Human rights farce: Phillip Lawrence killer to cost taxpayer £1 million a year

Bismarck

Facilities is not the same as an around-the-clock police escort.

And this guy won't get that either. Besides, how would the police know who to escort in advance of a report?

Reply 61

L i b

19

UniOfLife

And this guy won't get that either. Besides, how would the police know who to escort in advance of a report?

Indeed, even the quoted section makes clear that "they would then be provided with 24 hour police protection via a panic button."

Which really isn't all that different from what we all have via the telephone. Just a few less buttons to push and a few less explanations to make in the vital seconds.

Reply 62

Libertin du Nord

Indeed, even the quoted section makes clear that "they would then be provided with 24 hour police protection via a panic button."

Which really isn't all that different from what we all have via the telephone. Just a few less buttons to push and a few less explanations to make in the vital seconds.

Right, how this will cost £1 million a year is unclear to me.

Reply 63

Greyhound02

7

kidintheriot

^o) What a delightfully progressive attitude.

Careful, there are some VERY different conceptions of what constitutes 'progress' out there. Progress as a term shouldn't lend itself to a particular set of policies, although because the word has been captured by the left as their own this is exactly what's taking place. Personally, I'd consider it progress if we move towards a society with a backbone where, if Italy won't take this evil murderer back, we reached that the conclusion that this individual has chosen to forego his 'human rights' and whatever happens to him happens. Unfortunately our government lacks any determination to do what's right, but if it was sensible they would ensure that this problem of what to do with himsimply wouldn't emerge because he'd still be in prison. I think tens of millions in Britain would share my vision of 'progress' in this instance.

Reply 64

Blue!

I have no problmes with his release, and a new identity, but police protection and a panic button? Pfft, that's going beyond the call of duty as far as I'm concerned.

And a state that goes round killing murderers is not a state in which I would want to live.

Reply 65

alasdair_R

Is he still a threat to society? No. Should he therefore be released? Yes. Simple really.

Using that logic, if you murdered your wife for cheating on you you'd no longer be a threat to society, since there's no cheating wife, and shouldn't be imprisoned - ridiculous!

Also - the article states £1m over his lifetime, not £1m a year as the title says - suspicious I say...

Reply 66

alasdair_R

Is he still a threat to society? No.

How do you know?

Reply 67

bikerx23

Also - the article states £1m over his lifetime, not £1m a year as the title says - suspicious I say...

Maybe he's not expected to survive longer than that.

I remain ardently opposed to the death penalty, but life should mean life, and murderers should get it. Even if you don't agree with that, and think it should be a fixed minimum, 12 years is still a joke.

Reply 68

Agent Smith

Maybe he's not expected to survive longer than that.

I remain ardently opposed to the death penalty, but life should mean life, and murderers should get it. Even if you don't agree with that, and think it should be a fixed minimum, 12 years is still a joke.

Agreed completely - no point in being soft on this sort of thing.

Reply 69

Bismarck

13

Agent Smith

Maybe he's not expected to survive longer than that.

I remain ardently opposed to the death penalty, but life should mean life, and murderers should get it. Even if you don't agree with that, and think it should be a fixed minimum, 12 years is still a joke.

But then you have "progressive" people throwing a fit about 15-year-olds being treated as adults.

Reply 70

bikerx23

Also - the article states £1m over his lifetime, not £1m a year as the title says - suspicious I say...

This is what the article says:

Others are Jon Venables and Robert Thompson, the killers of Liverpool toddler Jamie Bulger, and Maxine Carr, the girlfriend of Soham murderer Ian Huntley.

When Carr was awarded lifelong anonymity in 2005, the Home Office estimated that it would cost £1 million a year to protect her.

So the £1 million has nothing to do with this case at all, but is referring to protecting an innocent woman who might be targeted for the crimes of her boyfriend.

The article does say, however that:

The cost to the taxpayer during the rest of Chindamo's life would run to millions of pounds.

All in all the title of the thread is extremely misleading.

Reply 71

Alasdair

14

Agent Smith

How do you know?

Lots of very qualified people have obviously decided he isn't a threat - hence why he's probably going to be to let out after 12 years next year.

You'll throw back recidivism statistics, I've no doubt, but the wrong ones - how many offenders who went on to gain qualifications in prison re-offend? I'm willing to bet it's significantly less than the overall percentage...

Reply 72

Alasdair

14

bikerx23

Using that logic, if you murdered your wife for cheating on you you'd no longer be a threat to society, since there's no cheating wife, and shouldn't be imprisoned - ridiculous!

Woo Strawman!

If we know that they're never going to kill anybody again, then I'm more than happy to not even imprison murderers. But as that is, in practice, impossible, I don't think we should imprison somebody for longer than it takes us to get them to a point where they're not going to re-offend.

Reply 73

alasdair_R

Woo Strawman!

If we know that they're never going to kill anybody again, then I'm more than happy to not even imprison murderers. But as that is, in practice, impossible, I don't think we should imprison somebody for longer than it takes us to get them to a point where they're not going to re-offend.

What a ridiculous approach to take! You dont think someone who murdered doesn't deserve to be punished?

Reply 74

alasdair_R

Woo Strawman!

If we know that they're never going to kill anybody again, then I'm more than happy to not even imprison murderers. But as that is, in practice, impossible, I don't think we should imprison somebody for longer than it takes us to get them to a point where they're not going to re-offend.

What about the need to create a detterent for other people?

Reply 75

alasdair_R

Lots of very qualified people have obviously decided he isn't a threat.

Who, when, and how?

You'll throw back recidivism statistics, I've no doubt, but the wrong ones - how many offenders who went on to gain qualifications in prison re-offend? I'm willing to bet it's significantly less than the overall percentage...

So? The overall percentage is pretty darn high, so merely reducing it a bit isn't enough. Certainly not when it's murderers we're talking about.

Reply 76

Collingwood

15

alasdair_R

If we know that they're never going to kill anybody again, then I'm more than happy to not even imprison murderers.

Errr... wouldnt this amount to a death sentence for certain unlucky people whose murderers intend only to kill them and then stop? Do you seriously think that criminal justice is only about protecting the public and not punishing or deterring crime? How do you justify fines or community service?

Reply 77

bikerx23

What a ridiculous approach to take! You dont think someone who murdered doesn't deserve to be punished?

Bugger punishment. If you're going to go down that road then the only punishment that fits the crime is execution. What matters is keeping people safe, not inflicting gratuitous harm on criminals. Fortunately the methods we use for the former presented, until recently, a fairly major deterrent as well.

Reply 78

I disagree - As you state, punishment is an important part of imprisoning people, since it acts as a deterrant - it has nothing to do with apportioning gratuitous harm to the offender (since I disagree with capital punishment and all...). But, despite that, the position that people should only be imprisoned for public protection is ludicrous, and, most importantly, completely subjective - not realistically taking into account the crime - something like tax fraud poses little to no threat to the public, for example.

Reply 79