[Closed] Huntley

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 [s]IDing[/s] [b]polarising[/b] 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 ****ing quartered.

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

[b][i]Flog 'em and hang 'em and flog 'em again[/i][/b] 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.

[i]The prison service has a duty to him to keep him safe[/i]
& 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 [url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/990596.stm ]Zahid Mubarak[/url]?

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.

Basically, yes.

I know it sounds crap, but that's how it is.

I had a few interesting debates on Facebook when the 'I'd like to buy the man who attacked Ian Huntley a pint' group appeared. Simple fact is other inmates aren't trying to kill him for what he did, cos they're all in for pretty much the same thing. They want to kill him simply for the noteriety of being the one to kill a high profile inmate. Not my words, told to me by a prison guard mate who had the unfortunate task of minding him when he was in Wakefield.

TandemJeremy - Member

Everyone is equal under the law no matter how unpleasant they are.

And that is why the law is an ass.
The law was not in a position to prevent his crimes unfortunately but Huntley should not have been in a situation where he could be assaulted. Due to his crimes he deserved to be incarcerated in an environment where he had no contact with anyone, solitary confinement if you like. Solitary might violate his human rights but Huntley has shown himself to be calculating and devious, therefore the law needs the jurisdiction to be able to deal robustly with such an individual.
Does the law need to change to be able to deal with this kind of person and in what way?

piha - what a load of twaddle.

How do you decide who gets the porotection of the law and who does not.

I would like all people who believe in capital punishment to have no protection from assualt under the law.

If you are drunk do you get protection from rape? She asked for it M'Lud

Speaking of the "Middle Ages":

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

TandemJeremy - due to his crimes he will always be a target to other prisoners and due to his crimes he deserves to be treated robustly. Go and watch the interviews he gave on television, he is a devious, evil and calculating person. He deserves robust justice (but not capital punishment which I strongly disagree with it).
I have an old acquaintance who's partner is a criminal psychologist and he would often argue that some people do need to be treated differently. Some people are just bad and nothing can help or change them.

Some people are just bad and nothing can help or change them.

Hear, hear.
Atruly insane person will not try to hide their crimes or tell lies.

Maybe we should keep Huntley alive but castrate him and others like him with blunt rusty pinking shears :without anesthetic? 😛

due to his crimes he deserves to be treated robustly

Deserves? Who decides this? IMHO all tories deserve to be "treated robustly"

So who decides that some prisoners should be treated robustly? How much more robustly? For what crimes?

Thats a major shift in the basic principles of the law to have those that deserve different treatments. Should soft nancy boys get treated with kid gloves?

So - you challenge is to give me some criteria for deciding who should be treated less well because of the seriousness of their crimes.

You make your own bed..... 😕

My 2p's worth.

All prisoners should be treated robustly then not given television and pool tables.There must be rocks that need breaking somewhere?

different issue edric.

Steffyboy is arguing that some deserve worse treatment and don't deserve the protection from the law

ok TJ sorry. The law is the law and applies equally to all ,like it or not.

A truly insane person will not try to hide their crimes or tell lies.

I never knew that.

Are you a psychiatrist steffybhoy ?

So - you challenge is to give me some criteria for deciding who should be treated less well because of the seriousness of their crimes.

Do you think that Huntley's crimes were not serious enough for then?

The system is good but does need looking at, as it has its faults. You will never rid the system of individuals that don't follow procedure correctly and you end up with miscarriages of justice, think Colin Stagg or the Guildford Four cases but then the system thankfully looked again at those cases again and overturned the guilty verdicts.

Then look at Venables and his recent child porn case, I think that Venables has shown that he is just bad, do you think the system has worked in its present form for Venables? What is in place to deal with such an individual and why hasn't worked already?

answer the question Piha.

Devise some criteria for deciding who gets treated worse than others. Its you who claim the nature of Huntlys crimes are syuch that he does not deserve the protection of the law - protecting him from harm. Now justify that and give some criteria for deciding who gets the protection of the law and who does not. Or admit you are woffling.

On Venables - I suggest you read up about him but not in the tabloid press.
Here is a Guardian piece that fills in some of the detail that the tabloids miss. After all its far easier to demonise someone than to understand
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jul/27/blake-morrison-jon-venables

TandemJeremy - Member

Its you who claim the nature of Huntlys crimes are syuch that he does not deserve the protection of the law - protecting him from harm.

^ Where did I say this TJ? ^

As for your question, the justice system is in place to do this job and it does a decent job of it but doesn't deal with every individual case well enough. There are people in better positions than me to assess the criteria that deserves exceptional treatment but lets start with Huntley's total remorse at double child murder. I haven't seen his statements in the press stating his remorse too often, have you?

Interesting article BTW.

Huntly: My head says the prison service owe him a duty of care and *if* they have failed in that then he is right to seek compensation. Elfinsafety, TJ et al have it right.

My heart hopes that he spends the rest of his existance having boiling hot fluids thrown over him, having his throat slashed, and generally having an apallingly miserable and painful time of it.

The legal system (rightly) exists to banish emotion from the judicial process.

>Not even going to respond,

Didn't last long 🙂

Would it be an appropriate time to quote Dostoyevsky?

aka gilo - you hit the nail on the head

They should make criminals pay for their own prison stays (where possible). ie give him the cash then take it from him immediately

Phalaris was right that Brazen Bull should be the answer ...

So can we turn Huntley into jewellery?

The device seemed to meet with the satisfaction of Phalaris, who allegedly commanded that the bull was designed in such a way that the smoke of the roasting human inside would rise in spicy clouds of incense, whereas the head of the ox was to be designed so that the screams were converted into the sound of a bellowing of a bull. It is said that when the bull was reopened, [b]the scorched bones of the remains shone like jewels and were made into bracelets[/b].

😈

Th B*****d should just be put in the electric chair, why should we be paying for him, and as for taking the prison to court, its just taking the piss, Guess if he does win, the money should be given to the 2 familys that lost their daughters

Dear oh dear oh dear...

My head says the prison service owe him a duty of care and *if* they have failed in that then he is right to seek compensation.

Yes, but more accurately they owe him a duty of care [i]as far as reasonably possible[/i]

Its an imperfect duty rather than absolute - There can be no guarantee that he will not be injured or attacked, just like the police cannot guarantee that we will not be injured or attacked in the street, and our employers cannot guarantee we will not be injured in our line of work - unless the prison service were negligent in how they allowed him to mingle with other inmates (eg. putting him in a cell with someone who had expressed an intent to attack him) and also bearing in mind it would have been unreasonable and probably unlawful to keep him in solitary confinement for the entirety of his sentence, then one would hope his claim will fail.

a very interesting thread, but i feel its gone a little off topic, can we get back to joss stone taking it up the kyber pass?