Dale Cregan

[fbg40]

This person has today been sentenced for 4 murders, two were the WPCs in Manchester. Judge stated he will die in prison. Why should we pay to keep him in prison ? Realise there are lots of schools of thought but would like to read your comments. Thanks.
FBG40

[tonyav]

http://news.uk.msn.com/uk/dale-cregan-a-paranoid-killer-who-leaves-behind-a-bloody-feud/

[jackthehat]

We don't have capital punishment in this country.
The fact that he will never be free again will have to suffice.

[Peter Pedant]

I agree he probably did murder four people including two policewomen.

Unfortunately hanging for murder would no doubt include terrorism,
where the track record of the English Legal system is far from perfect

and also killing people judicially sort of brings you down to Cregan's level.


All the non-police players in this drama are by reputation extremely unpleasant people

[jim360]

What would killing him achieve? It wouldn't bring his victims back, it wouldn't discourage other criminals, and it wouldn't necessarily save any money anyway -- as with a death penalty almost invariably comes a lengthy and expensive appeals system.

[Eve]

Because murder is illegal, hence why he has been locked up for life.

I imagine he may well be lording it up in prison though.

[jake-the-peg]

Well its good to see

When he changed his plea to guilty I posted a thread asking whether we thought a deal had been done to avoid a full life tariff (Ed removed it - legal wobblies I suspect)

Looks like that wasn't the case - as to why he changed his plea knowing he faced this sentence I don't know

[andy-hughes]

We pay to incarcerate our murderers because we don't think that revenge by murdering them is a civilised way to behave.

[jake-the-peg]

I think Eve you'll find that the sort of prison he'll be going to has plenty of experience in dealing with hard nuts.

[Peter Pedant]

jake - I think Freddie P gave a good essay on why people change their pleas in mid-case on your thread,

which has also gone down the tube.

People were saying I think they could post what they liked whilst a case was running - oo-er death for the thread when that happens.

Lots and Lots on the Manc Evg News - one for each of the 60 or so days
and it was said that - but can you believe what is said in court ? - that the deal was that the families outside would be protected if guilty pleas were entered.

Three men were acquitted - always a good example of challenging the prosecutor to actually prove what he is saying - and I had a lot of sympathy withe the defendant whose defence was: I gave him the use of my house because if I didnt I thought he would shoot me.


Did any one notice eleven jurors returned a verdict ?
One was discharged early on in the trial after going around saying - 'they are obviously as guilty as fluff'

[sir.prize]

Those four people did not deserve to die.

Cregan does.

[jake-the-peg]

Interesting Peter

The more and more I look at it the more I think the press' behavior is seriously undermining our jury system.

Like that case recently where the post mortem deals mysteriously appeared in the press saying the victim had been strangled - I have little doubt money changed hands for that tit bit

Can we really have evidence in criminal courts appearing in the press before it is considered in court? And nobody tries to stop them!

[Brinjal]

He is a young man. To be in prison forever. That would be hell on earth. Hope he enjoys very minute of it.

[Spoonboy]

If we had capital punishment in this country, Cregan would have baulked at such a sentence: people like him are brave when it comes to murder, but when faced with their own mortality are cowards.

[Zeuhl]

/Those four people did not deserve to die.

Cregan does. /

So sir.prize

you decide who it suits you to kill

I think you'll find that was Cregan's approach regarding the four people he disposed of

If you want to operate at Cregan's level that is up to you

But don't expect others to come down to that level

[Peter Pedant]

no Jakey - one can say what one likes - [ er obviously NOT jakey is pervy pedo ]
UNTIL someone has been charged.

After that strict rules basically giving both sides in any article
The rules are the sort of thing you learn in editor-school

so saying someone has been strangled is okey doke

There was absolutely nothing during closing speeches and judge's summing up and I wasnt sure wwhy - presumably because we had heard it all before


and if you say someone has done it when they havent - see the Bristol case - then the libel purses open wide and beckon

[murraymints]

Z....what level ?...four people died because of his criminal disregard for life ....are you in favour of this action ?.....

[sir.prize]

Dale Cregan is a controlling killer who used fear and intimidation.

You cannot defend that Zeuhl. Unless you .are stupid.

Four lives wasted.

You need to be realistic and stop banging everyone out of order on here. Also it would help if you analysed a comment and tried to understand it before missing the point completely and making a fool of yourself with your reply.

Please do not respond to my future comments and expect a response.

[Peter Pedant]

well that's you told Z !

In oral testimony, it came out that Cregan wanted to kill to police-MEN
but only two girls turned up so he killed them anyway.

This rathers screws the selection argument

[jackthehat]

I don't see anyone defending Cregan, just stating that a whole life behind bars is as good a sentence as is possible in this country.

[Zeuhl]

/Z....what level ?...four people died because of his criminal disregard for life ....are you in favour of this action ?..... /

murray

sorry i will be clearer

cregan has displayed a /criminal disregard for life/ because for whatever reasons it suited him to dispose of four people

Obviously I'm not in favour of that

I would go further; I see no virtue in adopting the same mentality to deal with him. Indeed, the baying for 'the rope' we often see on here sometimes has a unsavoury bloodthirsty to it that I expect the likes of Cregan could really relate to.

AND

sir.prize

/ it would help if you analysed a comment and tried to understand it before missing the point completely and making a fool of yourself with your reply./

as you haven't identified, explained or substantiated this supposed error of mine it is you who runs the risk of appearing foolish.


/Please do not respond to my future comments and expect a response/

Oh bless!

sir.prize

Is it too hard for you? are you not going to play any more?

I'm sorry

In future, I'll keep my replies to you a little less challenging for you so you might have an opportunity to join in without getting confused or upset

Would that help?