Terminator Posted September 29, 2005 Share Posted September 29, 2005 In forty years he will come up for parole. Unfortunately I may not be here to join in any protests to stop him coming out. I know people who were personally affected by this and people who worked with him. He was very cold and calculating, he tricked loads of experienced people into letting him work in an environment where he could again trust and access to children. Those of you who will still be alive 2044, please do what you can to keep this animal in prison until he rots. I cant believe the do-gooders who say he should be given a chance to live a normal life at the end of his sentence. He robbed Holly and Jessica of the chance of any life and scarred their family and friends for life. He gave away his rights when he killed the girls. We all have to pay for him to be kept alive. If they do let him out it will be an expensive option as he will have to a new identity and some form of protection. I have a much cheaper solution, he should have his throat cut today and be left to drown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted September 29, 2005 Share Posted September 29, 2005 Okay. I'll be 69 so can block the gates with my wheel chair or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Class One Posted September 29, 2005 Share Posted September 29, 2005 If ever there was areason to bring back Capital Punishment, he's one. At least now, if you commit a crime like that life will mean life. But for him, I doubt he'll ever see the outside again. Personally I think they should cut off all of his genitalia and hang him.Slowly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Posted September 29, 2005 Share Posted September 29, 2005 I just heard this on the radio. I didn't catch how they're only now deciding how long he has to serve before parole becomes an option. What's that about? He was convicted ages ago. I do remember this case causing one of the biggest ever arguements on this forum after him and Carr had been arrested but before the case had come to court. At the time I was trying to defend their right to a fair trial and most other folks wanted them killed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellis Posted September 29, 2005 Share Posted September 29, 2005 Good riddance to bad shit - hope he gets the crap kicked out of him everday for the next 40 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoboblio Posted September 29, 2005 Share Posted September 29, 2005 What's that about? He was convicted ages ago. The home secretary used to decide how long someone would serve before being eligable for parole, but this has now been passed onto the judges. Presumably this way the decision is left with a law professional, rather than a polititian who is likely to do whatever gives him / her the best public opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Posted September 29, 2005 Share Posted September 29, 2005 Sounds like a good idea. Cheers Ian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaf Posted September 29, 2005 Share Posted September 29, 2005 Good riddance to bad shit - hope he gets the crap kicked out of him everday for the next 40 years. when a close friend of mine was inside, he said the inmates would always beat up on paedo's and granny bashers. so it's safe to say that huntleys in for an easy life from here on in...... not termi - why dont you come back and haunt his @ss Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CJ Posted September 29, 2005 Share Posted September 29, 2005 Have no fear, he will never get out of prison. The 40 year rule means he will be eligable for parole then not that he wil get out. The chances of him making parole are next to zero - and rightly so. Unfortunately, the chances of him getting kicked the shit out of daily is also zero. He will almost certainly have gone into prison under rule 43 (more commonly known as "the numbers") which means he will be located with other prisoners deemed to be at risk. These will include other sickos, child abusers, granny bashers etc. They will eat alone, excercise alone etc and will have no contact with the "normal" prisoners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian R Posted September 29, 2005 Share Posted September 29, 2005 As long as he suffers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cashpoint Posted September 29, 2005 Share Posted September 29, 2005 Just cause a prisoner is a rule 43 doesn't mean other prisoners wont be able to get at them . Work in the main theatre in the local hospital while at Uni I was only there during the holidays and saw 2 rule 43 prisoner drought in as they'd been attacked but other prisoners. One had a snooker que stuck through him. He didn't stop screaming in pain until he was put to sleep. The staff didn't know he was a rule 43 prisoner for 2 days as he was kept in for observation. Found out he was a pedo, anethasit a women wished she hadn't given him so much morphine. He's got 40 years of looking over his shoulder so he will get attacking in that time he's already had boiling water thrown over him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raymanuk Posted September 29, 2005 Share Posted September 29, 2005 This guy should not be elegable for anything but punishment from the real justice system - the prisoners who hate people like him!!! I will definately be protesting if able!!!! Thats a promise - that scum should never be allowed to smell/see freedom again!!! Sorry for the rant.... Cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJI Posted September 29, 2005 Share Posted September 29, 2005 is that a proper minimum of 40 years..... or is it the standard 40 years which these days means 20 years with early release for so called 'good behaviour' ? hope he rots by then anyway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CJ Posted September 29, 2005 Share Posted September 29, 2005 is that a proper minimum of 40 years..... or is it the standard 40 years which these days means 20 years with early release for so called 'good behaviour' ? hope he rots by then anyway The "good behaviour" thing is a myth guys. The truth is that anyone who is sentenced for a term of under 4 years will serve 50% and then will be released on licence. It doesnt matter if they have been good, bad or indifferent. They will serve 50% (unless a slightly early release is allowed under a tagging system which is usually reserved for non violent offenders). If you are sentenced to 4 years or more, you will serve no less than 2/3 of the term. When the 2/3 are up you then become eligable for parole. In the case of lifers, they are given a minimum term to serve before a parole board hearing is granted. Huntley could be angelic for the next 40 years and he is still not going to get out sooner. As for the rule 43 prisoner being attacked, the only way this could have occured is if he was attacked by a fellow rule 43 prisoner. They have no contact whatsoever with the normal prisoners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu_Fraser Posted September 29, 2005 Share Posted September 29, 2005 Hang him I say, bring back the death penalty......... save us tax payers some money!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TLicense Posted September 29, 2005 Share Posted September 29, 2005 OK now I agree he is guilty as feck and should be punished accordingly. Now, the problem is that I don't understand the whole variable sentencing with each and every case. In Tony's ideal world, Once you've been convicted of a crime, the judge goes to the sentencing book, and says righto, Crime X = 10 years in prison. Crime Y = knackers in a vice. If we're saying that people convicted of murder get what is comically called "life" which is really something like 20 odd years isn't it? Then ALL people convicted of that crime should be sentenced the same, otherwise it kinda says that the life of victim a is worth more or less than victim b isn't it? It's not as if there's the "different circumstances" arguement. He's a convicted murderer. He's been put into that pidgeon hole. That's why we have jury's. If there were circumstances that meant that it was any lesser of a crime, then he would be charged and convicted for a lesser crime. My personal opinion is that convicted murderers, including this one, are either disposed of, or imprisoned for what is the rest of their lives. Discuss.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Peace Posted September 29, 2005 Share Posted September 29, 2005 Putting him out of his misery like a sick pet is too kind..make him Live.. Thing is I really cant comprehend how a human being can do such a sick thing to two little innocent children.it is certainly not the actions of a stable minded human being! or ya average Criminal..its beyond all that ..and now-one quite knows what to do...its like handling a very hot potatoe! Also I watch the footage of the girl that he abducted on the news before the Sowham killings and cant believe how the Humberside Police and the CPS...did not act... In my view they are as much to blame! I also find it chilling how some children from poverty stricken backgrounds are STILL not taken serious it seems! yet had that little girl on the interview tape been from a better area and posher accent..they may have taken her seriously! Nothing that anyone can do will rebuild the lives of the parents and friends of those two little girls..their life is over..whatever justice there is...but these people have suffered a huge sacrifice...the least this country can do is make sure it dosn't happen to anyone elses children...and as phil says..NO WAY should he be let out EVER Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CJ Posted September 29, 2005 Share Posted September 29, 2005 OK now I agree he is guilty as feck and should be punished accordingly. Now, the problem is that I don't understand the whole variable sentencing with each and every case. In Tony's ideal world, Once you've been convicted of a crime, the judge goes to the sentencing book, and says righto, Crime X = 10 years in prison. Crime Y = knackers in a vice. If we're saying that people convicted of murder get what is comically called "life" which is really something like 20 odd years isn't it? Then ALL people convicted of that crime should be sentenced the same, otherwise it kinda says that the life of victim a is worth more or less than victim b isn't it? It's not as if there's the "different circumstances" arguement. He's a convicted murderer. He's been put into that pidgeon hole. That's why we have jury's. If there were circumstances that meant that it was any lesser of a crime, then he would be charged and convicted for a lesser crime. My personal opinion is that convicted murderers, including this one, are either disposed of, or imprisoned for what is the rest of their lives. Discuss.... Currently, whenever a murder is commited, the sentencing is led by a number of things, not least the type of murder and any associated mitigating factors. For example, Huntleys case had several aggravating factors other than the murders. i.e. He tried to dispose of the bodies etc. The difficulty with trying to have a generic sentence across the board is that not all murders are the same. Yes, there is a victim but imagine these scenarios. Case A involves a domestic dispute. The husband has found that his wife has been having an affair. He is distraught and enraged. During the argument she goads him with the sordid details. He snaps, grabs a knife and kills her. Case B is Huntley and his victims. Both commited murder. In Tony's world they would both get X amount of years for the crime commited. Is that fair? Discuss more... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jezz Posted September 29, 2005 Share Posted September 29, 2005 Ian huntley will never walk this earth again as a free man. As stated on the news earlier, in forty years time when he is eligable for parole, there is little, or no chance of him being granted freedom. The guy will probably be dead by then anyway. Apparently he's addicted to jigsaws and fruit sweets. Personaly, i'd like him to be released for an hour, no press secrets, just released for an hour in full public veiw, with the same protection other prisoners get on release...ie none. I for one, would quite happily shred my f1's on his head! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TLicense Posted September 29, 2005 Share Posted September 29, 2005 Currently, whenever a murder is commited, the sentencing is led by a number of things, not least the type of murder and any associated mitigating factors. For example, Huntleys case had several aggravating factors other than the murders. i.e. He tried to dispose of the bodies etc. The difficulty with trying to have a generic sentence across the board is that not all murders are the same. Yes, there is a victim but imagine these scenarios. Case A involves a domestic dispute. The husband has found that his wife has been having an affair. He is distraught and enraged. During the argument she goads him with the sordid details. He snaps, grabs a knife and kills her. Case B is Huntley and his victims. Both commited murder. In Tony's world they would both get X amount of years for the crime commited. Is that fair? Discuss more... Isn't case A manslaughter as it wasn't pre-meditated? (Don't know much about law!) Different crime, different pre-determined sentance. Essentially by trying to dispose of the bodies, and lieing to the police etc.etc. He's been commiting more crimes, all of which should have there own pre-arranged punishment/sentance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now