Colin Pitchfork

[N1985]

Barrel, acid, pour down the drain.

Job done.

 

[crublue1]

In some instances it is. Kleptomania?

Old and experienced bank robbers attempting heists where the likelihood of them being caught is so high, it is irrational to go ahead. But they still do?

Maybe they want the adrenaline and the thrill more than just the bag of swag?

To be fair, a bit of shoplifting wouldn't get you a long stretch, and as unsavoury as it is, it doesn't cause anyone any actual physical harm. That's not to say stealing isn't a problem, but we obviously can't lock up everyone that's done a bit of theiving.
What I would do (for what it's worth) is give huge community service sentences for lower end criminals, have them pick litter and fill potholes. Not just for a few token hours, but for a year. And guess what? We'd have the cleanest streets and the best roads in Europe, and the crime rate would drop like a stone. Most people don't want to be a criminal. They need help. But they need to learn that crime isn't what we want, it's unacceptable, but we shrug our shoulders and accept it like it's normal. It fucking isn't normal, and it shouldn't be considered as such.
I'm all for rehabilitation, but I'd give that pitchfork **** the needle myself given the chance. If it was your daughter he'd raped and murdered you would say the same.

 

[crublue1]

It has nothing to do with university education.

The parole boards carry out an assessment based on the current laws of the land and the sentence given to the prisoner.

I wonder how many university degrees the “somebody with common sense“ had to make their decision to recall him.

All it has done is expose your random dislike of education and your penchant for discipline.

Nonsense. I'd expect better from you.
Your last paragraph is comical.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Has it really? Why on earth would I dislike education? You're sidetracking the point, that is somebody like Pitchfork should never be released. If that is me expressing a penchant for discipline then yes I'm more than happy with that. As for the person, or people that decided to recall him well done! It doesn't detract from the fact the parole board made a monumental error in releasing him, as did the judge for not imposing a whole life tariff when the monster was sentenced

What has it to do with university?

Why mention it?

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Nonsense. I'd expect better from you.
Your last paragraph is comical.

I ask you the same question as Paul.

Why mention university? It has nothing to do with it. What is the possible motivation to mention it in this discussion?

 

[blue b4 the moon]

I clicked on this thread thinking it was about Warnock!

You're not on your own.

 

[paulchapo]

What has it to do with university?

Why mention it?

Surely my point hasn't escaped you? I mentioned it to express my utter disbelief that what I would expect are highly qualified educated people could come to such a ludicrous decision.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Surely my point hasn't escaped you? I mentioned it to express my utter disbelief that what I would expect are highly qualified educated people could come to such a ludicrous decision.

Do you know why they made their decision?

We don’t have the report to hand, so we both are guessing as to what the actual reasons were.

Parole boards adhere to the sentencing guidelines. I guess he met their criteria for him to be released on licence.

He has subsequently breached the terms of his licence and has been returned to prison.

This is how the legal system works.

 

[paulchapo]

Do you know why they made their decision?

We don’t have the report to hand, so we both are guessing as to what the actual reasons were.

Parole boards adhere to the sentencing guidelines. I guess he met their criteria for him to be released on licence.

He has subsequently breached the terms of his licence and has been returned to prison.

This is how the legal system works.

I don't care how they made their decision, nor do I care about the sentencing guidelines, or that on paper he ticked the boxes to be considered for release. After all the criteria for him to be considered for parole had been met, the most crucial question was, "Is he safe to go back into society?" That answer should have been no and it should always be no. If the parole board had access to what was reported in the link I posted on page 15, which were transcripts and tape of his police interviews, I would presume they did, it is even more concerning they sanctioned his release.

I don't care about your pompous, "That's how the legal system works" comment. If you think he's safe to be released back into society then I presume you'd be happy to have him as a neighbour, or for him to live near any female members of your family if you have any. I certainly wouldn't.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

I don't care how they made their decision, nor do I care about the sentencing guidelines, or that on paper he ticked the boxes to be considered for release. After all the criteria for him to be considered for parole had been met, the most crucial question was, "Is he safe to go back into society?" That answer should have been no and it should always be no. If the parole board had access to what was reported in the link I posted on page 15, which were transcripts and tape of his police interviews, I would presume they did, it is even more concerning they sanctioned his release.

I don't care about your pompous, "That's how the legal system works" comment. If you think he's safe to be released back into society then I presume you'd be happy to have him as a neighbour, or for him to live near any female members of your family if you have any. I certainly wouldn't.

Ok, you don’t care about due process. You just want your pound of flesh.

We disagree. There’s no need to go any further.

 

[crublue1]

I ask you the same question as Paul.

Why mention university? It has nothing to do with it. What is the possible motivation to mention it in this discussion?

He mentioned university because he could. A reasoned debatable arguement I'd suggest.
To say it has nothing to do with it is to dismiss the possibility that it may be relevant.
I respectfully suggest you give it further thought.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

He mentioned university because he could. A reasoned debatable arguement I'd suggest.
To say it has nothing to do with it is to dismiss the possibility that it may be relevant.
I respectfully suggest you give it further thought.

Give what extra thought?

The parole board will have used the judge’s sentencing report and then the guidelines surrounding his potential parole.

Whether they have been to university or not is totally irrelevant, unless a prerequisite part of them becoming parole officers.

If Pitchfork hadn‘t broken any of his terms for being eligible for parole, then the parole board would allow his release on licence.

This is the same for any parole applicant.

If they subsequently breech their parole licence, they go back to prison.

Which is where Pitchfork is now.

 

[crublue1]

Give what extra thought?

The parole board will have used the judge’s sentencing report and then the guidelines surrounding his potential parole.

Whether they have been to university or not is totally irrelevant, unless a prerequisite part of them becoming parole officers.

If Pitchfork hadn‘t broken any of his terms for being eligible for parole, then the parole board would allow his release on licence.

This is the same for any parole applicant.

If they subsequently breech their parole licence, they go back to prison.

Which is where Pitchfork is now.

That's nice to know.
Could you be a bit more condescending though, we're a bit uneducated here.

 

[paulchapo]

Ok, you don’t care about due process. You just want your pound of flesh.

We disagree. There’s no need to go any further.

You are correct we are poles apart and we will never agree so to quote and answer one another on this thread is pointless

Again though, just like your education comment you are wrong that I don't care about due process, so I do have to reply to that incorrect statement. I didn't say that. The due process was that Pitchfork was eligible for parole, that is his right. He got that. My view was that he shouldn't be released and he should never be released. He will always remain a danger to women and children so long as he is breathing. Now of course I could be wrong but as a member of that parole board I wouldn't be prepared to take that risk. Would you? We aren't talking about drug dealing or robbery but the rape murder of two schoolgirls. Now after killing one and getting away with it, did he regret this, reflect on how wrong it was and go on to try and live a law abiding life? No, three years later he did it again. If he hadn't been caught I would hazard a guess he would have carried on killing. I would also guess if released and not monitored 24/7 he would rape and probably kill again.

I don't want my pound of flesh, that is a ridiculous statement to make. I have no connection to the poor girls he killed, nor their families. I do however have female friends and relatives who I feel are safer for the likes of Pitchfork not being out there. I do admit for somebody like him convicted by DNA evidence and his own confession, that execution would be a fitting punishment. Why? Because he wouldn't be sitting before a parole board 34 years later arguing his case to be back in society. For sexually deviant killers that option should never be available.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

That's nice to know.
Could you be a bit more condescending though, we're a bit uneducated here.

Probably.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

You are correct we are poles apart and we will never agree so to quote and answer one another on this thread is pointless

Again though, just like your education comment you are wrong that I don't care about due process, so I do have to reply to that incorrect statement. I didn't say that. The due process was that Pitchfork was eligible for parole, that is his right. He got that. My view was that he shouldn't be released and he should never be released. He will always remain a danger to women and children so long as he is breathing. Now of course I could be wrong but as a member of that parole board I wouldn't be prepared to take that risk. Would you? We aren't talking about drug dealing or robbery but the rape murder of two schoolgirls. Now after killing one and getting away with it, did he regret this, reflect on how wrong it was and go on to try and live a law abiding life? No, three years later he did it again. If he hadn't been caught I would hazard a guess he would have carried on killing. I would also guess if released and not monitored 24/7 he would rape and probably kill again.

I don't want my pound of flesh, that is a ridiculous statement to make. I have no connection to the poor girls he killed, nor their families. I do however have female friends and relatives who I feel are safer for the likes of Pitchfork not being out there. I do admit for somebody like him convicted by DNA evidence and his own confession, that execution would be a fitting punishment. Why? Because he wouldn't be sitting before a parole board 34 years later arguing his case to be back in society. For sexually deviant killers that option should never be available.

Your issue is with the original sentencing then. In your view, he should never have been eligible for parole. An argument I would probably agree with.

Unfortunately, the judge gave him a minimum term before being eligible. The parole board have to enact their due process.

Fortunately, he’s been recalled before he’s been able to do anything horrific, so the end result is a good one, at least.

 

[paulchapo]

That's nice to know.
Could you be a bit more condescending though, we're a bit uneducated here.

He isn't educating us or telling us something we don't already know. The reason I mentioned university and education was I presume to sit on a parole board you'd have to be educated to a reasonably high standard. My surprise was if that was the correct how could anyone with an IQ above 60 read about Pitchfork's case and decide he was fit to live back in society? Served his minimum sentence? Tick. Model prisoner? Tick. Done all his courses? Tick. Safe to release. Cross.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

He isn't educating us or telling us something we don't already know. The reason I mentioned university and education was I presume to sit on a parole board you'd have to be educated to a reasonably high standard. My surprise was if that was the correct how could anyone with an IQ above 60 read about Pitchfork's case and decide he was fit to live back in society? Served his minimum sentence? Tick. Model prisoner? Tick. Done all his courses? Tick. Safe to release. Cross.

It wasn’t my intention to condescend.

I was merely trying to highlight the due process.

The safe to release box will be dependent on him passing all other elements of his application.

 

[paulchapo]

Your issue is with the original sentencing then. In your view, he should never have been eligible for parole. An argument I would probably agree with.

Unfortunately, the judge gave him a minimum term before being eligible. The parole board have to enact their due process.

Fortunately, he’s been recalled before he’s been able to do anything horrific, so the end result is a good one, at least.

Now we do agree and yes I think the judge made a huge mistake at sentencing. If ever a crime was deserving of a whole life tariff it was Pitchfork's crimes. Even more remarkable he appealed the sentence was too harsh and it was reduced from 30 to 28 years! For a double rape and murder of two children three years apart. The mind boggles. The parole board do have to enact due process but they don't have to release him.

Thank God, I think that has saved some poor child from an horrific ordeal and possible death

 

[crublue1]

Probably.

He isn't educating us or telling us something we don't already know. The reason I mentioned university and education was I presume to sit on a parole board you'd have to be educated to a reasonably high standard. My surprise was if that was the correct how could anyone with an IQ above 60 read about Pitchfork's case and decide he was fit to live back in society? Served his minimum sentence? Tick. Model prisoner? Tick. Done all his courses? Tick. Safe to release. Cross.

Spot on mate.