MAXINE CARR

Generally, I think you're right. I've tried to put this argument to people myself and their eyes just widen and that 'he's supporting CHILD-MURDERERS!!' look comes over them.

I don't have any admiration for the woman but, in the same situation, if my partner asked for an alibi, I'd probably provide one. Nobody wants to believe that the person they love is capable of that.

However, it seems taboo to even sympathise with her plight in any way, but really, what did she do that was so wrong? Or that isn't done 100s of times a day by many other oppressed women?

Top boffins or no top boffins: justice has not and will not be served on this occasion.

But equally, the media love a witch hunt and Maxine Carr unfortunately is very easy to cast as the witch (in the same way that the tabloid press could hardly have a more obliging hate figure than Abu Hamza), maybe its those dark piercing eyes.

"I am not going to be held responsible for what that thing in the box has done to me or those children" was a great, media friendly soundbite and moment of good court drama. I think Carr knew this - it'll be interesting to see whether she disappears altogether and gets a new identify, or whether she stands her ground and fights for her name.

Why not just repeal all murder laws? Kill who you think deserve it. Accused of murder? Guilty by association? Formed an opinion without hearing evidence or following court cases closely? What the heck. And if it .... rant rant etc...

er no, she's quite a bit more than that. i don't advocate placing the law in the hands of anyone but the legislature, nor do i believe she should be castigated in the same way as huntley, but neither do i believe our own bad experiences give us absolute licence to do what the fuck we want, however dimwitted (this is what i think she is, not evil) and not take responsibility for it.

Over and out...

Having protection/new ID seems to have worked for Mary Bell. Its the price of civiisation, I guess..

Penalty commensurate to crime? Probably, but we were in the lucky situation that her failure to come forward/tell truth did not allow further crimes to be committed. There is a reason why conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and/or perjury carry such heavy sentences after all.

That said her housing benefit diddling is a drop in the ocean.

Even if she were the victim of "male abuse" doesn't excuse what she did. But all the indications are that she did what she did because of love for (or at least emotional dependancy on) Huntley and not out of fear. If fear played a role it was to make her do the right thing in the end. Without her fear of severe punishment for conspiring to pervert the course of justice Huntley might have been harder to convict.

Yes, I have some sympathy for her, insofar as many people are probably capable of collusion to cover up a crime by the person they love, even if that person has turned out to be a monster. But no matter how difficult it was, she was faced with a decision where the morality was clear, and it is one of the functions of the criminal justice system to encourage the right choice in those circumstances by punishing wrong ones. One can have pity for her because she was in the grip of very strong compulsions but then so, no doubt, was Huntley and I'm not excusing his behaviour either.

This is a punishment which far outstrips her crime. And if you say you cannot sense the strong whiff of misogyny from the coverage this has been given in the tabloids, then I can only assume you're being disingenuous in the extreme.

it's just baffling the constant reassurance the tabloids will engage in when they pick on someone, EVERYONE is seemingly better than them and suddenly a member of a society unified by "outrage" etc etc.

Who even knows what those two women with the sign were convicted for? It's totally ridiculous. I agree the decisions Maxine Carr made had grave personal consequences, and accept the decision of the court that she committed a crime, but I see no purpose nor do I acknowledge the right of tabloid newspapers, their readers, or anyone else to consider themselves better than her.

but misogyny is oh so awful and working-class isn't it...

Why do you assume that I'm middle class for a start?

I'm not sure about "unevolved pondlife" - I think there *is* a classist tint to the phrase, if only because I remember the "laugh at the proles" mockery that spewed forth from so-called liberals in the wake of the Paulsgrove paedophile riots, despite the actions of the rioters themselves. But maybe that is my inference, maybe I'm setting up straw men here, but its as strong as the inference of misogyny from where I'm standing.

Well, we'll never know, but it seems to me a not unreasonable inference that she may be. She appears to have assisted Huntley in covering up at least one of his previous sexual crimes. She helped him establish a new identity in a new location. She was the medium through which he established a relationship with the girls, knowing he had a record of sexual activity with underage girls and had changed his identity to conceal his track record. Her initial response after the girls went missing was to provide him with an alibi. It's pretty tempting to assume that Huntley did what he did in the belief that Maxine would support him whatever, and to suspect that if he hadn't he may not have been able to do it.

The courts have to deal in hard evidence. Innocent until proved guilty. That's the nature of the justice system, and as it should be. At a personal level individuals make judgements based on probability and supposition. Many people suspect that Carr understood Huntley better, and was more complicit in this crime than there will ever be hard evidence to prove.

Carr is more a victim of the misogyny of the press than of Huntley. He's not going to get out so the nearest they'll get to witch hunt is through the witch. It's the olde virgin/whore dichotomy at work i'm sad to say. I'm also glad to see that I think they've slightly misjudged this one; I don't detect the hatred for her that was felt for Hindley.

This, surely, (along with the media) fuelled people's misconceptions that she was as much to blame as Huntley. Which, for the record, she wasn't.

I also asked about this "Does anyone know? Have I completely missed the point here?"

i.e. any lawbods / lawboffins out there who can explain this?

did i assume you were. the "calls inference" is not an inference, it's an incontriuvertible fact. you talk of tabloid pares and their readers. the vast majority of tabloid readers are wroking-class. live with it.

The idea that people are 'evil' against the idea that people are capable of 'evil'.

I simply resent the tendency to alienate criminals through constantly attempting to place a moral value on their actions. The courts are populated by human beings, who can only be expected to judge when it is safe to allow someone out of prison.

It's this system which is inclusive and has some hope of rehabilitating people. You're the only one showing contempt here hidayglo.

(x-post)

and what is the best way to characterize the people who throw themselves at police vans with suspects in? or the portsmouth people who attacked a pediatrician?

is carr at risk from the general public? should released criminals have to run the risk of vigilantes, or non-legislative punishment? should the consequences of criminal behaviour be legal only, or do people who have served their time deserve the same protection as everyone else?

I can't be arsed to argue with anyone who has such an obvious classist agenda. You're welcome to your bigots and your tabloids, seeing as that's where you seem happiest.

xpost

this was the matter in hand - right at the top of the thread.

The preconceived, mass media image of women is that they are not supposed to behave into this way, especially towards children - this is what fascinates about Myra Hindley and Rosemary West. The safe middle-England mindset does not like to think that a woman could possibly become embroiled in something like this - women are "supposed" to be maternal, protective (Carr herself was a helper at the girls' school), they're not supposed to cover up for their boyfriends in an investigation into the disappearance of two children.

Maxine Carr walks into a pub.

Ian Huntley walks into a pub.

Now estimate the percentage of people that would recognise each.

No, I'm not the person who came up with the term "unevolved pondlife".

"I just resent the constant implication that the justice system is built on punishment."

Well, you may not think it should be. But it is. Your notion that it is not (or ever could be) is just a fantasy. Under the system you suggest murderers and rapists who were unlikely to reoffend would escape punishment altogether. Petty criminals unlikely to resist the temptation to reoffend would be incarcerated forever.

The primary reason for punishment is to act as a disincentive. The theory is that people are less likely to murder, rape etc if society punishes them severely for doing these things. That for every Ian Huntley there are a number of potential Ian Huntleys who don't cross the line between fantasy and action because they are terrified of the consequences.

A secondary reason is that society wants revenge on people like Huntley and Carr. This may be an atavistic impulse, and one of the less noble aspects of human nature. But it is widespread and powerful (one of the reasons the press can tap into it to sell newspapers). I hate to see these impulses being fanned into flames by the tabloids, and I hate to see them being pandered to by populist politicians. But on the other hand I don't think you can wish them out of existence or entirely deny their expression if you want to continue to live in a liberal democracy. Carr did not get early parole because the government felt that her early release would cause the criminal justice system to fall into disrepute. I think the government was right. Part of the criminal justice system's function is to rationalise and (partly) civilise the mob's lust for revenge. If it disregards that lust altogether it will find other and more dangerous outlets, whether in mob violence or in the election of hang-em, flog em politicians.

(This is not an academic point. There is a simple reason why Straw has out-Howarded Howard as Home Secretary. Votes. Put a government in power that thinks it can treat the likes of Maxine Carr as a petty criminal deserving a rap on the knuckles followed by a nice hug and it will be an ex-government fairly damn quickly).

This could easily have happened with Maxine Carr. Would public opinion turn round in a reasonable time frame? Prob not.

I just mean the scenario could develop that way.

A murderer who will not reoffend poses no ongoing danger to society.

A burglar who knows no other way of earning a living and has no intention of giving up presents an ongoing danger to society.

According to your stated beliefs, no point in punishing the first. So, under your regime, if Joe Schmo is not generally a violent person but has such an obsessive loathing of his unfaithful wife that he wants to kill her he may as well go ahead - no fear of punishment under your criminal justice system.

(Of course Blunkett is present Home Sec - my mistake - Straw and Blunkett have consecutively out-Howarded Howard, though, so the basic argument holds.)

Do you think there can actually be a concrete assessment that "this man won't reoffend" or even more odd "this man will definitely re-offend". You're dealing in absolutes. I fully acknowledge that it's not a perfect system however I believe assessement of someone's danger to society is far more trustworthy than trying to quantify how wrong or evil their crime is.

Also surely any normal court would find Joe Schmo who "is not generally a violent person" but then KILLS HIS WIFE is in fact a danger to society. What a ridiculous example.

this is because the criminal justice system isnt merely about keeping society safe, and its not just about deterrent either, it also does perform, as hidayglo says, a retributive function, a function that is necessary for society to feel healed. the danger is when this retributive function is not carried out by the legal system, but by the populace.

this retributive aspect is cathartic for society, but the danger is when it hasnt seen to have been carried out to societies satisfaction, and thats where the dangers of vigilanteism occur. but for it to work, society must accept that when a sentence is over, it is over, they have no role to play. the slate must be wiped clean on release. this is where the tabloids irresponsibility in fanning (and, in many cases, creating, flames is disappointing)

Now you're right that someone somewhere has to make an assessment, and they can't know/prove what's going on in the murderer's mind. But suppose that they (correctly) believe that the murderer is set up for life and won't kill again (or is no more likely to than you or me).

My goal is this devil's advocacy is to say that in some circumstances your rule would let murderers off, not that it always would.

xpost gareth OTM

Gareth is also OTM when he says "society must accept that when a sentence is over, it is over". For that to be the case the population need to feel that the criminal justice system reflects their own values. Allowing serious criminals to go unpunished because they "don't pose a threat to society" won't achieve that. I think the criminal justice system can (and should) try to soften our more primitive desires for revenge but it's an idealistic fantasy to think it can ignore them altogether.

Andrew also OTM, although I would further say that Ronan's proposal implicitly assumes a reasonably efficient means of identifying who is a "danger to society" or it is meaningless. It should correctly identify therefore (and refuse to punish) murderers, rapists etc who are unlikely to reoffend.

The Care and Re-settlement of Offenders - Classic / Dud

Selling lies is not press freedom
By Roy Greenslade

It was inevitable that certain newspapers would claim that the life-long anonymity granted to Maxine Carr by the high court is a threat to press freedom. As so often, when the popular press bleats about its so-called rights being whittled away, it is really complaining about constraints on its ability to do just as it likes.

In the case of Carr, that means the ability to identify her, publicise her whereabouts and, inevitably, harass her and intrude into her privacy. Such information would also enable vigilante justice to be meted out by people who have been encouraged - by those same papers - to believe she is evil.

We know it would happen because there have been at least six incidents in which people mistaken for Carr have been assaulted and abused, sometimes by mobs. There have also been threats to her life aired in internet chatrooms.

Tabloids such as the People and the Daily Express - two of the worst offenders - would like us to believe that revenge plays no part in their editorial agenda. They merely wish to inform their readers of the facts and it is not their fault if the public misbehave.

The facts? They cannot be serious.

As the court was told, many of the stories published in recent months about Carr are wholly false while others that do contain a kernel of truth have been exaggerated and distorted.

Can never did go away on a "drink fuelled weekend" with a boyfriend.

Nor, as the Sun claimed, was she rescued from a mob in a helicopter at a cost to the taxpayer of £15,000. She was not enjoying, as the Daily Mail alleged, a pampered lifestyle. She most definitely had not been involved in negotiations with a publisher to write a book for Lim, or indeed any amount.

In the latest example, the Sun ran a splash story headlined "Mad Maxine shaves head". Her solicitor, Roy James, says unequivocally that this is untrue.

Given so much evidence of false stories (none of which, incidentally, has ever been corrected by the papers), how could editors be relied on to provide the facts? All that, and there is much more of the same, is exacerbated by the context in which the stories have been presented. For example, the Suns shaven head story also gloated over the fact that the woman had "gone to pieces~ It claimed she had had a nervous breakdown, which is yet another untrue allegation (though it is fair to say that she is in a fragile state, which is hardly surprising in the circumstances).

Many of the tabloids leading articles about Carr have been vicious and hyperbolic, equating her with Myra Hindley and whipping up the kind of public hysteria guaranteed to incite misguided people to take the law into their own hands. The Daily Express last week referred to her having "committed an abominable crime" and said she "got off so lightly" that she "does not deserve taxpayer-funded protection". She should therefore live with "the stark and brutal consequences" of what she did. This must surely rank as one of the most callous and irresponsible statements ever made by a national newspaper. By implication it seeks to legitimise vigilante action against her.

Her crime involved lying for a man with whom she was infatuated. She foolishly tried to cover up for him. She did not murder the two girls at Soham. nor did she aid and abet their murders.

She was tried, convicted and served her time. The law has run its course but the papers - and people heavily influenced by the reactionary views of such papers - refuse to move on. The tabloid kangaroo court does not believe in the concept of repentance and rehabilitation so it continues to persecute Carr.

It is interesting that almost every paper is exercised by the fact - well, alleged fact - that it will cost £50m to protect Carr for her lifetime. Yet, needless to say, no editor would admit that the huge cost of guarding Carr from the public is entirely due to the way in which newspapers have portrayed her.

Like Mary Bell before her, and the two boys who killed James Bulger, Can is a prisoner of the tabloids. It was sad to see in Fridays Times a commentary by its legal editor, Frances Gibb, in which she suggested that "some lawyers" (unnamed) were concerned that these exceptional cases marked another step towards "a new privacy law by stealth".

They do no such thing. They mark another step in the downhill march of standards in the popular newspapers.

Even with the injunction in place, it is clear that papers will continue to make Carr's life a misery by retailing tall tales about her. It is a truly sickening prospect.