The guy is sueing for injuries after being attacked in prison. Is the law an ass?

If he wins they should hold the money until he gets out.

Lame and predictable.

Not even going to respond, no point preaching ro the converted/low IQ.

like a trust fund?

Is the law an ass?

Isn't it a bit early to say ?

The prison service has a duty to him to keep him safe

Just throw them all in a huge cage with knives.

If he hadn't have done what he did he wouldn't be there. and TBH after what he did I kind of think he deserves it!

The prison service has a duty to him to keep him safe

Yeah but all they can do is their best. Otherwise he'd be in permanent solitary confinement – has he been given that option?

They should round up all the naughty men who've given him a kicking and put them all in a big building, oh wait, they did that already.

Why doesn't he just leave if he doesn't like it there? Didn't he try to kill himself? Is he going to take himself to court too?

These threads are a great way of IDing the idiots on stw.

These threads are a great way of IDing polarising the idiots on stw.

Fixed that one for you.

hang the ba5tard…………… 8)

and yes, i am a idiot.

I predict tha this thread will go on for quite a while and loads of posters will recommend removal of various parts of Huntley's body in nasty ways and the other loads of people will try and explain that his punishment was to be locked up and not dismembered.

Just like the last one.

@ Mr Woppit – lets change the direction of the thread then and ask if prisoners are entitled to claim for financial compensation if they are failed by the relevant authorities. Is the system wrong?

As a civilised society we do have have duty to keep him safe (although personally I don't give a damn what happens to the monster) whilst he is in prison but we should never forget that he had a duty to not to commit the crimes he did. He chose to take the route in life he took.

Oh, O.K. then, let's.

My heart bleeds for him. A sick individual who's getting karma for his actions imho!!

I have worked in a large Psychiatric hospital and also visited a security hospital and spoke to the patients, some who had done dispicable things, and one thing hits you, they all seem like normal people,its not till they tell their stories that you think, hang on you killed somebody or worse.

Then the question needs to be asked WHY,did they do it, and are they safe now.

Then you walk round the local supermarket or drive to the shop, and think not all the nutters have been caught yet, and theres a lot out there, you just hope you never have to talk them down or restrain them, as thats when problems happen.

Sadly the prison service staff have to deal with both types,then possibly go home to the wife and kids,and be a family man again, now thats tough.

[draws up a chair and sits down with a cup of tea]

Got any biccies Carriegold?

Thing about the Law, which some people don't seem to understand, is it's meant to apply to all people equally and without prejudice. And the Law is meant to act as an institution independent of individual desires or opinions. Which it does, mostly, fortunately.

Whilst people like Ian Huntley are very twisted, sick and dangerous, and the initial (and understandable) reaction is to inflict retribution proportionate to the suffering of their victims, society and the Law must strive to rise above simple barbarity, and maintain a status quo which demands rationality, restraint and compassion. This may not seem 'right' to the 'flog 'em and hang 'em' brigade, but quite frankly, I'm glad that our society has moved out of the dark ages. The 'punishment' element of prison is to deprive the wrongdoer of their freedom. But whilst incarcerated, they all have the equal right to be protected and for their basic Human Rights to be upheld. The moment you remove those rights from selected individuals, you are dehumanising them, and debasing yourself to the level of a savage.

The crimes Huntley has been convicted of have no relation whatsoever towards his case for compensation. The rules which are meant to protect ALL prisoners equally have failed, therefore the system is at fault. It is the responsibility of those charged with the job of running the prison services, that Huntley, like all other prisoners, was safe. They have failed to ensure his safety, so he is entitled like anyone else to make a claim. Wether or not it's moral, is a completely separate issue which has no relevance here.

keep him alive and safe … then harvest him for human parts … 😈

This may not seem 'right' to the 'flog 'em and hang 'em' brigade, but quite frankly, I'm glad that our society has moved out of the dark ages.

Dark Ages ? You're kidding me 😕

In the Dark Ages they had proper punishment – they didn't stop after they had flogged them and hanged them……..they were hanged, drawn, and fcking quartered.

Ian Huntley at the very least, should have been flogged, hanged, taken down and flogged again, and then hanged once more.

Flog 'em and hang 'em and flog 'em again I say

There was no pedeophiles during the Dark Ages.

And you could leave your front door open.

[devils advocate]

there were no pedophiles in the dark ages

#

Errrr, ever read Romeo and Juliet? (Ok, about 700 years too late, but you get the drift). 'Paedophilia' by the definition youd find in laws has been arround about as long as there have been kids, which is why it still doesnt exist in some countries.

Joss Stone (the Soul singer) got into trouble in the states for going on tour with her boyfriend, becasue over there he could have gone to jail for several years for "sodomy with a minor", which sounds horific, but hey the law's always right?

[/devils advocate]

ever read Romeo and Juliet?

No.

Elfinsafety – Member

They have failed to ensure his safety, so he is entitled like anyone else to make a claim. Wether or not it's moral, is a completely separate issue which has no relevance here.

Are the family of his victims entitled to claim against Huntley, as his victims were entitled to be safe at the time of his crimes. If he does receive compensation, can the families of the victims claim that compensation from Huntley? I refer you back to the OP – is the law an ass? I think it is.

Joss Stone (the Soul singer) got into trouble in the states for going on tour with her boyfriend, becasue over there he could have gone to jail for several years for "sodomy with a minor", which sounds horific, but hey the law's always right?

joss stone takes it in the back door??? – dirty little tramp!

Piha; unfortunately, the Law doesn't work in this way. I know it sounds shit, but I think the most the families can hope for is Bereavement Compensation, which families of the victims of the 7/7 bombings received. This money comes from central funds, not the perpetrators of the crime. As for families taking action agains a murderer of their loved one; only the victim themselves can bring a case against an attacker, and if someone is killed, then obviously they can't claim.

Compensation is awarded when a victim has suffered injuries or trauma that impairs them in their daily life. It is not a financial penalty imposed on the guilty. It is to compensate the victim for their suffering. If the defendant has the means to pay the compensation awarded, then they will be ordered to by the court.

Topics such as this are very emotive, and will throw up many questions as to the morality and ethical nature of such cases. Of course it doesn't seem 'right' that Huntley may be awarded a payout, but then it is the responsibility of the prison service to keep all inmates safe from harm. Should the failure of the prison service go unchecked simply because of who Huntley is? No, because that would be a prejudicial abuse of law. Maybe any money should instead go to a fund to help bereaved families, instead of an individual who has been incarcerated because they have transgressed, however. This might be more palatable to most.

Imagine a different scenario: someone inside for something like fraud is attacked and scarred for life. Do they 'deserve' such suffering? You can't make any distinction as to the ethical nature of the right of the 'victim' to be able to claim compensation based on what crime they have committed.

Is the Law an ass? I like to think it isn't, mostly. But no institution of social control is without flaw. British Law is less flawed than many other countries, however, and this we should be proud of. Cases such as Ian Tomlinson show there are areas perhaps needing reform or adjustment; no-one will ever be charged with any assault which led to his death. I think it is widely accepted that this isn't 'right'.

I suggest some folk go and study a bit of Law regarding an issue like this, to gain a better understanding of it, rather than simply criticising something they personally feel uncomfortable with.

The prison service has a duty to him to keep him safe
& the other 81,921 (males) we have at the moment.
What would you like to see TJ. 1 to 1 care?
I'm off to a barby but I'll be back to read what the experts on here have said.

& the other 81,921 (males) we have at the moment.

Of course. All equally and without prejudice or discrimination. Regardless of their crimes.

esselgruntfuttock

The duty of care will presumably be " as far as practicable" or some such qualification. So yes. I want the prison service to keep people safe but clearly the precautions have to be reasonable. One to one care would not be reasonable

Myself I doubt he has much of a claim – unless the prison service has not followed normal procedures or the procedures were inadequate. If the incident was not preventable by reasonable measures then the claim fails.

Remember Zahid Mubarak?

An asian man battered to death by a racist cellmate? thats a breach of duty of care. I don't know if similar applies to Huntly – ie were there reasonable steps the prison service could have taken to ensure his safety that would have prevented his injuries.

joss stone takes it in the back door??? – dirty little tramp!

The legal definition of sodomy in the states is peculiar, and bares not relation to what you'd think it means.

Does this mean,
If I go for a walkabout/night out etc, and some chav/nutter/ned slashes me, I can then sue the Police for failing to protect me within the community?

Steffy – duty of care? If you are in their custody yes, if not no.

So the Police have no duty of care to the general public then, unless you're stuck in one of their cells?

What about the 'duty of care' the School Janitor had towards two of the schools pupils?

M'mm, this kinda reminds me of the millions paid out to the 'slopping out' compensation mongerers a couple of years back.

Steffyboy – it all depends upon the circumstances. Here are a couple of simple references that explain how the law works.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_of_care

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negligence

take his eyballs out *just enough* so they point to the fact that rats are chewing on his cock.

So the Police have no duty of care to the general public then

No, they are charged with upholding Law and Order. You're responsible for your own care. The only time this changes is if it is deemed necessary for the police to intervene for whatever reason, to prevent harm coming to people through unlawful actions or potentially hazardous situations. It's quite complicated. But generally, you're responsible for your own actions etc.The police aren't your personal carers. Only if there is sufficient risk from crime/danger will they be in a situation of responsibility for your safety, but they're not there as your nannies.

No, they are charged with upholding Law and Order. You're responsible for your own care. The only time this changes is if it is deemed necessary for the police to intervene for whatever reason, to prevent harm coming to people through unlawful actions or potentially hazardous situations. It's quite complicated. But generally, you're responsible for your own actions etc.The police aren't your personal carers. Only if there is sufficient risk from crime/danger will they be in a situation of responsibility for your safety, but they're not there as your nannies.

So the prison officers are now inmates nannies needing 1-1 24hr personal care?
And anything less than that is neglect?

Back under your bridge please.

steffy – can you read?

Its all about "reasonable" and "foreseeable" On those tests the claim will stand or fall.

So if the prison service took all "reasonable" steps to ensure his safety and the assualt was not "foreseeable" then the claim falls.

If the assualt was "foreseeable" and the prison service did not take "reasonable" steps to protect Huntly then the claim stands

I suggest you have a read of the WIKI links to try to understand how the law works. Everyone is equal under the law no matter how unpleasant they are.