Ian Huntly is found guilty .......
21 August 2002, 10:49 AM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Bushey
Posts: 2,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well at least on scoobynet he is.
I have read some bollox in my time but the jumped up clap trap that is being spouted on here makes me ashamed to admit I'm British sometimes.
We have a legal system which while it is not perfect, is pretty bloody good in most people's eyes. Why not let the legal process take its due course, rather than allowing obvious prejudices to take root.
FACT:- Both Maxine Carr and Ian Huntly are entirely innocent until proven guilty.
Wait until the verdicts are in before you make any pronouncements about how high you would like to see them hang, until then shut up. The prejudice that is being built up is going to lessen the chance of a fair trial for Maxine and Ian, and if they don't receive a fair trial any verdict against them could be more easily overturned on appeal.
I know I've read enough moans from people on here bitterly complaining that they themselves are innocent until proven guilty when an NIP hits their doormat, I'm not going to incrimate myself or plead guilty until I see the photo, they can't do this to me its against my human right don't you know, blah blah blah. The same applies to Maxine and Ian, and if you can't see that then i truly wonder about most people.
Let the law do its thing, in the mean time give your flapping jaws a rest.
I have read some bollox in my time but the jumped up clap trap that is being spouted on here makes me ashamed to admit I'm British sometimes.
We have a legal system which while it is not perfect, is pretty bloody good in most people's eyes. Why not let the legal process take its due course, rather than allowing obvious prejudices to take root.
FACT:- Both Maxine Carr and Ian Huntly are entirely innocent until proven guilty.
Wait until the verdicts are in before you make any pronouncements about how high you would like to see them hang, until then shut up. The prejudice that is being built up is going to lessen the chance of a fair trial for Maxine and Ian, and if they don't receive a fair trial any verdict against them could be more easily overturned on appeal.
I know I've read enough moans from people on here bitterly complaining that they themselves are innocent until proven guilty when an NIP hits their doormat, I'm not going to incrimate myself or plead guilty until I see the photo, they can't do this to me its against my human right don't you know, blah blah blah. The same applies to Maxine and Ian, and if you can't see that then i truly wonder about most people.
Let the law do its thing, in the mean time give your flapping jaws a rest.
21 August 2002, 10:59 AM
#5
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At last some intelligent comment on the issue.
And to all those moaning that he's in a "soft mental home" I can assure you Rampton is physically the same as a high secure prison and the main difference is the doctors and nurses awho staff it cam force him to have treatemnt againt his will. It is a fallacy to think the mental health disposal is an easy option. Most convicts eould rather do a fixed prison sentence, if you get a hospital order you can be literally kept inside for life if you don't get better and the risks remain.
edit typo
[Edited by sebastian - 8/21/2002 11:00:24 AM]
And to all those moaning that he's in a "soft mental home" I can assure you Rampton is physically the same as a high secure prison and the main difference is the doctors and nurses awho staff it cam force him to have treatemnt againt his will. It is a fallacy to think the mental health disposal is an easy option. Most convicts eould rather do a fixed prison sentence, if you get a hospital order you can be literally kept inside for life if you don't get better and the risks remain.
edit typo
[Edited by sebastian - 8/21/2002 11:00:24 AM]
21 August 2002, 11:21 AM
#6
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well said Reffro.
People may have opinions, but nobody here has any of the facts or any of the evidence pertaining to this crime so anything they say is simply rubbish based on media hype. Unfortunately trial by media seems to be the fate on anyone accused of such a shocking crime these days, innocent or not.
As Reffro says, just wait, let the police do their job gathering the evidence and let it go to trial and the truth will come out, although thanks to the media I don't rate their chances of finding an unbiased jury.
People may have opinions, but nobody here has any of the facts or any of the evidence pertaining to this crime so anything they say is simply rubbish based on media hype. Unfortunately trial by media seems to be the fate on anyone accused of such a shocking crime these days, innocent or not.
As Reffro says, just wait, let the police do their job gathering the evidence and let it go to trial and the truth will come out, although thanks to the media I don't rate their chances of finding an unbiased jury.
Trending Topics
21 August 2002, 11:33 AM
#8
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The whole point of prison is the denial of freedom as a punishment, and also to protect the public and to act as a deterrent to others. They do have TV's in prisons, but that is not the point.
The secure hospital denies freedom too, on account of the perceived risk to the public if the patient were in non-secure accommodation. The role of the hospital is to assess treat mental disorder, not to punish or deter, although those held in them ceertainly experience it as punishing. The assessment will asist the court in deciding the best sentencing option should he be found guilty. Furhtermore, he is probably held there because he is not fit for further interviews or court appearances, so needs treatment to get him medically fit for the legal process to continue.
The secure hospital denies freedom too, on account of the perceived risk to the public if the patient were in non-secure accommodation. The role of the hospital is to assess treat mental disorder, not to punish or deter, although those held in them ceertainly experience it as punishing. The assessment will asist the court in deciding the best sentencing option should he be found guilty. Furhtermore, he is probably held there because he is not fit for further interviews or court appearances, so needs treatment to get him medically fit for the legal process to continue.
21 August 2002, 12:30 PM
#9
Scooby Regular
And to all those moaning that he's in a "soft mental home" I can assure you Rampton is physically the same as a high secure prison
Just my 2p - agree with the innocent til proven thing though.
21 August 2002, 12:52 PM
#10
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A couple of points.
Firstly, we do not know what Huntleys diagnosis is. it could be that the police were conecrned he was becoming depressed, he will recieve treatment and then he will be moved to a prison when well enough. The police are not able to deal with 24 hour suicide watches. Rampton is.
Secondly, living with a mental health problem is not a piece of p*ss. If he is suffering from schizophrenia or a psychotic disorder, he will live in torment for the rest of his life which is IMO worse than prison.
For those of you who feel being in a mental health hospital is the easy option for him, I suggest you go spend an hour on your local hospitals mental health acute ward. That would give you a fraction of an idea as to what life is like on an ordinary ward, let alone a secure unit with other very psychotic and disturbed people.
Rest assured, justice will be done. If he is deemed too ill for standing trial, he will remain in a secure unit indefinitley until he is well enough. If his condition improves, he will stand trial. Then the truth will out and he'll either be released because it wasn't him (and probably sent to a less secure mental health unit for rehab) or he'll be imprissoned. Either way, he's not going to be released for a long while.
Firstly, we do not know what Huntleys diagnosis is. it could be that the police were conecrned he was becoming depressed, he will recieve treatment and then he will be moved to a prison when well enough. The police are not able to deal with 24 hour suicide watches. Rampton is.
Secondly, living with a mental health problem is not a piece of p*ss. If he is suffering from schizophrenia or a psychotic disorder, he will live in torment for the rest of his life which is IMO worse than prison.
For those of you who feel being in a mental health hospital is the easy option for him, I suggest you go spend an hour on your local hospitals mental health acute ward. That would give you a fraction of an idea as to what life is like on an ordinary ward, let alone a secure unit with other very psychotic and disturbed people.
Rest assured, justice will be done. If he is deemed too ill for standing trial, he will remain in a secure unit indefinitley until he is well enough. If his condition improves, he will stand trial. Then the truth will out and he'll either be released because it wasn't him (and probably sent to a less secure mental health unit for rehab) or he'll be imprissoned. Either way, he's not going to be released for a long while.
21 August 2002, 01:38 PM
#12
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,910
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mmmmm I spent some time on work experience in various areas of local hospitals when I was a student nurse.
The mental health side was the most challenging.
I can only hope that justice prevails and the right judgement is made and the people (whether they be the two in custody or not) who are the true killers are punished to the highest degree our legal system will allow.
The mental health side was the most challenging.
I can only hope that justice prevails and the right judgement is made and the people (whether they be the two in custody or not) who are the true killers are punished to the highest degree our legal system will allow.
21 August 2002, 04:06 PM
#13
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Funny how he seemed like a completely together, articulate and cooperative individual when he was willingly conducting numerous interviews and courting the media whilst the girls were still missing. Now all of a sudden he isn't fit to be interviewed by the police, and 'may' have a mental condition. Handy that.
Strange, there was a kid at my school who always seemed to suddenly get ill on sports days. Must be a similar affliction...
Very smart and manipulative paedophiles/murders are well known to inject themselves into investigations in an attempt to divert attention away from themselves. It takes an organized and cool mind to abduct, murder and dispose of two ten year olds in broad daylight in a tight community and not be seen.
Seems the psychiatrists in cases like this just fall over themselves to excuse, help and protect the scum that commit such crimes. And Yes I know that nobody has been convicted of anything yet, but it is just sickening how the second the victim dies they are virtually a forgotten and minor detail in everything that then follows. All anyone is worried about is the wellfare of the criminal. Just staggers me that people can take such a stance when innocent children have been killed in this way.
But then it's the f***in do-gooders that are destroying this country anyway. It's all wrong.
Strange, there was a kid at my school who always seemed to suddenly get ill on sports days. Must be a similar affliction...
Very smart and manipulative paedophiles/murders are well known to inject themselves into investigations in an attempt to divert attention away from themselves. It takes an organized and cool mind to abduct, murder and dispose of two ten year olds in broad daylight in a tight community and not be seen.
Seems the psychiatrists in cases like this just fall over themselves to excuse, help and protect the scum that commit such crimes. And Yes I know that nobody has been convicted of anything yet, but it is just sickening how the second the victim dies they are virtually a forgotten and minor detail in everything that then follows. All anyone is worried about is the wellfare of the criminal. Just staggers me that people can take such a stance when innocent children have been killed in this way.
But then it's the f***in do-gooders that are destroying this country anyway. It's all wrong.
21 August 2002, 04:09 PM
#14
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 1998
Location: London
Posts: 4,891
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm only concerned about the welfare of the accused right up until the point where he/she is convicted. At which point they can be hung, drawn and quartered, IMO....
21 August 2002, 04:20 PM
#15
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 226
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I want to write something articulate and clever about this but as a parent looking at an emotive subject of Child Murder, the only word that comes to mind is b@stards.
I am sure that the legal system will prevail and the guilty parties will be brought to justice and be given life sentances (or detained at Her Majestys Pleasure in the case of the mental act).
I suppose that means within 15 -20 years they can repeat offend. So that's all right then. Congratulations to the bleeding hearts of society who actually believe that convicted murders have rights. Don't get me wrong here, I believe you are innocent until proven guilty and don't believe in Capital Punnishment but life should be life.
ken
I am sure that the legal system will prevail and the guilty parties will be brought to justice and be given life sentances (or detained at Her Majestys Pleasure in the case of the mental act).
I suppose that means within 15 -20 years they can repeat offend. So that's all right then. Congratulations to the bleeding hearts of society who actually believe that convicted murders have rights. Don't get me wrong here, I believe you are innocent until proven guilty and don't believe in Capital Punnishment but life should be life.
ken
21 August 2002, 04:28 PM
#16
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All I said was that anybody convicted of a murder were it is proven that intent was there and that they did it (ie video, forensics etc etc) and there is no shadow of doubt then they should be executed.
Why waste time and money on rehabilliting these people when they are likely to re-offend or have mental issues.
leopards spots cant change
Why waste time and money on rehabilliting these people when they are likely to re-offend or have mental issues.
leopards spots cant change
21 August 2002, 04:46 PM
#17
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<Quote>Funny how he seemed like a completely together, articulate and cooperative individual when he was willingly conducting numerous interviews and courting the media whilst the girls were still missing. Now all of a sudden he isn't fit to be interviewed by the police, and 'may' have a mental condition. Handy that.</Quote>
Funny then how over half the people I work with, all of whom suffer mental health problems, appear completley articulate togther and co-operative.
And, as I've said before, he *could* be at Rampton becuase he's a suicide risk through being depressed, which may possibly be as a result of what he may/may not have done, the police questioning etc.
If he hasn't got psychiatric problems, Rampton won't keep him. The forensic psychiatry service is full to bursting and they won't keep someone who isn't ill there.
<Quote>Seems the psychiatrists in cases like this just fall over themselves to excuse, help and protect the scum that commit such crimes. </Quote>
All the psychiatrists I know do their best to prove illness or health. They do not protect someone who isn't ill. They haven't the time.
Funny then how over half the people I work with, all of whom suffer mental health problems, appear completley articulate togther and co-operative.
And, as I've said before, he *could* be at Rampton becuase he's a suicide risk through being depressed, which may possibly be as a result of what he may/may not have done, the police questioning etc.
If he hasn't got psychiatric problems, Rampton won't keep him. The forensic psychiatry service is full to bursting and they won't keep someone who isn't ill there.
<Quote>Seems the psychiatrists in cases like this just fall over themselves to excuse, help and protect the scum that commit such crimes. </Quote>
All the psychiatrists I know do their best to prove illness or health. They do not protect someone who isn't ill. They haven't the time.
21 August 2002, 04:49 PM
#19
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<Quote>I am sure that the legal system will prevail and the guilty parties will be brought to justice and be given life sentances (or detained at Her Majestys Pleasure in the case of the mental act).
I suppose that means within 15 -20 years they can repeat offend. </Quote>
Firstly, no-one is detained at her majesty's pleasure under the MH Act. They are detained when 2 doctors say they are not well enough to live in society and a Section review panel agrees with this. It's not up to anyone else to decide.
Secondly, if he is held under section, he'll possibly never be released, whereas if he is deemed of sound mind, then is committ and imprisoned, he could well be out in 20 years.
I suppose that means within 15 -20 years they can repeat offend. </Quote>
Firstly, no-one is detained at her majesty's pleasure under the MH Act. They are detained when 2 doctors say they are not well enough to live in society and a Section review panel agrees with this. It's not up to anyone else to decide.
Secondly, if he is held under section, he'll possibly never be released, whereas if he is deemed of sound mind, then is committ and imprisoned, he could well be out in 20 years.
21 August 2002, 04:59 PM
#21
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Absolutely!!
Everything I've read, including books by criminal psychologists, criminal psychiatrists, profilers, etc, etc, all say that paedophiles can not be cured. Full stop. No if's, but's or maybe if we send them on safari it might cure them. They can not be cured.
They are all devious manipulators who continually pull the wool over the 'experts' eyes who decide whether they are cured and should be allowed back into society. Time and again they are released to destroy another child's life. For god's sake it doesn't take a genius to see that they are going to do and say all the right things, and tick all the right boxes so that they get out early. Why should they have the right to ever get out again?
They are sick fantasists, they get their kicks from fantasising about this stuff constantly. Eventually the fantasies become so strong that they progress to actually enacting it out in the real world, and for ever more there is no going back. The link from fantasy to enactment is there. And always will be. That's how they tick.
To think that whoever killed these two girls WILL walk the streets in this country again and WILL do this to another child at some stage in the future (because 'we' say they shouldn't be locked up for ever), maybe ten years from now, maybe twenty, who knows, but it just shows what a f***ed up joke 'justice' in this country really is.
And no doubt there will be some misguided individuals who genuinely believe that it is right that this person should be free to reoffend one day, and will be vociferous in condemning anyone who thinks otherwise. Let's just hope it isn't one of their grandchildren next time. I'm sure they wouldn't be quite so PC then.
The death penalty makes utter sense for such crimes, IMHO of course. IF anyone can explain to me any benefit to society by keeping them alive then maybe I'll think differently.
Everything I've read, including books by criminal psychologists, criminal psychiatrists, profilers, etc, etc, all say that paedophiles can not be cured. Full stop. No if's, but's or maybe if we send them on safari it might cure them. They can not be cured.
They are all devious manipulators who continually pull the wool over the 'experts' eyes who decide whether they are cured and should be allowed back into society. Time and again they are released to destroy another child's life. For god's sake it doesn't take a genius to see that they are going to do and say all the right things, and tick all the right boxes so that they get out early. Why should they have the right to ever get out again?
They are sick fantasists, they get their kicks from fantasising about this stuff constantly. Eventually the fantasies become so strong that they progress to actually enacting it out in the real world, and for ever more there is no going back. The link from fantasy to enactment is there. And always will be. That's how they tick.
To think that whoever killed these two girls WILL walk the streets in this country again and WILL do this to another child at some stage in the future (because 'we' say they shouldn't be locked up for ever), maybe ten years from now, maybe twenty, who knows, but it just shows what a f***ed up joke 'justice' in this country really is.
And no doubt there will be some misguided individuals who genuinely believe that it is right that this person should be free to reoffend one day, and will be vociferous in condemning anyone who thinks otherwise. Let's just hope it isn't one of their grandchildren next time. I'm sure they wouldn't be quite so PC then.
The death penalty makes utter sense for such crimes, IMHO of course. IF anyone can explain to me any benefit to society by keeping them alive then maybe I'll think differently.
21 August 2002, 05:06 PM
#24
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 226
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for putting me straight on that one grottbags! The arguement remains the same however; they can be released back into society whenever 'the professionals' decide they are no longer a danger to society. Well that's just feckin fine then is it? Perhaps you should console those who have been subject to attacks from people who have been deemed no longer a menace to society and have reoffended. Then again, peraps not, you will be a busy chap!
I am not saying the doctors role is easy but if you take a life you should forfit the right to live within society.
ken
edited to add: blip. My justification for not having capital punishment is, however damning the evidence is at the time, there is always the possibility that the day after an execution evidence may turn up that shows the now dead convict was convicted on unsound evidence. That's my rationale anyway.
[Edited by kenb@manx - 8/21/2002 5:13:27 PM]
I am not saying the doctors role is easy but if you take a life you should forfit the right to live within society.
ken
edited to add: blip. My justification for not having capital punishment is, however damning the evidence is at the time, there is always the possibility that the day after an execution evidence may turn up that shows the now dead convict was convicted on unsound evidence. That's my rationale anyway.
[Edited by kenb@manx - 8/21/2002 5:13:27 PM]
21 August 2002, 05:12 PM
#25
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The arguement remains the same however; they can be released back into society whenever 'the professionals' decide they are no longer a danger to society.
Perhaps you should console those who have been subject to attacks from people who have been deemed no longer a menace to society and have reoffended.
The fact two young girls have been murdered makes this an emotive subject, but please look at the wider picture. There was an intersting statistic around 10 years ago and I don't remember the exact figures but it stated around 20% of murders are committed by someone suffering from schizophrenia.
The other 80% weren't. They were normal people with normal minds who psychaitrists could find nothing wrong with. I'd be more alarmed about the people who murder who cannot be treated than the ones who can if I were you.
21 August 2002, 05:13 PM
#26
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 1998
Location: London
Posts: 4,891
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EB - try getting a better understanding of schizophrenia before you make a joke about it.
21 August 2002, 05:28 PM
#27
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 226
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Grottbags,
we are getting into unsafe grounds here. You say the 80% of murders were commited by people that were 'normal'. Notwithstanding that the concept of 'normal' is a cultural and social concept (what might be normal in one society may not be considered so in another), I believe it is possible to argue that within our culture anyone who deliberately and without reason, takes the life of another is not normal. Reason, of course as being applied 'by the man on the Clapham omnibus'.
It is a balance that society as a whole must consider and while I understand your concerns in regards to schizophrenia, it is also correct to say that not all schizophreniacs commit murder. My concern is those that do, along with any other member of society that do.
ken
we are getting into unsafe grounds here. You say the 80% of murders were commited by people that were 'normal'. Notwithstanding that the concept of 'normal' is a cultural and social concept (what might be normal in one society may not be considered so in another), I believe it is possible to argue that within our culture anyone who deliberately and without reason, takes the life of another is not normal. Reason, of course as being applied 'by the man on the Clapham omnibus'.
It is a balance that society as a whole must consider and while I understand your concerns in regards to schizophrenia, it is also correct to say that not all schizophreniacs commit murder. My concern is those that do, along with any other member of society that do.
ken
21 August 2002, 05:30 PM
#28
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 1,349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
he *could* be at Rampton becuase he's a suicide risk through being depressed, which may possibly be as a result of what he may/may not have done, the police questioning etc.
21 August 2002, 05:32 PM
#29
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I did specify they were people that psychiatrists couldn't find anything wrong with.
The mentally ill stereotype is someone who is not normal, the point I was making is that murders are committed by people who psychaitrists can find nothing wrong with.
Basically, be afraid, be very afraid
Anyway, it might turn out he isn't ill and he'll then fall into one of the 80%
The mentally ill stereotype is someone who is not normal, the point I was making is that murders are committed by people who psychaitrists can find nothing wrong with.
Basically, be afraid, be very afraid
Anyway, it might turn out he isn't ill and he'll then fall into one of the 80%
21 August 2002, 07:53 PM
#30
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Has anyone considered the other possibility - he had been help by the police for as long as they can legally hold him and was due to either be charged or released. Now he has been sectioned under the mental health act his human rights are now very restriced and they can hold him for a period of "assessment" - it does'nt take a genius to figure out if they reckon he did it but have next to no evidence for a conviction this is like extra interrogation time.