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.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Colin Pitchfork
- Thread starter Nellies left peg
- Start date
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
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Dec 2010
- Messages
- 61,566
Give what extra thought?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.
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.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.
Could you be a bit more condescending though, we're a bit uneducated here.
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
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Dec 2010
- Messages
- 61,566
Probably.That's nice to know.
Could you be a bit more condescending though, we're a bit uneducated here.
Alan Harper's Tash
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Dec 2010
- Messages
- 61,566
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.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.
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.
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
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Dec 2010
- Messages
- 61,566
It wasn’t my intention to condescend.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.
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.
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
Probably.
Spot on mate.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.