Joenoir

Sometimes it seems to be that the world has gone totally mad, no I'm not doing a GRAEME, just reacting to the latest news!

Yorkshire ripper launches freedom bid
By Aislinn Simpson Telegraph 14 May 2008

Yorkshire ripper Peter Sutcliffe has launched a bid for freedom, claiming his human rights have been breached.
The 61-year-old has made a formal application to have a date for his release set.
He also wants to be declared sane and moved from Broadmoor psychiatric facility to a normal prison.
The ex-grave digger bludgeoned 13 women, mainly prostitutes, to death, and tried to kill seven more over a five-year period in Yorkshire and Manchester.
He was given 20 life sentences in 1981 and told he would serve a minimum of 30 years behind bars.
For that reason, his new lawyer claims his human rights were breached.
Saimo Chahal, a lawyer specialising in mental health cases, aims to get Sutcliffe transferred back into the prison system and has asked for a reassessment of his psychiatric condition.
He was diagnosed with schizophrenia in 1984 and moved from a normal prison to Broadmoor where he is being held under the Mental Health Act.
Chahal will then attempt to use the European Convention on Human Rights for him to be freed within three years, on the grounds that a tariff was not set.
According to reports on legal websites, Chahal, an Indian-born mother of two who won the Legal Aid Lawyer of the Year 2006 in the Mental Health category, agreed to work with Sutcliffe because she “takes on difficult cases”.
She also represents Multiple Sclerosis suffered Debbie Purdy, who is seeking to have the law changed in relation to assisted suicides.
“For Saimo (the Peter Sutcliffe) case raises the issue of how we treat mentally ill people who have committed heinous crimes and she is concerned that there is a huge amount of information in the public domain about this case that is simply untrue,” a statement from her firm, Bindmans & Partners, says.
“She sees her role as” challenging the perception of the role of lawyers, providing representation to those who are disenfranchised, putting aside preconceptions and looking at the mentally ill person and the issues her/his case raises.”
A spokesman for the Ministry of Justice said it could not comment on individual cases.

Start every day with a smile and get it over with.

earlb

Seems to prove my point about a lethal injection being given to him at the time then we wouldn't have to put up with this crap (sorry moderator). Spare a thought for all the victims families.

I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous.

Mark O

Absolutely......as with the Krays, Hindley, Manson and his 'family'(who regularly apply for parole, and don't get it, thanks to the continued efforts of Sharon Tate's Niece), Brady,etc; it's more than lilkely he'll spend the rest of his days inside.......and so he should, the evil monster.......

Mark

Straff

As a counter argument earl, many of us, whether it is to our credit or not, wish to see the perpetrators of evil suffer. Killing them brings an end to their life, and they are no longer able to suffer. They are anaesthetised in much the same way I was recently in hospital. They feel nothing, no pain. By contrast, keeping them alive for the rest of their natural life, within the confines of a prison cell, reminds them daily of the uselessness of their continued existence. To me, that is true suffering. Perhaps some may think me barbaric. I can't do much about that, I'm just expressing honest, and to me and many others, justifiable feelings.

Amen to that. Oddly enough, in my former capacity as a liaison officer, I met the families of murder victims, and they frequently reinforced the view I expressed above.

Semper ubi sub ubi

batman

Speaking as one who works in the arena of forensic psychiatry, I think it is hugely unlikely that he will be released based on the claims of that solicitor,which are outlined in Joe's post. The Ministry of Justice does not take these decisions lightly (contrary to what is often reported). The solicitor's claim about no tariff being set is true, but this is standard practice for people detained under the Mental Health Act. Such a patient is entitled by law to a review hearing (MHRT) yearly, the solicitor will have to present a case to the review panel (which consists of a psychiatrist, a lawyer and a lay person). Also present will be all the people on the patient's care team (doctors, nurses, social workers etc) who will also present evidence. It is almost like a courtroom setting. Sutcliffe (via his solicitor) will have to convince his care team and the panel that he is safe to be moved from high security to a medium secure setting (like the one where I work) and then on to a low secure unit before any consideration would be given to trial leave, let alone discharge. This process could take several years. If she bypasses that process and does go to the European Court a similar process will have to be started and the same individuals are likely to be involved. In my opinion, and of course I could be wrong, Sutcliffe is unlikely to be free for many years, if at all. The only way I can see that happening is for everyone involved in his case to believe his illness has improved to such an extent he is no longer a danger to the public. I think that is unlikely.

Re lethal injection .... regardless of what he has done, Sutcliffe is a man suffering from a severe and chronic mental illness (schizophrenia) which unfortunately manifested itself with delusions and extreme violence. We cannot kill him simply for being unwell because a) there is no justification for that and b) it would set a precedent and all sufferers from serious mental illness would be at risk of this kind of retribution.

I have no desire to see him free and I have immense empathy for the families of his victims, but Sutcliffe is extremely unwell and should be treated as the sufferer of a severe debilitating illness and nothing more.

I wish I had claws.

DB7

If they put him back into the prison system how long would he last? IIRC hasn't he lost vision in one eye because he was stabbed by a fellow inmate with a pen.

batman

If he was declared 'sane' he should go back to prison. He would amost certainly be put into segregation but I expect someone will get him.

I wish I had claws.

Straff

Bats,
Many thanks for that informed reply. It reflects well the opinions I have heard expressed by people in the penal system.
It must be remarkably difficult to put forward to the families of the victims of someone like Sutcliffe that he is a 'victim' of mental illness.

Semper ubi sub ubi

batman

It is difficult. I have had contact with victim's families over the years and it is heartbreaking. It is also heartbreaking to see the parents of sufferers of mental illness try to come to terms with what there child has done, especially younger patients.

Cheers Straff.

I wish I had claws.

samkydd

Perhaps one of his personalities could apply for parole while the other stays banged up in Broadmoor! You could separate them easily with a sharp axe!

"...the chairman of Littlewoods stores made a Keynote speech!"

batman

Uh-oh .... the Bat has a rare attack of pedantry ...

Schizophrenia doesn't necessarily mean multiple personalities .... Sutcliffe's delusion was that he was visited by God who told him to commit his crimes.

Phew .. I am glad that's over.

I wish I had claws.

Freddie Freeloader

Wow........supporting the death penalty to alleviate ones intolerance to an ultimately inconsequential news item!

Nice one.


Fred

Straff

To feel the guilt of their offspring must be an especially hard cross to bear, knowing that the world (or more frequently the media) is bellowing 'I blame the parents!' However, I don't want to sound too much of a woolly liberal. You and I (and possibly many of the contributors to this forum) probably grew up in an era when 'parental responsibility' had some gravitas. Parental responsibility has now been watered down to such an extent that it is now meaningless.
I'm ranting . I'm orf for a cup of Green Tea.

Sod that, I'm having a G+T

Semper ubi sub ubi

christoph404

Even if it was proved that Sutcliffe's human rights were infringed that doesn't mean he would be released because as far as I am aware there are exceptions to the implementation of those rights and one of them is the consideration of the safety of the public. I wouldn't worry too much about Sutcliffe being released,I don't think it will happen, it would have to be proved that he was no longer a danger to women and to the public and that issue can legally override any issues about his human rights. At least that is my understanding of the law. And why any lawyer, especially a female one, would want to try and use legal loopholes to release someone like Sutcliffe is beyond me!

Marky B

If he is released,how much is it going to cost the taxpayer in hiding him from mobs with "Dwight Frye" torches!
Ta Ta
Marky B

I once shot an elephant in my pyjamas - how he got in my pyjamas,I'll never know