Ripper denied compassionate leave

[Salu]

http://www.leedstoday.net/ViewArticl...ticleID=814573

The Yorkshire Ripper has been denied compassionate leave to go to his Dad's funeral. A risk assessment was carried out and then permission was denied.
This may be a political move or a genuine concern....

I can't quite decide whether the Ripper and others like him should be allowed some grace and be allowed to go to the funeral or whether he has sacrificed his right to any kind of gesture...I can see both sides of the arguement.

This guy is/was probably psychologically ill even if he wasn't acting on the grounds of diminished responsibility, so should we as fellow humans grant this chap some grace?

Or maybe you feel that the door has been closed and he should be shown no compassion.

What do you think?

He's due out in under 10 years isn't he....? Will he have a new identity???

[Bifta]

I don't see why he couldn't be accompanied by a couple of officers to the funeral. Perhaps the immediate family (if there are any) informed the prison service that they didn't want him there.

[kronas]

i think this was unfair, although yes the hanous crimes he commited would be a possible risk to the public, when it comes to someone's family its diffarent, he should have been allowed to see his father rest in peace.

[orangebird]

Originally Posted by kronas

i think this was unfair, although yes the hanous crimes he commited would be a possible risk to the public, when it comes to someone's family its diffarent, he should have been allowed to see his father rest in peace.

I read the book 'Somebodys Husband, Somebodys Son', about the Peter Sutcliffe. I believe the book was written with a lot of input by his father. I doubt very much that his father would want Peter to be there. The Ripper deserves no compassion whatsoever.

[Ramrod]

From todays Times:

Peter Sutcliffe, the Yorkshire Ripper, has been been denied compassionate leave from Broadmoor top-security hospital to attend his father’s funeral. Doctors said that Sutcliffe, who is serving life for murdering 13 women, was too ill.

[orangebird]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

From todays Times:

Oh good. Lets hope it's something very unpleasant and painful...

[Earl of Bronze]

Originally Posted by orangebird

Oh good. Lets hope it's something very unpleasant and painful...

And dont forget fatal.

[BBKing]

Considering he's been in high-security mental institutions for many years, I suspect his illness is mental - he's a genuine psychopath, and compassionate leave isn't exactly a relevant concept where the safety of the public is concerned.

Reg Kray was allowed to go to his brother's funeral IIRC. Despite being an extremely nasty individual, he was old by then and of course not mentally ill (Ronnie was, of course).

[kronas]

Originally Posted by BBKing

Considering he's been in high-security mental institutions for many years, I suspect his illness is mental - he's a genuine psychopath, and compassionate leave isn't exactly a relevant concept where the safety of the public is concerned.

if someone has a mental illness it does not mean they are 'void' from even caring about their family, being able to not see someone ever again is heartbreaking.....but i suppose it does depend what type of 'mental state' someone is in, and ofcourse if there is hatred for that person......

Originally Posted by orangebird

Oh good. Lets hope it's something very unpleasant and painful...

Yes, because that's what a civilised society wishes on anybdy who has been diagnosed with a genuine mental illness. Granted, the outcome of his illness was far from pleasant for anybody involved. However, I find your reaction to be entirely objectionable.

He brutally killed many women, and I have no problem with him being locked away for the rest of his life to protect society, or until it is demonstrably proven that he is no longer a threat to the public (extremely unlikely). However, he was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, and this needs to be taken into account when judging his moral culpability for his actions.

[etccarmageddon]

Originally Posted by kronas

...he should have been allowed to see his father rest in peace.

why? he destroyed familys so why should he have the 'rights' that one gets with being part of a family?

Originally Posted by etccarmageddon

why? he destroyed familys so why should he have the 'rights' that one gets with being part of a family?

See my post above. So, should I lump you in the same category of people that stomp all over people's rights due to the fact they were ill?

[etccarmageddon]

Originally Posted by dr wadd

See my post above. So, should I lump you in the same category of people that stomp all over people's rights due to the fact they were ill?

it says here:-

http://www.execulink.com/~kbrannen/thenews.htm

May 22 1981
After Peter Sutcliffe is found guilty of murder by a majority verdict of ten to two and is sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum period of thirty years...


there's no mention of him being mentally ill at the time of the crimes.

[etccarmageddon]

more interesting trial information here:-

http://www.execulink.com/~kbrannen/trial03.htm

and here:-

http://www.execulink.com/~kbrannen/trial05.htm

read the suming up and verdict

The later links you posted do mentioned the testimony that it was believed that he was suffering from an unusual form of paranoid schizophrenia, and I wouldn`t trust a jury of average people to be able to deliberate on that point.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_k...ilogue_13.html

Here you can see that almost everyone apart from the judge were satisfied that he was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia, and I`d certainly be more willing to take the opinion of a psychiatrist than the man off the street in the jury.