Rapist's sentence

[Catso]

There was an article in last weekend's Times about how the 'shoe rapist' (1980s multiple rapist from S Yorkshire) was caught using DNA evidence. When arrested he admitted the offences, and got life, minimum 20 years.

There's many discussions on AB about crime and punishment and it's often said, usually by the vociferous minority, that 'prison doesn't work', 'the purpose of prison is to reform, not punish' and similar.

However, this offender had already reformed himself; he hadn't committed any crimes since 1980-something - when he got married. He's since lived a fairly succesful, though a bit hum-drum, life and has a family. Pillar of the community etc.

So if the aim of prison is to reform people, what was the point of sending him to jail? He was a reformed criminal already and in fact he's now likely to be 're-criminalised' as a result being in prison.

Would the prison-doesn't-work-clan agree that he should have received a non-custodial sentence?

[WoWo]

Great question Catso, personally I have always been of the opinion that prison is about both punishment, reform and ultimately simply protecting people from the actions of criminals.

As you say as he has "reformed" of his own accord he shouldn't get any prison sentance.

[MrBen5]

Hmmm, justice springs to mind. i am sure the women who were raped by him would rather him be punished...

[jno]

there are several factors in any sentence: punishment, reform, protection of the public, deterrence to others. The guy seems to have reformed (as most criminals do - there aren't a lot of criminals around aged over 35 or so, it's a young man's game) and he's no longer a risk to others. But I think it's legit to say he still needs punishment for what he did. Did his victims express any opinion on this? And I think it's still important to deter others - wouldn't do to have them think if they could get away with it for 20 years they wouldn't be punished.

[WaldoMcFroog]

*** for jno!

[admarlow]

I think that some people can be reformed and others cant, the ones that cant should be incarserated for ever or put to death.

[Goodsoulette]

I honestly believe that if I had been one of his victims and I knew for certain he hadnt reoffended I wouldn't want him to go to prison. Although I feel like I could get on with my life after an attack, I am sure some women never move on and not through not wanting to. So for every life he destroyed he doesn't deserce his happy little life. I feel very saddened for his friends and family that got caught in the crossfire of his scentencing. cannot imagine how his wife must have felt.

[bigmalc]

Are you going to be the one who decides who can and can't be reformed admarlow? What qualifies you to say that some people can and some can't be reformed? It is only in trying to reform someone that you can gauge whether or not it is possible. Even if it isn't would you execute or imprison someone can't stop getting parking fines or is a heroin addict? This is not the Roman Empire where Caesar can just dictate who deserves to live and who doesn't. There are varying degrees of punishment for varying degrees of crime for that very reason.

[Catso]

Mixed response so far...

Interesting point about age, jno; perhaps an alternative to prison could be suspended animation till they're 35! Yes, a lot of people do grow out of crime, but this case was rather different in that he apparently suddenly stopped offending as soon as he married. Instant reformation. I don't know how old he was at that time.

I don't think it's simply a matter of him "getting away with it for 20 years" but that he reformed himself, 20-odd years ago. If he had been (re)offending over the intervening 20 years, then that would be a completely different matter.

As to 'wanting him punished' surely that's just vengence?

Actually, although I am more of the lock-em-up-clan, I think instances like this deserve some special consideration. Yes, he committed nasty crimes, but as I say, he has since reformed, and it would seem (until he got banged up) he would have been extremely unlikely to have offended again. So what exactly is gained by imprisoning him? Just making his victims feel a bit better about it? You can't turn the clock back, and undo what happened, but now he and his family have had their lives ruined.

[maxximus]

it would seem the same dna test that got him caught is exonerating many wrongfully convicted. as bigmalc say admarlow, if it was up to you, these guys would still be locked up, or in some cases dead.

[maxximus]

sorry, forgot link http://www.innocenceproject.org/

[admarlow]

bigmalc - the likleyhood of the chance of reoffending is and will always be down to trained criminal psycologists, that is why the likes of Myra Hindley or Rose West will ever get out, or do you think they have reformed?? BTW personally I feel that it is better to prison a couple of innocents that increase the number of victims, as I feel that the many are more important than the few.

[admarlow]

BTW what is wrong woth simple vengance against these evil criminals anyway?

[bigmalc]

So, admarlow, you think it is better to 'lock up a few innocents' in the interests of public safety? Do I really have to point out the hole in the arguement?
Oh, OK then. If someone is innocent then they have not committed a crime. If there is no crime there is no victim, so just who are you protecting from these 'innocents'?
You're attitude worries me. It's a kind of, 'Oh well, he's got a monobrow and and slouch and he looks like a peodophile/terrorist/rapist/muslim so he's probably guilty of something', point of view.
So, when are you taking the bar exam?

[admarlow]

I suggest you calm down bigmalc, all I am saying is to make an omlette you have to break a few eggs. Now, NO legal system is 100% infallable so what are you suggesting do away with it?

[bigmalc]

Actually, admarlow, I'm suggesting that you suggesting that. You are describing a system that, in fact, bears no relation to the current one. I agree that nothing can be all things to all people and I would suggest that the system we currently have is pretty good. It is exactly the point that no system can be 100% effective, that we try and ensure it can be the best it can be. Shutting down the process of reform and knowingly condemning innocent people to imprisonment or death is not justice, it is anarchy. Laws are made not only to protect the innocent but also the guilty. That is why there is a difference between vengeance and justice.

[admarlow]

Bigmalc you are not making sence, nobody is talking about deliberatly locking up innocents. And would you also not agree that some people will never reform, Ted Bundy?

[Goodsoulette]

Is Myra Hindley dead?

[bigmalc]

You said, 'BTW I think it is better to prison (sic) a couple of innocents that (sic) increase the number of innocents..' and, 'to make an omlette you have to break a few eggs'. If that doesn't suggest that you are taking a lazy view towards the justice system, I don't know what does. Besides, I have not once disputed that some people are incapable of reform. I do not for a second believe that everyone who commits a crime feels remorse. This does not mean, however, that all criminals (or people, if we are including the innocent in this) should be tarred with the same brush.
In my view a justice system is not just if it tries to excuse the imprisonment of innocents as inevitable.

[admarlow]

bigmalc - this is what I think - Some criminals should be imprisoned forever or put to death, and that the fact that there will always be a few miscarrages of justice does not mean that we should not use the more daconian tatics with *some* criminals, sorry if this was not clear.

[bigmalc]

Sorry, on the second line I quoted you as saying 'innocents', this should read 'victims'.