Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Killer who murdered London gay man must serve full sentence

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Why do taxpayers have to fund this man and the many like him.

    Hang him and have done!

  2. Yeah, I like my killers well hung too Squidgy.

  3. de Villiers 9 Jul 2010, 2:03pm

    > Why do taxpayers have to fund this man and the many like him. Hang him and have done!

    Because of the unintended consequences that arise from a justice system with execution.

  4. Michael J K Findlay 9 Jul 2010, 3:13pm

    I agree, hang him and be done with it. Murder should be a death penalty. Why should we pay 45k for him to be behind bars.

  5. Piece of scum hope you rot in he’ll

  6. lets hope his ass is red raw

  7. Bottom line is, the man is a murderer. The motivation is irrelavant.
    Hate crimes are a pointless waste of time. He should be sentenced on the act he committed, the reasons why frankly do not matter.
    I go with Squidgy though – why do we as taxpayers have to support this man’s well-being for the rest of his natural life, whilst many in our community have trouble finding the money for a square meal a day and a roof over their heads? The man needs a long drop from a short rope. One less mouth to feed, and it might even make others such as him think twice.

  8. de Villiers 9 Jul 2010, 5:36pm

    The reason for not having the death penalty is because there is no possibility of a successful appeal. The UK would have executed innocent people whose convictions were later considered to be unsafe.

    One should add that the removal of the death penalty has probably benefited the criminal justice system. When it was in place, juries were historically reluctant to convict of murder, knowing the outcome could be the death penalty.

    With its removal, not only have juries felt more able to convict but it was felt that it was acceptable, and it was legislated, for a judge to take a majority verdict 10-2 whereas when the death penalty was in place, the seriousness of the sanction meant that a judge could accept only a full verdict of 12-0.

    The abolition of the death penalty has increased the prospects of convictions and allowed majority verdicts.

  9. Patrick James 9 Jul 2010, 5:57pm

    Squidgy writes:

    Why do taxpayers have to fund this man and the many like him.

    Hang him and have done!

    You want to kill people to save money?

  10. Patrick James 9 Jul 2010, 6:05pm

    Michael J K Findlay writes:

    Murder should be a death penalty.

    After the famous Derek Bentley case of 1953 I am amazed that anyone in the UK would be calling for the death penalty.

    The death penalty is murder plain and simple.

  11. Yeah Squidgy’s right, just kill him, and while we’re at it, just kill anyone who costs the tax payer too much money when they don’t deserve it. Why not kill spastics, I mean they are a burden on the tax system, and chop the hands off thiefs, and deport any asylum seekers, they’re a burden too, and then any old people over 70, who cares about them, they’re a burden too, kill ‘em all. And no more tax money to trans people for their surgery, that costs too much money, and no more money for people who have terminal illness on the NHS, what’s the point of paying for people who are gonna die soon anyway. Then our tax bills would be smaller. And whilst you’re at it Squidgy and the other pro death penalty idiots, go and buy a copy of mein kampf from the bookstaore you fukcin fascists.

  12. Dionysian 9 Jul 2010, 7:41pm

    The death penalty to ‘save money’ may be a bit too far, but how about having people like this working for free repairing out pot-holed roads, sorting our waste for recycling, picking up litter and other such jobs our Government can’t (or won’t) pay good honest citizens to do … ?

    As a joke I would include ‘volunteering’ for Human Guineapig drug trials, but as with the death penalty, the reparations for such testing may be too little too late if the conviction was later quashed.

  13. A lot of water has passed under the bridge since the days of Derek Bentley. We now have DNA profiling which unequivocally identifies the accused, and when used alongside additional evidence will prove the perpetrators guilt without any shadow of a doubt.

    At one time, had there been a suspicion that the evidence was at all flaky, I would have not followed the capital sentence, but in cases such as this, than man is totally and utterly bang to rights, and the evidence is insurmountable, then string the bastard up – he deserves nothing less. All I ask is we don’t stretch these situations out like the Americans to the inhumane suspensions and appeals. Six months tops, and the guy gets the chop.

    And Patrick, in a nutshell, in these days of recession, Yes, it does save money. The average inmate costs the taxpayer £1,200 a week to maintain someone that shouldn’t be here in the first place.

  14. 21stCenturySpirituality 10 Jul 2010, 12:21am

    I was dead (no pun intended) against the death penalty for some years. I’m not so sure of that position now a days with cases such as Baby P and Fred West and such like. I do think we need a rethink on how prisons are run and managed. We here much about prison being easy with benefits such as TVs, PCs, mobile phones and such ( all at taxpayers expense of course). I think that a prison regime should encompass a monastic military style routine (the intention being to instill discipline, self control and self discipline, reflection on behaviour and its impact on others, respect for self and others, and such like). Also prisons could be semi self sufficient with some land set aside for farming – the prisoners would be given some responsibility for managing livestock and food production – this would also be an opportunity for potential employment skills training thereby reducing reoffending rates by giving inmates necessary skills they can use if and when released and also reducing the cost to the taxpayer of supplying food to the prison. Also some prisoners could be assigned the duty to prepare meals for the prison, and to clean the prison ( more skills training and cost reduction). Another idea is to have it so that prisoners have no TVs, PCs, mobiles or anything when they go into prison, just basics. In order to get those things they have to earn them with good behaviour, compliance and engagment with the monastic/military style routine, rehabilitation and training, and so on.

    Obviously these ideas would not fit all crimes and all criminals but I think there is great potential to reduce the astronomical reoffending rates and the burden to the taxpayer of keeping a person in prison.

  15. silly billy 10 Jul 2010, 12:56am

    “The average inmate costs the taxpayer £1,200 a week to maintain someone that shouldn’t be here in the first place”.
    Errr. Shouldn’t be where in the first place?

  16. 21stCenturySpirituality 10 Jul 2010, 5:27am

    …not to mention of course addressing the circumstances and conditions in society that lead to crime in the first place.

  17. Maybe you brits could do what the french – i think it was them did years ago.

    After having a thorough review of the case, to insure that there is no shred of a doubt of guilt, and for the most heinous crimes, of which hate crimes should be on that list, put him and his kind on a devils Island. to work as slave labor.

    We do that with animals every day, whose only crime is that they were born of draft animals. And who in many cases are brought into the world only so they can covert plants to protein,a nd then be killed and eaten. And most of these animals do know fear when the smell the blood of the animals ahead of them at the killing line.

    I’m not a vegan or vegetarian, although sometimes I do wonder if they have it right.

    But it kind of puts the worst of the human criminals in perspective. Don’t cage them per se.

    the only problem with these kind of hate crimes is that the leaders fo the churches who actively promote hostility against gays – the Catholic church far more then the Anglican, should also answer for their crimes.

    Their crimes are words. Reminds me of a man who apparently only killed two people in his life = a niece and himself in late April 1945 in a bunker in Berlin.

    But his words killed 55 million people in history’s worst travesty ever.

    BTW, he is still UNexcommunicated by his church, the Vatican. Becuse if they Excommunicated him, they’d have to excocmm the church itself for its hatred of the Jews, which he exploited to win election as chancellor of Germany in 1933

  18. @ Jay

    My my you are a bit of a Drama Queen ain’t ya.

    If you think it’s fair that the like of this man, Ian Huntley and the murderers of Baby P should be respected for their crimes and given a cosy life ‘inside’ then fair enough you and your ‘clan’ should be perfectly entitled to pay for them. Whilst the rest of us decent law-abiding citizens should have the choice Not to pay for them.

    You point out the other points but maybe if people like this nasty piece of work faced the dealth penalty, not only would we see a drop in crime but also money could be directed better and save lives, for example just maybe Cancer patiences who desperately need the drugs to stay alive wouldn’t be denied… Just for starters.

  19. death penalty deterrent? is ghat why crime is so low in the usa?

  20. Mihangel apYrs 10 Jul 2010, 9:45am

    I cannot understand how we’re still a nation with a penchant for killing people convicted of crimes.

    Yes, I know it’s a gut feeling, and a need for revenge, but a lot of queer bashers used the same argument.

    I don’t oppose (sometimes sick to my stomach with loathing of the perp) because of prisoner rights, I do it because execution lessens us as a society. We would be condoning killing, and saying that killing and revenge is OK if the “people” support it. BUt what about those cases that don’t take the death penalty (filling someone thorough dangerous or drunken driving). Why shouldn’t I, as someone whose loved one has been mown down not hove the right to kill the driver since sociery doesn’t want to? I mean if society kills, why can’t I?

    It is the slippery slope: allow a bit of torture, a bit of inhumanity for the common good. And then you have a debasement, a diminution of civilisation, and you probably don’t even realise it.

    Unpleasant though it sometimes is, we mustn’t resile from fundamentals otherwise we lose something of our humanity, and, practically, make everything relative, including the right of queers to live

  21. silly billy: “Errr. Shouldn’t be where in the first place?”
    Isn’t that obvious? Swinging from the end of a rope.

    I am sick and tired of these “humanitarians” – Since when did any of these serial killers demonstrate any humanity to their victims? They have lost what human rights they had when committed those acts. They will usually eventually be released, but they victims still remain dead. It’s also not a matter of revenge, but also to dissuade others, reduce the prison costs and make some demonstration to the public that there is a line in society you simply do not cross. Humanity is all about the common good, not just the individual. The Denis Nielsens, Peter Sutcliffes and Harold Shipmans of this world do not deserve one jot of humanity for the acts they committed, and should be withdrawn from humanity permanently.

  22. Then I guess the best solution would be if cold-blooded killers were made to live of charity donations from those who wish to keep them. I’m sure people like Mihangel, Jay etc will only be to happy to contribute.

    Let taxpayers money to go those who actually need it.

  23. Mihangel apYrs 10 Jul 2010, 12:32pm

    so Squidgy, all thosse straights who helped get us our rights were do-gooders, bleeding-heart liberals! After all in 1966 there were no (out) gays in HoC, the Act was voted through on compassion and charity.

    Human Rights are indivisible, and societies run as a collective where we strive to the ideal. You are an example of those who want only for yourself, smugly content in your nice little box. Why bother about the homeless (through no fault of their own), ill, damaged, as long as you’re all right? Right up to the point when you need idealistic altruism (like an expensive, chronic, incurable disease requiring costs well above what you’ve paid in tax and NI.

    I don’t like the idea of money spent on keeping criminals in gaol, but I’d prefere that to KNOWING that innocent people have been hanged (why not slowly tortured to death to dissuade, by the way?)

  24. pink news admin you have a responsbility to either monitor posts or
    make users log in with seperate ip addresses this is apparantly the most popular gay site in the eu. now act like you are. this is why the us pisses over us

  25. @ dean

    Well Said!!

  26. @ squidgy.

    So squidgy you want to be a killer too. You want to kill people. Kill Kill Kill the Killers. Or at least you want someone else to kill someone, cause you haven’t got the balls to admit you want to kill someone, and in the process you’ll make yourself feel better by saying the money saved from imprisoning a convicted murderer can be used to treat those who need it more, cancer patients and the poor and unfortunate. What a crock of sh1te. Your ‘caring’ right wing views don’t fool me.
    Next you’ll be telling us that thiefs should get their hands cut off, women who comit adultery should be stoned by their husband, and homosexuals should have walls pushed over on them. Move to saudi arabia or the midwest of America squidgy, you’d fit in well with those views there.

    I don’t think tax payers money should be spent keeping any criminals, I think prisoners should earn their keep, just like the rest of us. But the option isn’t either kill them or keep them, there are other alternatives, and anyone who resorts to the death penalty is no better than the killers they are killing.

  27. Jay: You are screaming fcking drama queen that blows everything out of proportion. Nobody is saying we even hang everyone, but those proven to have committed multiple murders should be executed. Or if you prefer “killed”. I am not squeamish. Point me to the button and I will cheerfully press it. One less scumbag to worry about.

  28. Mihangel apYrs 10 Jul 2010, 6:38pm

    Spanner

    once you decide you can kill a “proven multiple murderer”, then why can’t you kill a child killer, or a paedophile just in case. And why not kill homosexuals (there are good religious precedents). Once you breach the principle you allow interpretation, and accept error, and live with people being executed maybe because the govr doesn’t like them.

    Slippery slopes start off gently, “it’s a logical extension of existing powers…”

    And please don’t try to insult me as you have Jay: I’m not naive about these people, my anger at their actions is at least as great as yours. But I’m not willing to relinquish one iota of what gains we have made to be a civilised society for the ability to revenge on killers by killing

  29. So Spanner/Squidgy, now you think it’s multiple murderers who should be killed, not just one time offenders? Cause if that’s so, this fella would escape your noose having killed one person. If that was your view why even bring up the death penalty?

  30. Mihangel: It is only your opinion that we have gained by no longer executing people. The crime rate has risen considerably, and many people have little or no respect for the law. By using your same argument, why should we even lock criminals up at all? Isn’t that an infringement of their human rights? Life sentences can be as short as 12 years. The police are run of their feet, the CPS are unwilling to follow through dubious cases, the judiciary sentence less and less and the government keeps bending everyone’s ears not to lock people up because we haven’t got the room. I see the entire judicial process slowly imploding because bpeople have lost their spines. These people have no rights. They should stay in prison, and work. Hard, back breaking labour.
    No TVs, no phones, no physical contact with visitors, and certainly no drugs. Those that are proven with DNA profiling to have killed more than once with malice aforethought should simply dropped by the system by the quickest and most humane methods we have.

    The whole deal I find about cases such as Ian Huntley was simply the public got all emotive over the fact he killed some little girls. As far as I see it, a life is a life. The reasons, whys or wherefores are irrelevant (including this ridiculous concept of hate-crime) – and they should suffer the same consequences.

    I think it actually demonstrates great integrity and courage to hold such laws, as long as they are tempered with understanding and reasoning. This whole crap about “It makes us as bad as them” is rubbish. They had reasons and selfish motivations for their acts. The country does it because it is about punishment, closure, cost and one hopes, a deterrent to others.

  31. You don’t sound very well Spanner, take some time out. The World’s not as bad as you think it is. Or like I said to Squidgy, move to Saudi Arabia. They have the kind of system you are looking for, you may be happy there instead of being frustrated by “the entire judicial process slowly imploding because people have lost their spines”? But guess what, the crime rate in Saudi is just as bad and their tax systems are just as bankrupt. The only difference is that righteous people like you, people who want to kill because they have very strong spines, get an excuse to kill in the name of ‘integrity and courage’. Failing that you should join the army, soldiers enjoy killing too. (but trying to justify the death penalty as having integrity and courage makes me want to vomit, I’m sure the serial killers you mentioned think they have integrity and courage)

  32. 21stCenturySpirituality 10 Jul 2010, 7:58pm

    @ Sqidgy et al…what if this man changed? What if he displayed genuine remorse for his crime? Have you the right to decide who can live and who can die? I dont for one second condone what this man did and I have every sympathy for the victims of his crime, as a gay man who has experienced both physical and verbal homophobic abuse myself. But I am also a man of God, a person of faith, and that teaches me that forgiveness and compassion are important values to strive towards. So I ask who are you to condemn this man to death? Is your life completely free of creating suffering for others? I know mine is not or has not been.

  33. Mihangel apYrs 10 Jul 2010, 10:52pm

    Spanner

    my bottom line is that rights are unnegotiable and absolute, with the right to life being the principle one. I hold this not so much for the Huntleys, Bradeys etc, but for me. We were hanging gay men up to the start of the 19C, “only” two hundred years ago, but still recently than the formation of the US.

    I don’t think this from bleeding heart liberalism, and I agree that prison reform is necessary but what became of society generally at the same time – hanging murderers only [may] deter murderers.

    We have become better as a society in many of the ways that those of us looking to the ideals aspire, we are failing with individuals and subsets

  34. Mihangel apYrs 10 Jul 2010, 10:56pm

    PS Spanner: why the ” quickest and most humane methods we have”, slow death by torture would have a greater deterrant effect, or are you squeamish?

    The guillotine was invented as a humane means of execution: if you want to be foolishly humane why not that, in Trafalgar Square “pour encourage les autres?”

  35. Jay “Next you’ll be telling us that thiefs should get their hands cut off, women who commit adultery should be stoned by their husband, and homosexuals should have walls pushed over on them.”

    Mihangel: “why not slowly tortured to death to dissuade, by the way?”

    “We were hanging gay men up to the start of the 19C”

    Why is it people like you when given an argument always bend it to ridiculous extremes? I suggest exterminating serial killers, and all of a sudden the worlds gone mad and we are back to the dark ages. Either offer a sensible reason why, or not at all.
    Why should there always be a “slippery slope”? Why is it life doesn’t mean life? The crimes have become more violent and commonplace, so the sentence needs to reflect that.

  36. Patrick James 11 Jul 2010, 3:58am

    Spanner writes:

    A lot of water has passed under the bridge since the days of Derek Bentley. We now have DNA profiling which unequivocally identifies the accused, and when used alongside additional evidence will prove the perpetrators guilt without any shadow of a doubt.

    The existence of not of DNA evidence would have made absolutely no difference whatsoever to the Derek Bentley case.

    Derek Bentley was hanged on the interpretation of something he said just prior to the murder of a police officer.

    It is absolute nonsense to say the DNA will prove guilt of perpetrators because in many cases DNA evidence has no part to play.

  37. Patrick James 11 Jul 2010, 4:04am

    Spanner writes:

    I am not squeamish. Point me to the button and I will cheerfully press it. One less scumbag to worry about.

    I bet Spanner faints at the sight of blood. :)

  38. Patrick James 11 Jul 2010, 4:11am

    Jay writes:

    But guess what, the crime rate in Saudi is just as bad and their tax systems are just as bankrupt.

    Yes indeed, brutal punishments and executions don’t lower crime rates whatsoever.

    We can hardly look at the United States experience where homicide is frequently very high indeed in states with capital punishment.

    As I mention in another comments thread I grew up in Northern Ireland during the ‘Troubles’ and of course the paramilitaries policed their ghettos with monstrous brutality, but the crime rates were still very high indeed.

  39. Patrick James 11 Jul 2010, 4:26am

    Spanner writes:

    At one time, had there been a suspicion that the evidence was at all flaky, I would have not followed the capital sentence, but in cases such as this, than man is totally and utterly bang to rights, and the evidence is insurmountable, then string the bastard up – he deserves nothing less.

    It is very rarely the case that the court can consider itsef 100% sure of a conviction.

    All I ask is we don’t stretch these situations out like the Americans to the inhumane suspensions and appeals. Six months tops, and the guy gets the chop.

    I see, so, the ‘guy’ (presumably women don’t commit crimes) has only six months to appeal before he is executed.

    And Patrick, in a nutshell, in these days of recession, Yes, it does save money. The average inmate costs the taxpayer £1,200 a week to maintain someone that shouldn’t be here in the first place.

    Criminologists will, I think, tell you that convicted killers provide excellent cases for study and if you want to reduce these crimes £1,200 is a small price to pay for such a good research resource.

  40. Mihangel apYrs 11 Jul 2010, 10:50am

    Spanner
    first hanging for serial killers, then the “birch” for violent youngsters, then, what next that may reduce the crime rate?

    Rightly, I think, our secular western societies have turned away from judicial violence as ameans to punish, deter and reform (save the US where guns are common and a “right”). And consider, is a serial homicide sane? Are we to ahng the mentally ill (like Brady) just to purge the race and get closure?

    Though honestly, I don’t think more can be said profitably. I hold that once human rights are subject to opinion then none of us claim the safety of them. You disagree, and believe that the monster you unleash will not be turned against you by a resurgence of fundamentalism

  41. Phoenix0879 11 Jul 2010, 3:32pm

    Squidgy: If you think it’s fair that the like of this man, Ian Huntley and the murderers of Baby P should be respected for their crimes and given a cosy life ‘inside’ then fair enough you and your ‘clan’ should be perfectly entitled to pay for them. Whilst the rest of us decent law-abiding citizens should have the choice Not to pay for them.

    Personally I’m conflicted on the idea of the death penalty: you see, I feel that the perpetrators of crime should be punished and death can be an escape. Huntley, for example, clearly feels incredible guilt over his crime – that is why he has attempted suicide several times. In cases like that, the best punishment is to keep the bastard alive, rotting in his guilt. A lifetime in isolation, with only his guilt for company, would be the ideal punishment.

    On the other hand, those who feel no guilt or shame over their crime, such as this killer, if there is irrefutable evidence, maybe they should be executed. For jailing them doesn’t punish them, it gives them a cushy life.

  42. Patrick James 11 Jul 2010, 4:59pm

    Spanner and Squidgy have told us how they think that killing convicted murderers will save money, after all it will save prison costs.

    That they are putting forward this argument to me shows how far away from reality Spanner and Squidgy are, if they believe that people should be killed to save money.

    However I don’t think that there would be any savings because of course executions are rather an expensive business.

    The apparatus for executions in the United States is very large. There is a facility and experts are required, state witnesses etc etc.

    So, I think that in fact executing people probably costs more than keeping them alive.

    I will add that to think that there is an equation like that, of money for lives, is really an indication that the advocates are very immature. Some day I hope that they will come to see what really matters in this world.

  43. Patrick James: Did you do a doctorate in spouting complete and utter bollocks, or do you just do it in your spare time?

    You state yourself, the best reason for keeping these people alive is so they can be some kind of “zoo” for criminologists. Then you come up with the costs of execution. Ye Gods, talk about clutching at straws!!

    Take an example, Ian Huntley was 31 when he was sentenced in 2005 for a minimum of 40 years. Considering he is classified as a high security, long term inmate, so costs are proportionally higher, =but even at £1,200 a week x 52 =62,400. That means that if he comes out when expected, he will have cost this country £2,496,000
    Please tell me any execution that costs £2.5m or anywhere close?

    I understand Phoenix’s concern about letting them rot in jail, but we have to pay to allow them to do that. I see execution not so much as retribution, but simply elimination. It’s one less mouth to feed.

    The people that I suggest are executed, are not the drunk driver, or the jilted lover, I am talking about people who persistently kill for the pleasure of it. They are NEVER going to be able to fit back into society, and they will remain a burden upon everyone else for the rest of their remaining, pitiful lives.
    They are, in real and actual terms, ‘a waste of space’.

  44. Spanner – your comments don’t make any sense, you’re confused as to who you want to kill.

    First you want a life for a life, then you want just serial killers to be ‘eliminated’, now you want ‘persistent killers who kill for the pleasure of it’? Make your mind up.

    And how do we check that these persistent killers do it for pleasure? If they say they didn’t enjoy killing their victims, does that mean they escape your noose? Is it just murderers who have a big smile on their face when they kill that will get the death penalty?

    You seem to think that you can kill someone and retain your dignity ‘courage and integrity’, but someone else who kills someone is a ‘waste of space’. Just accept the fact that if you agree with the death penalty, you are no different to the psychotic killers you are killing, you’re just justifying your psychotic murdering desires in different ways than the convicted murderers are. And if you do ‘eliminate’ (that’s the kind of language that serial killers and totalitarian dictators use btw) someone because they have murdered someone, does that mean that someone else should take your life because you’ve taken a life – you did say a life for a life earlier. Or is the life you want to take no longer a life anymore, because they’ve already taken a life? And if so, if you take their life, does that mean that you are in ‘real and actual terms a ‘waste of space’ too because you’ve then taken a life.

    And why in your scheme of things should drunk drivers not be ‘eliminated’? My grandmother was killed by a drunk driver, is her life not worth the same as the people who are murdered by ‘persistent killers who do it for pleasure’? Your sense of human life just doesn’t make any sense.

  45. Jay: What ARE you blathering on about? Serial killers, by the very definition, are persistent. ie: They kill more than one person over a number of separate incidents. I tried to define that by saying the one-off murder is usually driven by a specific drive, say, revenge, money, hatred etc usually of someone they know. Serial killers kill for the personal desire of it and rarely know their victims.

    The rest of your comments are so loose and rambling, I really can’t be bothered to argue with an irrational fcukwit such as yourself who is merely trying to trip me up with words and semantics.

    If you see a drunk driver in the same light as a serial killer, you really have got a screw loose.

  46. Anyone else here think “Spanner” is just “Rob N” in another guise? I mean, he’s offensive, ill tempered, obviously uneducated, and a right wing fascist who like to antagonise rather then debate.

    Similarities are staggering.

  47. Mihangel apYrs 12 Jul 2010, 9:20am

    Kukala:
    I’ve tried to post that a couple of times, but they didn’t go through for some reason. He seems to have the same contempt for gay men especially if they’re not “blokes”, and the same barely supressed anger.

  48. “I’ve tried to post that a couple of times, but they didn’t go through for some reason.”

    Yes, you see they’ve blocked Robert’s name, as he is such an offensive little toad. But Spanner seems remarkably have his demeanour and lack of civilised discourse almost exactly… right down to the over use of vernacular expressions like “fcukwit” to describe anyone that disagrees with his Obersalzberg-inspired rhetoric of anger.

    If this is what he’s reduced to, changing his name, he should take the hint that no-one’s interested in him banging his face in a temper on a keyboard to produce his vile little rants. If not not Robert, then I’m disappointed there are two insufferable fascists on this site claiming to be gay, but seeking all manner of BNP inspired “solutions” to their anger.

    Pathetic, really.

  49. Just as a footnote to this article, and the one regarding school discipline, my comments about stronger approaches to punishment are sneered on by so many on here:
    “The prison population reached 85,074 last month, having doubled over the past 20 years. Figures last year showed that dangerous offenders committed 48 murders, rapes and other serious offences in a year while supposedly being monitored by the authorities. About 2,500 such prisoners are currently in jail beyond their minimum term at a cost to the taxpayer of £80million a year”

    It is pretty obvious prison, and it’s apparent role of rehabilitation is not working. Letting them out at the bottom end doesn’t work, so maybe we should start examining the top.

    Link

  50. I found out from a blog a little bit of information about the ‘savings’ of execution vs. life imprisonment.

    FINANCIAL FACTS ABOUT THE DEATH PENALTY
    • The California death penalty system costs taxpayers $114 million per year beyond the costs of keeping convicts locked up for life.
    Taxpayers have paid more than $250 million for each of the state’s executions. (L.A. Times, March 6, 2005)
    • In Kansas, the costs of capital cases are 70% more expensive than comparable non-capital cases, including the costs of incarceration.
    (Kansas Performance Audit Report, December 2003).
    • In Indiana, the total costs of the death penalty exceed the complete costs of life without parole sentences by about 38%, assuming
    that 20% of death sentences are overturned and reduced to life. (Indiana Criminal Law Study Commission, January 10, 2002).
    • The most comprehensive study in the country found that the death penalty costs North Carolina $2.16 million per execution over the
    costs of sentencing murderers to life imprisonment. The majority of those costs occur at the trial level. (Duke University, May 1993).
    • Enforcing the death penalty costs Florida $51 million a year above what it would cost to punish all first-degree murderers with life in
    prison without parole. Based on the 44 executions Florida had carried out since 1976, that amounts to a cost of $24 million for each
    execution. (Palm Beach Post, January 4, 2000).
    • In Texas, a death penalty case costs an average of $2.3 million, about three times the cost of imprisoning someone in a single cell at
    the highest security level for 40 years. (Dallas Morning News, March 8, 1992).

    I feel dirty for having to stoop to the level of addressing that argument, though, because the people who genuinely believe that saving money (despite evidence to the contrary) through execution is an appropriate, ethical and moral thing to do are clearly sick in the head.

    As for the ‘only 10-12 years’ argument = kindly list every single thought, fragment of regret or sorrow you have had in the last 10-12 years, please. Upon consideration of all such information, and the suggestion that you are exactly the same person then as you are now, and that you think that every single thing you did was good, correct and appropriate, THEN we can talk about 10-12 years to be locked in one room with minimal human contact. Even with Freeview, children, it’s a long time.

  51. Thankyou BenB for finding this out. So that’s the economic justification out of the window.

    How about the deterant justification……………….

    Eighteen of the 20 states in the USA with the highest murder rates have and use the death penalty. Of the nation’s 20 big cities with the highest murder rates, 17 are in death penalty jurisdictions. Between 1975 and 1985, almost twice as many law enforcement officers were killed in death penalty states as in non-death penalty states. Over nearly two decades, the neighboring states of Michigan, with no death penalty, and Indiana, which regularly imposes death sentences and carries out executions, have had virtually indistinguishable homicide rates.

    Jim Mattox, former Attorney General of Texas, who supported the death penalty during his term of office and oversaw many of the state’s first executions after the death penalty was reinstated, does not believe that murderers in Texas are deterred by the death penalty. Mattox interviewed nearly all the people executed in Texas between 1976 and 1988 and concluded that the sentence of death never crossed their minds before their crime: “It is my own experience that those executed in Texas were not deterred by the existence of the death penalty,” he said. “I think in most cases you’ll find that the murder was committed under severe drug and alcohol abuse.”

    Willie Williams, Chief of Police in Los Angeles, echoed the same theme from his years of experience: “I am not convinced that capital punishment, in and of itself, is a deterrent to crime because most people do not think about the death penalty before they commit a violent or capital crime.”

    Myron Love, the presiding judge in Harris County, Tex. (which includes Houston), the county responsible for 10% of all executions in the entire country since 1976, admits that “We are not getting what I think we should be wanting and that is to deter crime…. In fact, the result is the opposite. We’re having more violence, more crime.”

    So you see spanner, the death penalty can not be justified through deterance either.

  52. spanner is sqidgy

  53. and squidgy is r0b_n

  54. Mihangel apYrs 12 Jul 2010, 1:02pm

    Into this discussion, it would not be unfair to decant the examples we have in our near neighbours. Certainly the Nordic countries are at least as “liberal” as us, including in their treatment of crims, so why so little violent crime, why so little social decay?

    Should we consider whether the creeping Americanisation of our culture has damaged it?

    But that is abit off topic

  55. I was unaware the price of rope had gone up so much.

    The only reason the costs of execution are so high in the USA is the interminable appeals, hearings and pleas that can keep a man on Death Row for 20 years or more. Meanwhile the lawyers just get richer. I have no sympathy for these murderers, but equally, it is inhumane to keep the sword of Damocles hanging over their heads for so long. No execution should be taken lightly or hastily, but equally there is an appeals process that should be followed promptly and with the minimum of delay. Should all appeals fail, then that person should be executed.
    No media and no fuss.

  56. @ Jay/dean

    I can quite happily speak for myself under ONE name thank you very much…. Unlike some!!

  57. Spanner is Rob-n I agree. There can’t be two such distasteful extremists like him on the one site, ranting about the death penalty and on another thread beating kids stupid becuase, as he puts it, “they’re animals” – and as Kukala rightly observed, the delightful array of vernacular expressions are identical.

    Squidgy may have a different opinion to others, but he’s in no why anything like the ill-bred and uncouth Rob/Spanner thing – most people like him are in asylums, thankfully.

  58. Will: “most people like him are in asylums, thankfully.”

    To reiterate from a previous post I directed at Will: Whenever people claim that someone suffers “deep internal issues”, “internalised homophobia” or other pseudo-intellectual pyschobabble, I know they have no argument and have to resort to questioning the person’s own mental wellbeing in order to justify a flaky argrument that they cannot support.

    You assume anyone that does not conform to your warped neo-socialist touchy-feely dogma must be slightly right of Ghengis Khan and suffering from severe mental illness. The only thing I suffer from is the lack of rose-tinted glasses that so many people seem to see the world through. You just continue on, apparently oblivious of the world collapsing around you, and think the most important single factor on the planet is how homosexuals should be treated by the rest of society. Well it may be a big deal to some, but frankly, most people, including many gays, think there are way more important things in this life to worry about. It’s not a case of homophobia, it’s simply a matter of priorities.

  59. Not at all. I just think you a screaming idiot with more anger then substance, Rob/Spanner. Nothing complicated. Nothing political. Just that.

  60. 21stCenturySpirituality 12 Jul 2010, 9:20pm

    @ Spanner …’The people that I suggest are executed, are not the drunk driver, or the jilted lover, I am talking about people who persistently kill for the pleasure of it. They are NEVER going to be able to fit back into society, and they will remain a burden upon everyone else for the rest of their remaining, pitiful lives.
    They are, in real and actual terms, ‘a waste of space’.

    Ok Spanner lets look at that. Are you a forensic psychiatrist/psychologist? Are you a CPN or RMN? If not then what makes you think that you are qualified to know who is and is not able to be rehabilitated?

    Much as you rally against engaging in thought about and acknowledging it, the fact remains that the people you are talking about executing are very mentally ill. And that brings up other questions such as ‘what kind of society executes people because they are mentally ill?’.

  61. 21stCenturySpirituality: Come on now, be rational. Would you really sleep safely in your bed if your were to know the likes of Denis Neilsen, Peter Sutcliffe, Harold Shipman, Ian Brady and many more were to be released, even thirty years later?

    Those people are debatably mentally ill, but certainly far too dangerous ever to be let out ever again. There are numerous cases of similar types that have, and have gone on to kill again.

    The authorities have absolutely no compunction in destroying an animal that attacks a human being, even though the animal may have until that point been a cuddly pet; I see no difference.
    They are broken. Maybe you can offer sympathy and pity, but never offer them mercy. They can never be reprieved or rehabilitated, and will serve the rest of their natural lives incarcerated.

    People such as Ian Brady are deemed mentally ill, but others are most certainly not, and they have been judged so by highly qualified professionals. Even the Americans will not execute those deemed to be criminally insane.

  62. 21stCenturySpirituality 13 Jul 2010, 12:44am

    I dont dispute that such people have done terrible things nor do I condone what they have done. I just dont see that the answer neccessarily lies in capital punishment. Cases such as those you highlight are extremes and are thankfully relatively rare and are usually given highly emotive treatment in the media/press which tends to display great prejudice towards people who are mentally ill and to promulgate a knee jerk, lock em up and throw away the key mentality which doesnt serve to promote rational dialogue on the issue.
    I feel that capital punishment is bit like trying to close the stable door after the horse has bolted. I think there is alot that we could all do to address the circumstances and conditions in society that lead to such crimes in the first place.

    In the cases you have highlighted for instance there are alot of complex issues involved that led to those crimes. I think we should start by addressing those issues instead of turning a blind eye, living in denial of them, or just ignoring them.

  63. 21stCenturySpirituality 13 Jul 2010, 1:01am

    Im too old for Ian Brady, too young for Harold Shipman, I’m not female or a prostitute so Peter Sutcliff probably wouldn’t be interested. Daniel Nilson could be a threat to me but I can’t say I’d lose any sleep over what could potentially happen. Its all very gruesome I know, but I don’t see much point in worrying or panicking about what might happen. Its not likely he would be let out just like that anyway if at all.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all