The Soham Trial is making me pro-Capital Punishment

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Just for that one guy though.

― Pete S, Tuesday, 25 November 2003 18:04 (twenty-one years ago)

what about all the other murderers of children, paedophiles etc.?

― stevem (blueski), Tuesday, 25 November 2003 18:05 (twenty-one years ago)

I am pro-crotch-abuse.

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 25 November 2003 18:08 (twenty-one years ago)

new 'castration's too good for 'em' answers...

― stevem (blueski), Tuesday, 25 November 2003 18:09 (twenty-one years ago)

Oh don't try and look for any consistency in my reaction - normally i'm totally anti, on all grounds, feeling, logic, morality, etc.

I just wondered if anyone else is finding this particular feeling whilst watching this case.

― Pete S, Tuesday, 25 November 2003 18:10 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't get that feeling at all. I'd like to see him in a prison or mental institution most probably for the rest of his days. Why murder him as well. I've never understood the death penalty in the modern world.

― Jonathan Z., Tuesday, 25 November 2003 18:12 (twenty-one years ago)

I think prison is going to be far worse than death for Ian Huntley.

― Ed (dali), Tuesday, 25 November 2003 18:15 (twenty-one years ago)

Seems like it already is

― Nichole Graham (Nichole Graham), Tuesday, 25 November 2003 18:16 (twenty-one years ago)

They shouldn't have intervened when he tried to top himself earlier this year.

Hell's too good for him.

― C J (C J), Tuesday, 25 November 2003 19:15 (twenty-one years ago)

Why would you waste your beautiful mind on this? [/barbara bush]

― Hunter (Hunter), Tuesday, 25 November 2003 19:36 (twenty-one years ago)

is he innocent until found guilty?

― charltonlido (gareth), Wednesday, 26 November 2003 00:48 (twenty-one years ago)

The way things are going he'll be admitting it wasn't exactly an accident by the weekend.

― N. (nickdastoor), Wednesday, 26 November 2003 00:49 (twenty-one years ago)

his trial strategy is certainly unexpected

― mark s (mark s), Wednesday, 26 November 2003 00:51 (twenty-one years ago)

Just shows he hasn't accepted his actions in his own head yet.

― Pete S, Wednesday, 26 November 2003 00:53 (twenty-one years ago)

btw is the way the bbc are portraying the courtroom any kind of improvement on the legendary "courtroom artist"? (ie w.computer-imaged bodies and real photos stuck on for the faces?)

― mark s (mark s), Wednesday, 26 November 2003 00:56 (twenty-one years ago)

It's a shortsighted strategy that will come undone when computer-imaged bodies with real photos stuck on their faces turn to crime.

― N. (nickdastoor), Wednesday, 26 November 2003 00:59 (twenty-one years ago)

Just shows he hasn't accepted his actions in his own head yet

I presume he's going for the 'diminished responsibility' thing by pretending he's bonkers.

― C J (C J), Wednesday, 26 November 2003 06:44 (twenty-one years ago)

Surely 'the media coverage of the Soham trial is making me pro-capital punishment' unless you're actually there, in which case, sorry.

― alext (alext), Wednesday, 26 November 2003 09:31 (twenty-one years ago)

I presume he's going for the 'diminished responsibility' thing by pretending he's bonkers.

Erm, maybe he actually IS. I thought Huntley had a history of mental problems. I don't think anyone believes he's actually innocent though.

It does scare me how being pro-capital punishment is becoming (always was?) such a mainstream opinion. I certainly didn't anticipate David Davies' lethal injection speech being met with such approval.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Wednesday, 26 November 2003 09:39 (twenty-one years ago)

I was kind of beguiled by the dog washing gone wrong story.

― N. (nickdastoor), Wednesday, 26 November 2003 09:53 (twenty-one years ago)

Whereas the news that the Washington Sniper has been sentenced to death filled me with sadness and revulsion. Funny how the more cynical and reactionary I become, the more evil capital punishment seems.

(obv were I or my loved ones to become victims of an horrific crime I would dole out justice Barry-style)

― Markelby (Mark C), Wednesday, 26 November 2003 10:27 (twenty-one years ago)

Thumb wars?

― Tim (Tim), Wednesday, 26 November 2003 10:28 (twenty-one years ago)

Over effusiveness?

― Ricardo (RickyT), Wednesday, 26 November 2003 10:31 (twenty-one years ago)

I think prison is going to be far worse than death for Ian Huntley

for sheezy -- i'm no pro-capital punishment, but how is locking someone up in prison much better? kill one man you're a murderer, kill thousands and you're a general. i'm from nr soham, and the reaction in the area is just weird. anyway, innocent until proven guilty.

― enrique (Enrique), Wednesday, 26 November 2003 10:35 (twenty-one years ago)

"but how is locking someone up in prison much better?"

If you'd ever been to prison you wouldn't ask....

― smee (smee), Wednesday, 26 November 2003 10:38 (twenty-one years ago)

If you'd ever been dead you wouldn't ask.

― Pete (Pete), Wednesday, 26 November 2003 10:40 (twenty-one years ago)

Exactly

― smee (smee), Wednesday, 26 November 2003 10:42 (twenty-one years ago)

"but how is locking someone up in prison much better?"
If you'd ever been to prison you wouldn't ask....

well, given the appalling conditions in prison (drugs, violence), not to mention the fact that YOU'RE IN PRISON, i surely would ask, would i not?

― enrique (Enrique), Wednesday, 26 November 2003 10:43 (twenty-one years ago)

Huntley's version of events: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3236674.stm

One accident would be very tragic, but 2 at the same time !

― DJ Martian (djmartian), Wednesday, 26 November 2003 10:56 (twenty-one years ago)

It's a curious explanation of events, but sort of believable for that very reason.

― Ricardo (RickyT), Wednesday, 26 November 2003 10:59 (twenty-one years ago)

his trial strategy is certainly unexpected

but surely his best option? admitting everything that the prosecution can clearly prove seems sensible, and they're surely going to have to do a bit of work to make it murder rather than manslaughter beyond reasonable doubt?

not that for a minute i can see him getting less than a murder conviction, obviously.

― toby (tsg20), Wednesday, 26 November 2003 11:00 (twenty-one years ago)

It was that report that I was reading yesterday. There was something very funny-sad about the pathologist's reponse to the new dog bath story:

"I'm slightly concerned that this is the first I have heard of quite a detailed scenario."

― N. (nickdastoor), Wednesday, 26 November 2003 11:04 (twenty-one years ago)

It's all a bit sad really, it's quite hard to keep watching it, but it's all over the TV/news. I was wondering when the capital punishment argument would be wheeled out, it's just ridiculous. I don't think prison is a worse option than death for him, but what do I know. Either the system is hardly about finding a punishment etc etc etc.

― Ronan (Ronan), Wednesday, 26 November 2003 13:17 (twenty-one years ago)

I can understand why there's huge public interest when a child goes missing and there's a chance they might be found, but the massive coverage of trials like this really disturbs me, I feel like it's ghoulish, or that I'm being expected to be a ghoul, I don't see what benefit all this detail being obsessively picked over in the newspapers can achieve.

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Wednesday, 26 November 2003 13:25 (twenty-one years ago)

A public airing of the boogeyman.

To justify parental paranoia.

It's probably cathartic or something.

(Oh god, that was almost a haiku!)

― Citizen Kate (kate), Wednesday, 26 November 2003 13:29 (twenty-one years ago)

Trails are reliable news. They go on and on, but you only need to send one camera crew and for big london trials the journo can stay at home. Journalists like trials...

― Pete (Pete), Wednesday, 26 November 2003 13:32 (twenty-one years ago)

tico otm, the way things like this are handled in the press and on tv disturb me, but then it is a disturbing incident. what pissed me off was that on RI:SE (i know i shouldn't watch it but somehow it still manages to be more tolerable than what's on the four other terrestrial tv channels at that time in the morning and the TV is my best alarm clock) they had the newsreader mention what Huntley said about how the girls died then cut to a reporter who just repeats exactly what she just said - just so i have that image of the little girl falling to her death (?) in the bath firmly rooted in my head (not that it seems very likely it actually happened). hmph.

― stevem (blueski), Wednesday, 26 November 2003 13:34 (twenty-one years ago)

Huntley's spin is better/worse (delete as appropriate) than anything Alistair Campbell ever came up with, although about par with the South African police of the '70s ("Biko cut himself shaving" etc.).

― Marcello Carlin, Wednesday, 26 November 2003 14:17 (twenty-one years ago)

enrique - apologies, I assumed you were saying that prison wasn't punishment enuff.

I was sure I posted that earlier...wierd..maybe I put it on the wrond thread or summit....

― smee (smee), Wednesday, 26 November 2003 14:25 (twenty-one years ago)

three weeks pass...

Just in >> Ian Huntley - found GUILTY of murdering both girls.

Maxine Carr - NOT guily of Assisting BUT GUILTY of perverting the course of justice

― DJ Martian (djmartian), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 12:05 (twenty-one years ago)

Inevitable really.

― Ronan (Ronan), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 12:10 (twenty-one years ago)

...Huntley...has a history of being accused of sex with underaged girls

Humberside police ..are numbskulls they don't cross check his name change re: references from Cambridgeshire school for caretaker

― DJ Martian (djmartian), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 12:10 (twenty-one years ago)

'History of being accused of' != 'history of' I'm afraid. Them's the rules.

― N-Ri-K (Enrique), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 12:11 (twenty-one years ago)

11: 1 /re: jury verdicts for Huntley GUILTY

― DJ Martian (djmartian), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 12:12 (twenty-one years ago)

it'll be interesting to see if maxine carr gets close to ten years in jail or not.

― toby (tsg20), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 12:14 (twenty-one years ago)

11: 1 /re: jury verdicts for Huntley GUILTY

http://www.hillebrander.de/fonda/am3.jpg

― Wintermuté (Wintermute), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 12:15 (twenty-one years ago)

Yeah? That doesn't make accusations in the past any more than accusations. I don't want to get legalistic here, but that's the law, and one day you might find yourself on the wrong side of it.

xpost

― Enrique (Enrique), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 12:15 (twenty-one years ago)

how long? what about circumstances: re: Huntley's violent side of threatening Carr with GBH/ ABH

― DJ Martian (djmartian), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 12:16 (twenty-one years ago)

What's the difference between the two Carr charges?

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 12:17 (twenty-one years ago)

Er, Enrique, did you just xpost with yourself?

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 12:17 (twenty-one years ago)

Skipping 23 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

The upshot of which will be a slap on the wrist for the police and yet MORE bureaucracy for schools trying to hire staff on a temp or cover basis.

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 13:13 (twenty-one years ago)

Woop-de-doo for Dredd Blunket. When I was at the NHS the check-ups (run by Capita, famously useless) delayed appointments by six months, disastrously affecting intake of new staff. First line of the BBC article you linked to:

From the mid 1990s he targeted young girls - yet they never had enough evidence to stop him.

Don't you see the contradiction? In legal terms -- I mean yes, he was probably guilty, but the law can't function on that kind of basis.

― Enrique (Enrique), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 13:16 (twenty-one years ago)

It's so obvious Enrique's right, people could keep falsely accusing someone and thus damage their right to a fair trial at some point in the future.

― Ronan (Ronan), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 13:18 (twenty-one years ago)

And not just them, or their right to a trial. In DJ Martian world all it would take is a few people making false accusations against me and my wife's teaching career would be completely fucked.

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 13:22 (twenty-one years ago)

...that is way out of order, Tico !

allegations need to be checked/ thoroughly analysed by a professional Police force.

If they turn out to be false/ malicious - of course then the Police should charge those scumbags for lying/ wasting Police time.

― DJ Martian (djmartian), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 13:36 (twenty-one years ago)

checked/thoroughly analysed => this is what we have trials for yesno?

― Ricardo (RickyT), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 13:38 (twenty-one years ago)

So you think the police should have charged Huntley's previous accusers for wasting police time??!!! Quite a turnaround DJ M!

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 13:38 (twenty-one years ago)

But DJ, you were saying that there's no smoke without fire? It seems that Huntley was investigated. Maybe not by the best, most professional police, but still.

If they turn out to be false/ malicious - of course then the Police should charge those scumbags for lying/ wasting Police time

Well, yes in cases of maliciousness -- but falseness? Hmmmm.

― Enrique (Enrique), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 13:39 (twenty-one years ago)

Also, I am not taking about the TRIAL, i am taking about systems/ checks, accurate record keeping and better police intelligence systems and inturn better policing!

― DJ Martian (djmartian), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 13:40 (twenty-one years ago)

i agree with martian that the police force in question shd be professional

― mark s (mark s), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 13:41 (twenty-one years ago)

no TOM, I am taking hypothetically about your malicious claims, re: making false accusations against me

― DJ Martian (djmartian), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 13:42 (twenty-one years ago)

cf 'serious fraud squad'

xpost with myself: what i mean is you can't tell a 'false' accusation easily from an 'unproven' allegation. to charge ppl for the latter would be a bit harsh, no?

― Enrique (Enrique), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 13:43 (twenty-one years ago)

TO MAKE IT CLEAR .....If the POLICE found that there was indeed MALICIOUS/ FALSE claims being made. which they discovered through effective POLICING, a case would then go forward to CPS

― DJ Martian (djmartian), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 13:46 (twenty-one years ago)

Which it would do, even now...

― mark grout (mark grout), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 13:47 (twenty-one years ago)

So, another trial? Would you take into account previous allegations that may have been made abt the alleged false allegator having made false allegations before?

― Ricardo (RickyT), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 13:47 (twenty-one years ago)

Shit, is allegator is even a word?

― Ricardo (RickyT), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 13:48 (twenty-one years ago)

I think they make shoes out of 'em in some US states.

― Enrique (Enrique), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 13:49 (twenty-one years ago)

NO !

― DJ Martian (djmartian), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 13:50 (twenty-one years ago)

So you'd only take into account allegations made abt sex offences?

― Ricardo (RickyT), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 13:50 (twenty-one years ago)

yes but what if it's just unclear or unproven on both sides, martian? this happens quite a lot - someone thinks someone's up to something, says so, there's an invesitigation, nothing can be proved, including malice

under your system, the accused still has a mark against his/her name: but the law in this country is "innocent till proven guilty" not "guilty till proven innocent", which you wd apparently prefer

― mark s (mark s), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 13:50 (twenty-one years ago)

If the POLICE found that there was indeed MALICIOUS/ FALSE claims being made. which they discovered through effective POLICING, a case would then go forward to CPS

Again, do you mean 'false' or 'unproven'? -- cos 'false' is a very difficult concept here.

― Enrique (Enrique), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 13:50 (twenty-one years ago)

what if the police suspect it's malicious but can't prove it? in the martian system, accused AND accuser wd then both have marks against their name

― mark s (mark s), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 13:52 (twenty-one years ago)

first was not guilty of being actively involved in assisting / planning the murder
second guilty of covering up the facts AFTER the event : e.g LYING to THE COPS about whereabouts/ circumstances

is this right? i was under the impression that the difference between assisting an offender and conspiracy to pervert here was the issue of whether or not she knew that he was guilty when she lied to the police.

anyway, 3.5 years is pretty standard for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice; i wonder if the tabloids are going to kick up a fuss about the length of her sentence, though?

― toby (tsg20), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 13:52 (twenty-one years ago)

I reckon the source system problem was with Humberside Police - did they do their jobs effectively? re investigating effectively each allegation.

― DJ Martian (djmartian), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 13:56 (twenty-one years ago)

There are so many issues being discussed on this thread - that there are cross wires.

― DJ Martian (djmartian), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 13:58 (twenty-one years ago)

yes, Toby - that is what the bbc reporter said.

― DJ Martian (djmartian), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 14:01 (twenty-one years ago)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3301589.stm
The jury believed her and found her not guilty of assisting an offender but guilty of the lesser charge of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

― DJ Martian (djmartian), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 14:07 (twenty-one years ago)

i dont think her sentence should have been any longer. interested in tabloid reaction though. what is next for her though, life is going to be difficult here surely?

― charltonlido (gareth), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 14:45 (twenty-one years ago)

I bet she'll change her name and become a teacher somewhere else...

― HRH Queen Kate (kate), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 14:47 (twenty-one years ago)

Fuck, is that a veiled thing or what? I've decided to be newbie for life and not know ANY history that exists betwixt long-term posters...

― Enrique (Enrique), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 14:59 (twenty-one years ago)

(name self-deleted) is actually Myra Hindley!

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 15:00 (twenty-one years ago)

Isn't she a teacher? Carr, that is? Sorry, I was under the impression from news reports that she also worked at the same school as Huntley.

The BBC story said that Huntley had changed his name in order to get his position. Makes sense that she would do the same thing.

― HRH Queen Kate (kate), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 15:04 (twenty-one years ago)

do you mean abroad kate? i mean, shes going to be recognised in the uk? though maybe not, would any of us recognise beverley allit, or the bulger killers now? it is interesting which people stay in the public memory and which dont in cases like this. often it can be if someone is, i dont know, iconographic. i have a feeling people wont forget her face, but they might his, because he is very 'everyman', but also because women tend to get remembered more, possibly because of societys 'shock' that a woman could be related to this in any capacity

― charltonlido (gareth), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 15:07 (twenty-one years ago)

Watching the news-conference, i don't agree with my reaction when i started this thread. Some tabloid hack just asked (Holly's dad i think) about the death penalty, and he deflected it quite properly.
As other posters have mentioned, Huntley really is going to get his deserts now and for many years to come, a horiffic punishment by anyone's standards, and certainly more of a deterrant to prospective
child-murderers out there.
I still find it incredible (and slightly implausible?) that Huntley should have invited both girls in with the intention of commiting abuse - it's beyond me to understand how he thought he could possibly get away with that, but we're not dealing with a rational individual here. What a fucking monster.

― pete s, Wednesday, 17 December 2003 15:10 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't know. If she keeps a low profile and doesn't sell her story to the tabs, she might do with a makeover and a namechange. I do feel sorry for her, she's guilty of bad taste in men as much as anything else. The Myra Hindley comparisons are way off. But who knows how the public will remember her, as you say.

― HRH Queen Kate (kate), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 15:11 (twenty-one years ago)

Maxine Carr was a teaching assistant, not a teacher. I don't think she stands a chance in this country.

I couldn't even tell you the name of person who killed, say, Sarah Payne or Milly Dowler. That Maxine Carr will forever be in the public conscience like Myra Hindley seems rather unfair given that she didn't actually kill anyone.

(xpost with Kate)

― ailsa (ailsa), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 15:11 (twenty-one years ago)

I am interested in the reaction that her much printed "I am not going to be held responsible for what that thing in the box has done" - quotes like that are high drama for newspaper editors and the sort of thing that public perceptions hinge over, surely?

But obviously many people will brand her an evil calculating childkiller no matter what.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 15:15 (twenty-one years ago)

She was a classroom assistant.

Charltonlido is right. People will remember the linkage of her and Huntley long after the verdict on her has been forgotten. I do feel sorry for her: lying to protect somebody you thought was innocent is something I could imagine myself doing.

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 15:16 (twenty-one years ago)

I mean, if this exact same scenario had been a storyline in any popular British soap opera, the viewers would be willing for the Carr character to get off - if we assume that both verdicts were correct, and that Carr was telling the truth throughout the trial, that is.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 15:18 (twenty-one years ago)

Pete it makes more sense if (and that's 'if' Enrique!) he'd got away with similar things before. Most child abuse is committed by people the children know and most child abuse goes unreported for just that reason.

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 15:21 (twenty-one years ago)

Don't worry Tico, I was playing legalistc devil's advocate, I mean yeah, he probably *was* guilty of the previous crimes, realistically.

― Enrique (Enrique), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 15:26 (twenty-one years ago)

Well i guess so. Maybe he was arrogant/confident enough to think he could have his fun and still influence the two of them (i'm also making the assumption that he didn't intend to kill them at the start - aware this could be very naive).

x-post with Tico

― pete s, Wednesday, 17 December 2003 15:28 (twenty-one years ago)

Fuck it, the "Shout for the Moderators" thread is making *ME* pro-Capital Punnishment right now!

― HRH Queen Kate (kate), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 15:35 (twenty-one years ago)

'Angin's too good for 'im......

― pete s, Wednesday, 17 December 2003 15:41 (twenty-one years ago)

Huntley's excuses and explanations for what happened were so unbefuckinglievably lame that I can't believe the trial even lasted as long as it did.

― anthony kyle monday (akmonday), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 16:11 (twenty-one years ago)

This thread is like Tim Dowling's Guardian chatroom spoof.

Tricoteuse, yes.

― N. (nickdastoor), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 16:51 (twenty-one years ago)

three years pass...

Surely 'the media coverage of the Soham trial is making me pro-capital punishment' unless you're actually there, in which case, sorry.
-- alext (alext), Wednesday, November 26, 2003 9:31 AM (3 years ago) Bookmark Link

scuse me while my MIND GETS BLOWN.

i was a sassy young thing.

― That one guy that hit it and quit it, Monday, 10 September 2007 19:24 (eighteen years ago)

very good revival.

― blueski, Monday, 10 September 2007 20:17 (eighteen years ago)

thanks

― That one guy that hit it and quit it, Monday, 10 September 2007 20:22 (eighteen years ago)

This thread feels all strange and naked without a discussion about LJ, doesn't it? :-/

― StanM, Monday, 10 September 2007 20:43 (eighteen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.