Should Myra Hindley have been released?

As I'm sure all the Brits on this forum are well aware one of this countries most hated women, the infamous moors murderer, Myra Hindley, died today at the age of 60 after spending over 36 years in jail for the murders of several children.

Now very few of us will be sheading any tears for her but is it right that successive home secretaries have ruled that she must never be given parole and that she would die in jail. Many argue that she was a reformed charachter, that her partner Ian Brady had her brainwashed and that she has been subjected to harsher punishment than others who have committed similar crimes. So should she have been released especially in recent years as her health has faded.

I for one am glad that she was never released. I'd even go as far to say that her death makes the world a slightly better place. She was responsible for the horrific deaths of five, maybe more, children, so IMO in this and similar cases a life sentance must mean life.

 

We had a case similar to that around here when a man that raped and killed several preteen girls died in prison. He supposingly became born again Christian, which got some church groups upset that he was still being punished for a 40 year old crime.

In truth he was convicted of a crime and got life in prison. He could have really changed, but that doesn't mean he should be let loose. He had a sentence, it was carried out, end of story.

 

I'm going to go with 'no'.

I am sure there is every chance that she was reformed, posed little threat, was sorry etc. etc. but the point of her sentence is not only to have her pay for the crimes she committed, but to act as a deterrent to others.

This aspect is often forgotten. After all, is the threat of a possible life sentence going to be as effective if the person considering the crime believes there are a bunch of do-gooders out there to help get them get released?

 

No

Sometimes "life in prison" should mean life in prison.

It was safer for her in prison, as she'd get lynched (sp?) on the outside.

Anyone who thinks she should have been released should listen to the tapes they have of one of the girls getting murdered. You can hear the girl sobbing and calling for her "mummy" as she's being beaten.

Not pleasant material.

malkie

 

A prisoenrs term should be based on objective appraisal of the facts and sentencing, not on subjective, emotional responses to that prisoners crimes.

Myra Hindley was given a life-sentence, and was instead made to serve much longer than she would otherwise have. Each home secretary was too afraid to let her out for fear of political suicide.

She should have at least been let out to die around family and friends, as in the case of most prisoners, if not much earlier, having served her sentence.

I feel no pity for her, and I'm sure that the world is a little bit of a better place now she's gone, but that doesn't excuse her being kept a time extending her sentencing.

- Scarlet.

 

I believe that life should mean life but I also do not agree with the current law that lets The Home Secretary make the decision.

The decision should be made by the Judicuary not a member of the Government. It should be a purely legal matter not a political one.

 

That woman should never have been released,and i don't believe she ever would have been.

She was what i would call 'evil'.

From the things she did to those children and especially the tapes that she recorded whilst she tortured and sexually abused Leslie Ann Downey,it's clear she knew what she was doing and for that she should never have been let out.

If it was up to alot of people around here (Manchester) she would be buried on the moors herself in an un marked grave like poor Keith Bennett still is.

Some of you might think im harsh,but i live in Manchester,my Parents lived in Salford at the time these kids were going missing,they even knew the families and Hindley and Brady are still hated on a huge 'Bin Laden' scale in this area !!!

 

I was living in London when this came up, serveral times, and I ended up watching this story on BBC. I don't think there should have ever been any debate, because she should have been put to death. But what was said above, I feel is correct. She was given a sentance, and it should be carried out. I don't understand when a Church group would want to free someone just because they converted. Most chriastians, for example, beleive that it is good that you were born again, but you still must finish your sentance.

I'm not for long term incarceration because it institutionalizes peoople, and when they come out, society continues to hold the crime against them.

For murder in the first degree, you should be put to death. For murdering or molesting a child, the same punishment. For lesser crimes, between 1 and 5 years of labor in prison. But, when you come out, employers should not have access to your criminal record. However, if you return, your normal sentance is doubled. That is if you return for say shoplifting, and it would normally carry 6 mo, you would serve 1 -2 years. If you returned again, you would be euthanised, because you are of no use to society.

 

I agree with harsh punishments.

Simply, if you increase the costs of committing a crime, you reduce the benefits of committing a crime, and thus you are more deterred from being a criminal.

 

"I'd even go as far to say that her death makes the world a slightly better place."

She was in prison. Who was she harming in prison? She was never getting out. So how does her death suddenly make the world a better place?? I don't understand your logic. Are you just taking the "tough guy that cares" stance?

 

If it was up to alot of people around here (Manchester) she would be buried on the moors herself in an un marked grave like poor Keith Bennett still is.

I'm also from around Manchester, but I haven't heard this opinion expressed before. I think it's more or less that opinion of the British version of the redneck - people who seriously entertain the idea that the authorities would bury her in moorland.

Some of you might think im harsh,but i live in Manchester,my Parents lived in Salford at the time these kids were going missing,they even knew the families and Hindley and Brady are still hated on a huge 'Bin Laden' scale in this area !!!

My grandfather, who was a Detective Inspector at the time, actually worked on the Moors Murders. He said it was his opinion that her crimes were atrocious, and she should have been put to death. He retained that opinion to his death. I understand that a lot of people hate them, but I don't see that as a reason to contravene the usual legal practice and make an exception.

She was in prison. Who was she harming in prison? She was never getting out. So how does her death suddenly make the world a better place?? I don't understand your logic. Are you just taking the "tough guy that cares" stance?

I'm taking a philosophical stance. Say you look at the world as a balance between good and evil, the evil parts made up of people like Hindley, and the good parts made up of people who mean and act well. When Hindley died, it tipped the balance a little on the good side.

However, despite the fact that I think she was, in every sense of the words, generically evil, I don't see how my personal opinion should interfere with legal process. If you make an exception to the law with people like Myra Hindley, the validity of the entire shebang is undermined.

If you're sentenced to 30, you should serve 30. If you're sentenced to 20, you should serve 20. Not at the discretion of public or Governmental opinion.

- Scarlet.

 

I agree with Run. Many people forget that the sentance given is ment to deter others from the crime. I don't care if your a born again christian, or you realise the mistake in your actions. Thats not the point.

Things like this go every where, in sports, with actors everything. It's not the one person thats the point, it's the point of not having it happen again. When people are punnished I don't feel anyone has a right to take that punishment away. In essence, you know what you are doing so therefore you know what will happen to you.

You do the crime you pay the time, thats all there is to it.

Ami

 

That's all well and good, but in order to make them a deterrant, you have to keep them in jail longer than they should be.

Sorry, but, I understand that they've done something wrong, but it's no excuse to go and violate their human rights by keeping them in jail longer than what was given to them in their sentence. This applies to murderers, rapists, paedophiles - everything. Irregardless of the crime committed (and I know a lot of them are extremely atrocious), you can't toss people in jail indefinitely in order to prove a point.


- Scarlet.

 

There are two parts to a life sentence: the tariff and the risk assessment. The tariff is the minimum period that must be served for the purposes of punishment and deterrence. Once that has expired, the prisoner may be released on licence if it is determined that they no longer pose a risk to the public. In the case of murderers, the tariff and the risk assessment are under the control of the Home Secretary. In setting the tariff, the Home Secretary takes advice from the Lord Chief Justice (a senior judge); once the tariff has expired, the Home Secretary refers the case to the Parole Board, and then has the option of releasing the prisoner if the Parole Board recommends it.

In Hindley's case, the Lord Chief Justice recommended a tariff of 25 years. Successive Home Secretaries then set the tariff at first 30 years and then "whole life". Consequently, her case never even reached the Parole Board. Had it done, and her release been recommended, the Home Secretary would still have had the right to keep her in jail as long as he wanted.

It is my opinion that looking at the case from a completely impartial view, and cutting out public opinion and media frenzy, Hindley's case warranted a "whole life" tariff. Lord Lane, the Lord Chief Justice, was utterly wrong to recommend only 25 years.

However, I also believe that sentences should be determined by judges, not politicians. While, in my opinion, Lord Lane seriously erred in recommending a 25 year tariff, the Home Secretary, as a politician influenced by a host of irrelevant factors, should have accepted that recommendation nonetheless. He should then have complied with the Parole Board if they recommended her release.

So, to summarise: I disagree with the judges in this case, but I think that their recommendation should nevertheless have been accepted. The risk assessment is an entirely separate issue to the minimum period for punishment and deterrence, and one I can't comment on.

 

Branthoris - I believe that politicians are the best people for deciding these issues, not the Judiciary. Politicians are more likely to do the will of the people than a totally independant judge. The people wanted her to rot in prison, and that is what happened. Judges are far to out of touch IMO.

 

Politicians are more likely to do the will of the people than a totally independant judge. The people wanted her to rot in prison, and that is what happened.

In a democratic society, public opinion influences criminal justice laws and policies in general. Individual cases should be decided impartially with no reference to public opinion.

 

There has been too many cases of judges not handing down sentances that fit the crime for me to agree with you there.

 

Who said they think the authorities would entertain the idea of putting her on the moors TSB ?

Thats what alot of people in Manchester would do,i never said that thats what everone would do or what the major would do.

Who in the right state mind would suggested that the aurthorities would ever go along with bury her on the moors ? !!!

It's what i would do,especially seeing as how poor Keith Bennet is still out there.

My Nanna was at the time friendly with Leslie Ann Downey's mother and so the ill feeling from the 60's has really stayed fresh in her memory and the rest of my family who were alive at the time.

I've got my own opinions of her,from evidence i've heared and seen.I don't see how a woman who takes photos of a crying child whose naked and gagged,and gets pleasure from this should have any chance of ever getting out of prison.

She knew what see was doing,she beat,sexually and emotionally abused and murdered these children.How anyone can support here push for freedom all these years is beyond me.She should never have been let free,and im glad she never was.

Also,her being dead does make the world a better place IMO.It's one less of the bad elements gone of the face of the Earth,and we the British public don't have to pay to keep her in prison anymore !!!

 

"I'm taking a philosophical stance. Say you look at the world as a balance between good and evil, the evil parts made up of people like Hindley, and the good parts made up of people who mean and act well. When Hindley died, it tipped the balance a little on the good side."

I see what you mean, and i respect your philosophical viewpoint, but i don't believe that evil exists.