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, the scorched bones of the remains shone like jewels and were made into bracelets.

😈

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 as far as reasonably possible

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?