released: that is surely correct.
Some of the hard nuts with whom he's incarcerated feel that his crimes were beyond depravity, and they wish to do him in: they are surely not wrong.
I'd be amazed if he were still alive in five years' time.
Some of the hard nuts with whom he's incarcerated feel that his crimes were beyond depravity, and they wish to do him in: they are surely not wrong.
I'd be amazed if he were still alive in five years' time.
Posted on: 22 March 2010 by Tony Lockhart
Ian Brady is still around, although very much against his own wishes. I should think at best Huntley will end up like him. In his old age he will be hoping there's forgiveness after death.
Posted on: 22 March 2010 by Don Hooper
A measure on how civilised a society is, is how they treat their prisoners. Hubtly is an evil pervert who does not deserve the gift of life, but I cannot agree with capital punishment as too many innocents have been wrongly convicted and hanged as a result.
I have no sympthy for Huntly and I would rather my tax is used for the good of others and not for keeping him warm, fed and safe, but what is the alternative.
I have no sympthy for Huntly and I would rather my tax is used for the good of others and not for keeping him warm, fed and safe, but what is the alternative.
Posted on: 22 March 2010 by graham55
I believe that the serious criminal fraternity has its own strange moral code, which Huntley has stepped outside. I think that he'll be 'sorted' shortly, and properly this time.
Posted on: 22 March 2010 by David Scott
quote:I believe that the serious criminal fraternity has its own strange moral code
I think they enjoy a bit of self righteous indignation as much as the next man and have a predisposition towards violent solutions.
I suspect the bloke that cut Huntley's throat would make an unlikely poster boy for right-wing penal reform.
Posted on: 23 March 2010 by living in lancs yearning for yorks
quote:Originally posted by David Scott?:
I have children. If they had been Huntley's victims I would probably want to kill him. It's absolutely right that the law would prevent me and that he'd be tried by a judge and jury and not by me.
+1
Posted on: 23 March 2010 by 151
-1
Posted on: 23 March 2010 by RoyleBlue
And now he is looking at claiming compensation for the attack! LMAO!!!
Posted on: 23 March 2010 by 151
i would like to give him some compensation.
Posted on: 23 March 2010 by fatcat
quote:Originally posted by RoyleBlue:
And now he is looking at claiming compensation for the attack! LMAO!!!
I doubt it. Where did you read/hear that.
Posted on: 23 March 2010 by RoyleBlue
quote:Originally posted by fatcat:quote:Originally posted by RoyleBlue:
And now he is looking at claiming compensation for the attack! LMAO!!!
I doubt it. Where did you read/hear that.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/8583528.stm
Posted on: 23 March 2010 by fatcat
quote:Originally posted by RoyleBlue:quote:Originally posted by fatcat:quote:Originally posted by RoyleBlue:
And now he is looking at claiming compensation for the attack! LMAO!!!
I doubt it. Where did you read/hear that.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/8583528.stm
The report states Huntley COULD claim. It doesn’t say he HAS claimed.
Posted on: 23 March 2010 by RoyleBlue
quote:Originally posted by fatcat:quote:Originally posted by RoyleBlue:quote:Originally posted by fatcat:quote:Originally posted by RoyleBlue:
And now he is looking at claiming compensation for the attack! LMAO!!!
I doubt it. Where did you read/hear that.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/8583528.stm
The report states Huntley COULD claim. It doesn’t say he HAS claimed.
Sorry - thought I had said he is looking at claiming, not he HAS claimed. As quoted by Mr Straw "There has been a suggestion, by apparently this prisoner's lawyer, that he will seek compensation." May be I should have said he COULD be looking at claiming.
Posted on: 23 March 2010 by fatcat
Correct, he COULD be looking at claiming, but you don’t know he is looking at claiming.
Posted on: 23 March 2010 by RoyleBlue
quote:Originally posted by fatcat:
Correct, he COULD be looking at claiming, but you don’t know he is looking at claiming.
Fair enough, although I never said he HAS claimed as you stated. Will get me coat now!
Posted on: 23 March 2010 by Steve2701
Lets say he claims - and inevitably wins the case, how much of this will he get to keep versus going to victim support for those whos lives are in total complete and utter ruins over HIS actions? < walks away shaking his head still wondering what Huntley thinks of the human rights HE has violated so badly >
Posted on: 23 March 2010 by Sniper
Back in 2005 Huntley was scalded with boiling water when fellow inmate, Mark Hobson - serving life for a 2004 quadruple murder, attacked him. Huntley bleated that the prison authorities failed in their duty of care towards him, and launched a claim for £15,000 compensation. Huntley was reportedly awarded £2,500 in legal aid to pursue this claim.
The Wells and Chapman families received £11,000 in compensation for the death of their daughters.
The Wells and Chapman families received £11,000 in compensation for the death of their daughters.
Posted on: 24 March 2010 by Mike Dudley
quote:Originally posted by Sniper:
Back in 2005 Huntley was scalded with boiling water when fellow inmate, Mark Hobson - serving life for a 2004 quadruple murder, attacked him. Huntley bleated that the prison authorities failed in their duty of care towards him, and launched a claim for £15,000 compensation. Huntley was reportedly awarded £2,500 in legal aid to pursue this claim.
The Wells and Chapman families received £11,000 in compensation for the death of their daughters.
So do the hangemandfloggems on the forum think Mark Hobson should be rewarded, or should he be attacked as well? Or were his murders somehow on a higher moral plane than Huntley's?
Just asking, like...
Posted on: 24 March 2010 by Officer DBL
There is no denying that the actions of any murderer (and lets not forget that there are more than a handful of those in our prisons) are unforgivable but as a civilised society we have chosen to have the courts decide upon the appropriate punishment. Capital punishment was abolished years ago, so the maximum sentence for all crimes, not just murder, is imprisonment.
It may be that the punishment tariff available to courts is considered by many to be inadequate, but is not for individuals to take the law into their own hands and chose to exact greater retribution.
Like it or not, all murderers, rapists, terrorists and indeed all of society’s miscreants have rights in law that the law is required to uphold. If it is to be the case that society’s miscreants are to have their rights revoked, then that must be embodied in law.
It may be that the punishment tariff available to courts is considered by many to be inadequate, but is not for individuals to take the law into their own hands and chose to exact greater retribution.
Like it or not, all murderers, rapists, terrorists and indeed all of society’s miscreants have rights in law that the law is required to uphold. If it is to be the case that society’s miscreants are to have their rights revoked, then that must be embodied in law.
Posted on: 24 March 2010 by David Scott
Officer DBL makes a good point. It's interesting to imagine how such a law could be framed, what our prisons would be like - and how it would change us as a society if we had such prisons. It's beyond doubt as well that mistakes would be made about who should be sent to such a place. Every judicial system convicts innocent men. Many people who commit serious crimes - including murder - never reoffend however you treat them. How would you decide who got sent to the bear-pit? What would we think of the men whose job was to hose down the blood and clear away the bodies every morning and then went home to watch television with their families? Perhaps some of you would sign up?quote:If it is to be the case that society’s miscreants are to have their rights revoked, then that must be embodied in law.
It's one thing to indulge your feelings and mouth off, but any actual change in the law is complex and has to be thought through in terms of its practical consequences.
Posted on: 24 March 2010 by droodzilla
quote:It's one thing to indulge your feelings and mouth off
Indeed. Perversely, I would have more respect for people who work themselves up into a frenzy of self-righteous indignation, if they got up off their arses and took the law into their own hands, instead of indulging in ever more graphic fantasies about it. Or is this just some pointless "my moral outrage is considerably more intense than yours" contest?
For the record, I believe Ian Huntley committed a vile act, and should never be released. I believe that not enough time and money is spent helping the victims of crime to cope with the aftermath. I do not believe in herd-mentality vigilantes - especially if these come from the hardened criminal community with it's laughable, so-called "code of honour".
There is no justice outside the law. If people believe there is no justice inside the law either, they should direct their efforts to changing the law.
Posted on: 24 March 2010 by Mike Dudley
I sometimes wonder why it is that these crimes provoke such furious reactions from some, who have absolutely no connection with any of it apart fromwhat they see on the news/read in the papers. Like the hysterical crowds of shriekers who gather to assault the vehicles carrying the latest bunch of psychopaths to and from court.
They don't know any body involved, they haven't had their lives directly affected by events, but there they are. Frothing at the mouth and becoming more incoherent with every deathwish utterance.
Yes, it's a horrible crime. Yes, it was an appalling, outrageous act and the mind of the perpetrator is almost beyond comprehension. But it wasn't your children or relatives or friends. Why are you so worked up about it?
Is it because "I've got children of my own and I wouldn't want..." etc? Why do you imagine this might happen to them? They have more chance of dying trying to cross the road.
I'd be interested to hear about the possible causes of this type of evident psychological displacement. A dysfunctional family history, perhaps...
They don't know any body involved, they haven't had their lives directly affected by events, but there they are. Frothing at the mouth and becoming more incoherent with every deathwish utterance.
Yes, it's a horrible crime. Yes, it was an appalling, outrageous act and the mind of the perpetrator is almost beyond comprehension. But it wasn't your children or relatives or friends. Why are you so worked up about it?
Is it because "I've got children of my own and I wouldn't want..." etc? Why do you imagine this might happen to them? They have more chance of dying trying to cross the road.
I'd be interested to hear about the possible causes of this type of evident psychological displacement. A dysfunctional family history, perhaps...