Yorkshire Ripper.

[Leekbrookgull]

Peter Sutcliffe is set to launch an appeal against his sentence. Sutcliffe hopes to use human rights legistaltion in a bid to have the lenght of his sentenced fixed. At the moment it stands as a minimum of 30 years.

 

[Skint Gull]

Peter Sutcliffe is set to launch an appeal against his sentence. Sutcliffe hopes to use human rights legistaltion in a bid to have the lenght of his sentenced fixed. At the moment it stands as a minimum of 30 years.

This piece of legislation is by far and away the biggest cause of social problems in this country!

 

[steward 433]

life should mean LIFE bring them out in a box

 

[Bars Mar]

Whether Or Not He Does Get Released It's Absolutely Scandalous That He Can Call Himself A Ripper.

Bludgeon - Yes. Hammer - Yes. Even Loon-haired Beadle-bearded Northern Pikey Scum But Ripper? No Way.

At Least The Real Ripper Was Southern, Had Panache And Style And A Signature Modus Operandi That Was Unique And Flamboyant.

And Look At The Candidates. The Southern Ripper Was Either A Doctor (messr Gull), A Well-known Artist (messr Sickert) Or Even A Member Of The Royal Family. That's Class, In Anybody's Book. The Northern Wannabee Was Thought To Be Some Grim Macca From The Wastelands Of Northumberland But Turned Out To Be A God-fixated Yorkie Lorry Driver.

Ours Had A Carriage, Cape, A Cane And Medical Implements. Yorkshire's Had A Cortina Estate, Fishing Waterproofs And A f***ing Hammer. What A Pillock.

Also, Our Ripper Only Attacked Grim Old Toms Who No-one Would Mind Nor Miss. As The Chief Constable Of Yorkshire Said At The Time, Old Sutcliffe Attacked Innocent Women Too.

The North - Can't Even Do Serial Killing Without Making It Look Crap.

 

[dannyboy]

quality work bars

 

[Leekbrookgull]

Mars, you mean Jack was a star performer ?

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Peter Sutcliffe is set to launch an appeal against his sentence. Sutcliffe hopes to use human rights legistaltion in a bid to have the lenght of his sentenced fixed. At the moment it stands as a minimum of 30 years.

When he was sentenced in 1981, everyone probably thought 30 years was a long way off.

I guess he'll get back to court sometime in the next three years. I guess he won't get back to Yorkshire as quickly.

 

[Leekbrookgull]

Don't bet against it.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

He'll never be let out. If you're the party in power, it's like sticking one nail in your coffin with one decision.

The point of his legal appeal is that it is a breach of human rights to have politicians set sentences (as has happened in his case). That should be the role of the courts.

I have to say I agree with that.

But an appeal on that basis doesn't mean he'll be released.

 

[surrey jim]

This piece of legislation is by far and away the biggest cause of social problems in this country!

totally agree, why should this peice of scum have any rights, a 6x10 cel should be suffice to spend the rest of his life in.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

No, because the courts COULD set his sentence as 60 years, in which case he'll be dead by the time it's up. Unlikely, but they could. What I don't see is how one man, Peter Sutcliffe, can win a case like this on his own. Is he really able to force politicians to hand such power back to the courts?

The principle has already been agreed by the politicians. They just haven't applied it in Sutcliffe's case - because he's banged up in a secure hospital.

Part of his case is that he wants to be sent back to prison.

 

[clapham_gull]

Peter Sutcliffe is set to launch an appeal against his sentence. Sutcliffe hopes to use human rights legistaltion in a bid to have the lenght of his sentenced fixed. At the moment it stands as a minimum of 30 years.

Not quite.

When he was imprisoned the judge recommended a minimum jail sentance of 30 years, since at the time it was up to the Home Secretary to come up with the "formal tariff" as it is known.

Because Sutcliffe failed to give a written submission, the official sentance was never confirmed.

The Home Office lost the power of sentencing in 2003.

Since then the courts have been working through any sentences given by the Home Office and are reviewing them. What also happened in 2003 is that it gave the courts the power to sentence people to be held indefinately and many prisoners have been retrospectively told they ain't coming out ever.

The Ripper has presumably been left out of this process, because he was never officially sentenced, but held under the Judge's recommended tariff.

Seeing as the whole life sentence (that wasn't available when Sutcliffe was sentenced) is described as such...

.. a whole-life order would normally be the starting point in any case where two or more murders are committed involving a substantial degree of premeditation, or sexual or sadistic conduct.

.... you can put money on him on him finding out soon that he'll never be released, all thanks to the Human Rights Act. That anti-social piece of legislation.

 

[clapham_gull]

Ah right, interesting, I didn't know that.

So I presume he wants to be sent back to prison so that he can, in effect, be given a number of years he has to serve there before release. I'm not exactly a court fan, so what's a likely time frame for him to be given? In 2011, he'll have served the "minimum 30 years," so what is a court likely to do from there?

It's highly unlikely he'll be released. You probably didn't catch post above. I'm not a legal expert, but I found out from a far less sensationalist article that was printed over a year ago.

The newspapers found out he wasn't on the list of people never coming out, simply because he wasn't being reviewed like the others.

 

[clapham_gull]

So who originally sentenced him, a court or the Home Office?

The judge gave a recommendation to the Home Office, but the Home Office weren't able to complete it because he refused to give a "written submission".

He's effectively been jailed under the judges recommended sentence and not the Home Office sentence (which should have happened at the time)

The ones given by the Home Office in the past are being reviewed and as I said, they ain't exactly letting mass murders out.

Possibly his Lawyers are trying to open a loop hole where his sentance actually was given by a judge and therefore he has served it ? Probably not as he's asking for a figure.

They will just say ok son - here's your sentence - it's "whole life" (where life does mean life)

Ripper being released does make a nie story, but I think the reality is a bit more complicated.

 

[clapham_gull]

Thanks, Clapham.

I'd quite like to see him released purely to see how long he'd last. I wonder, would it be minutes, hours, or days?!

You'd never know.

The Government would have to spend millions of pounds hiding him, which in itself would protect somebody else from attempting to murder him.

He is really worth having to go to prison for a very long time ?

No and far, far, cheaper to keep him inside.