Baby P's killer goes free after just two years

[electro_fan]

I couldnt find a good place to put this so i may as well put it here??

am i the only one really angry about this?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2030473/Anger-Baby-Ps-family-lodger-jailed-death-freed-walk-streets-just-years.html

Meanwhile the british state, is locking people up for trivialities such as stealing £3.50 worth of water, or that guy who just wants to walk around the country naked !! I don't understand why people like him get such short sentences and people who have hardly done anything wrong are being locked up all the time?

[electro_fan]

anyone got anything to say on this topic?

[#FF0000]

I'm kind of indifferent.

[electro_fan]

its kinda sick though that scum like him get let out to walk the streets but yet the state is locking up people for stealing water??

[electro_fan]

I'm kind of indifferent.
if you don't mind me asking, why?

[Chairman Wow]

You certainly are 'on a dangerous path' using terms like 'subhuman scum'.

As for the case, it's a testament to the failures of the prison and justice systems that a two-year sentence is seen as too lenient.

Also I'd suggest that there are many people who contributed to the death of that child that escaped any form of punishment whatsoever, but that's another story.

[electro_fan]

huh, you are complaining about what terms im using to describe him, but he beat a kid to death and raped a two-year old girl, and he was also a nazi! how else do you think he should be described? and yes, it's probably wrong to describe him in that way, but when i first read the story i was extremely angry and it just made me feel fucking sick??

i also fully agree that plenty of peiople involved in the case weren't given any punishment at all, but they should have been. as you say that's another story though. you can't just punish them and not the person who actually did it though?

i find it crazy that his sentence is so short but yet rioters are getting locked up for stealing water and the like, and there are so many laws about property or about disobeying the government, or about doing things that contravene "law and order" like that poor guy who's just been put back inside for not wanting to wear clothes, but yet people like this get left to walk the streets and commit more murders. to me it shows what the state's priorities really are in these matters.

do you really think that two years is long enough to rehabilitate someone who behaves like this, surely it's just going to make them come out worse at the end of it? why are you saying it's "seen" as too lenient, surely if someone can be jailed for 20 months for stealing water then someone who actually kills someone should be given a longer sentence, it shows how little worth the state puts on human life compared to property?

[Chairman Wow]

Well if you would like to deal in facts, he didn't rape the girl, or at least was not convicted of doing so and you can't deal in assumptions on the subject of imprisonment, everything has to be proven. He was convicted of causing or allowing the death of a child, but cleared of murder (how does that work? i'm the wrong guy to ask). I understand being angry at the story, but remember there are people who condemned the rioters as 'subhuman scum' too, and I'm sure many of his fellow National Front members use similar terms.

I agree with you entirely about the inconsistency of the law and how a case like this results in a similar sentence to someone stealing some food.

But I can't agree with this 'lock up the subhuman scum, keep em off the streets!' attitude, because it's counter-productive, in my opinion, and comes from people who see punishment as far more important than rehabilitation.

Two years should be long enough to rehabilitate anyone. If I took you away for two years of your life and put you in a cell I'm sure you wouldn't see it as lenient. Two years is a very long time, particularly in a prison environment.

But, and this is the crux of the issue I think, people don't trust the system to rehabilitate. That's why it's seen as lenient. When people assume that an offender will re-offend when they come out of prison, any fixed-term sentence will be seen as too lenient, because people don't trust the system to rehabilitate them anyway.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Has anyone ever thought that perhaps the degree of media outrage was a factor in the early release? I suspect that this person will find it extremely difficult to get a job, and his circle of friends is likely to be very limited as well. How does keeping this man locked up for decades improve that situation? At least out of prison he will have a better chance of becoming a decent citizen.

Even if he's out of prison, I doubt very much that he is outside of scrutiny.

[electro_fan]

but the fact is that we don't have a justice system that can rehabilitate people like him. honestly, i am quite sceptical that some people can ever be rehabilitated, let alone in two years, in which case it's not so much about punishment but about protecting people from harm which may be affected by their actions. how many times do you hear about someone being locked up for domestic violence say, and then getting out and murdering their ex wife or husband. we don't have a way to cure such people so isn't it better that they are locked up for longer, or at least closely watched after their release, which never seems to happen?

we dont know how the brain works to that extent that we can cure someone, and he probably wouldn't want to be cured anyway. it's very doubtful that people like that can be rehabilitated at all, as he had a string of convictions to his name already, and especially not under capitalism and the system we've got now. i agree with trying to rehabilitate people but i don't think two years is long enough, it's not long enough to do anything, and people like him are very good at convincing everyone that they have truly changed and will not do it again, but eventually they do. and given that, shouldn't the public be protected until they are no longer a threat?

he was jailed and got let out early after a six-year sentence?

if you or i committed a crime, then i can almost guarantee it would not be as bad as what he did. the majority of crime committed in this country is low level and petty, and the majority of it is crimes against property, or else, someone getting in a stupid drunken fight. i don't think that all crimes should be treated the same way, because not all crimes are the same, some are basically just mistakes and the people who commit them should just be treated with compassion, but i dont think that's the case here

[electro_fan]

Has anyone ever thought that perhaps the degree of media outrage was a factor in the early release? I suspect that this person will find it extremely difficult to get a job, and his circle of friends is likely to be very limited as well. How does keeping this man locked up for decades improve that situation? At least out of prison he will have a better chance of becoming a decent citizen.

Even if he's out of prison, I doubt very much that he is outside of scrutiny.
i suppose, but like you say, we don't have an adequate system in place after his release. we don't have adequate structures in place to stop them reoffending, and in some cases they just reoffend anyway. and to be honest i dont know if i'd want to take the risk with someone like that, because of what they were capable of in the past, i don't think it's worth letting them out to give them a chance only to have them do it again, or commit a worse crime afterwards. it just makes me angry that he's been let out to make way for some teenager who stole some trainers or something, it doesnt really seem right.

[#FF0000]

if you don't mind me asking, why?

because public outrage over this kind of thing always seems really self-righteous and stupid.

[electro_fan]

i take your point about it being self-righteous, but i dont think it is stupid. i think that it's perfectly understandable that people are angry about the disparity of the sentences, which only seem to be about what benefits the state and "order". i also think that it is perfectly understandable that people are worried about these type of people living near them and possibly posing them a danger.

i dont believe in the death penalty and he shouldn't have been locked up forever, but i do think that he should have got at least 20 years or something, not 2.

[brigadista]

i take your point about it being self-righteous, but i dont think it is stupid. i think that it's perfectly understandable that people are angry about the disparity of the sentences, which only seem to be about what benefits the state and "order". i also think that it is perfectly understandable that people are worried about these type of people living near them and possibly posing them a danger.

i dont believe in the death penalty and he shouldn't have been locked up forever, but i do think that he should have got at least 20 years or something, not 2.

uk "justice system" is rehabilitative not retributive [like the US system].
As to this killing if you look on the NSPCC website you will see that it is a common offence, more common than you may think.

Most dangerous violent behaviour towards women and children is from their relatives or partners so how would the perpetrators pose a danger to other people who are not their children or partners?

I really don' t see how putting someone away for 20 years isa solution especially in overcrowded prisons on 23 hour bang up.

Maybe if we had a more cohesive and caring community these crimes and behaviour would be less likely but a caring and cohesive community under capitalism especially under a right wing Gov in a recession is highly unlikely and these crimes occur due to brutalisation that is caused by poverty under capitalism.

[electro_fan]

but not all poor people, or drug addicts, commit crime, and as i said, the majority of crime in the uk is low level theivery, fraud, drugs, and stupid drunken fights. most people in prison or serving community service sentences are not bad people, they just made a mistake, or they are mentally ill, so i don't think that you can treat this type of crime as being the same. why do you think there is such revulsion between ordinary prisoners and the people who commit these types of crime, because it's not the same at all. it's not normal.

i have a cousin who was a drug addict and she would never harm a baby, plenty of drug addicts sort themselves out after having babies. i agree that the chaotic lifestyle and the fact that they came from such shit backgrounds contributed to their actions, but i dont think that it excuses it at all. and its also a bit deterministic, because there are people who have suffered terrible abuse as children and never gone on to hurt anyone.
there are also people who have never had any problems and gone on to commit terrible crimes, so i don't think it's as simple as saying that poverty causes crime. and even most people who commit crimes such as dealing a bit of pot on the side or fiddling insurance claims and the like, or punching someone in a bar when they are drunk, will never do something like that, because there is a difference.

and yes, i am aware that it is a common crime and happens more often than you'd think, and i agree that there should be more resources to help people who are under extreme stress with their kids, which may mean that intervening in this type of case may be possible, but i just don't think that someone who has done this sort of thing once will ever go to jail for a few years and come out magically changed, and never present a threat to public safety again. and i am quite sceptical that this will ever be so, not just because of capitalism, but because science isn't capable of understanding everything about the human brain yet, and because these people are frequently so good at appearing normal, to the extent that they can go to rehabilitation classes and all that they will learn is how to fake emotions better, rather than actually learning to feel remorse.

i honestly don't know how you treat someone like that. it seems to me that you cant just put it down to poverty, or them being mentally ill, as many of them are perfectly happy the way they are and dont think that they're ill. so what do you do? I dont know.

[Chairman Wow]

Well, if it is your belief that some criminals can't be rehabilitated, let me ask you this, what difference does it make whether the sentence is 2 years or 20 years? If this person is naturally going to re-offend then the length of the sentence isn't going to act as a deterrant, so surely by giving him a longer sentence you are just delaying an inevitable crime anyway. Do you think he should be locked up for life?

[electro_fan]

i don't know, is my honest answer. i don't know whether he'd even fit in that category, and i'm not a psychiatrist so i wouldn't be able to say, i do think however there is a difference between what he did and what most people who are convicted of crime have done.

*he* probably shouldn't be locked up for life imo, no, because as you said earlier there is no evidence to suggest that he was the actual killer and there are questions over what part he did play, whether his role was actually taking part in the abuse or "just" neglect and failure to act (which iirc was one of the original charges). therefore it possibly would set a bad precedent to lock him up for the rest of his life, I think 20 years would probably be enough though (or would be enough if we had a better system in place). i have no problem with the other two being locked up their whole lives tho and hope that they have a miserable time in jail.

but i do think that some murderers should be locked up for life yeah, or anyone who commits crimes against children. and i think each murder should be judged on its merits rather than setting a single sentence for every time someone kills someone, because sometimes there are mitigating circumstances involved which make it understandable that someone would take that course of action. i dont see whats controversial about that tbh.

[brigadista]

electro fan - biological determinism isn’t the answer to why these type of crimes occur-

its socialisation- hard to cope with I know but there are some impoverished people that are damaged and this damage leads them to commit these type of crimes -

just because there are poor people who do not commit these type of crimes does not mean to say that some poor people do not become brutalised, because there are no intervening factors in their lives- i am not excusing this crime but trying to explain it-

people do not all have the same response to brutalisation- for example you can b e brutalised and have a support system by way of your family , teachers friends these are interveners- some people don’t have any interveners .

Also the ruling class myth of the perfect nuclear family perpetrates the myth that everyone cares for their children[even the ruling class abuse their kids]

Please be aware that not everyone has a child because they choose to - for too many reasons.

Using you example of victims of abuse not becoming abusers – well sorry but some do….

[electro_fan]

i know ... even the ruling class do abuse their kids - which is kind of the point i was making. i know that poverty contributes to it, but that can't be the only reason.
i know that biological determinism isn't the reason why they occur, i don't believe that people are born evil or any of that shite, but how can you just end up thinking it's normal and there's nothing wrong with what your doing? you're right that some people have interveners and from reading the backgrounds of the families, it's clear that they didn't have that (or that they were powerless to do anything). but how do you intervene earlier - which i wish could have happened here?

i don't know how this sort of thing could be prevented under communism or socialism although i guess that the people who were meant to be taking responsibility such as social workers and doctors, i guess they wouldn't be so overworked so they'd be able to do their jobs properly?

but what do you do with them? its clear that the prison system or anything else that they might try to rehabilitate them with currently would be useless. if you sent these people to a class or some therapy or something they would probably just laugh at you. so what do you do, besides locking them up to protect the public and ensure it doesn't happen again? i honestly don't know, i wish i had the answer.

im not trying to come across as some reactionary or something, i just think that while the system should try to rehabilitate people where possible , sometimes it just isn't possible (under the current system anyway), and it might have a worse effect than intended. if you just sent them to some classes about parenting or something they probably would go to the classes, pretend to do the work and be laughing at it and have no intention of acting on the teachings. so what do you do then? i honestly dont know. i know locking them up indefinitely isn't going to stop different people from doing similar things again, but i cant see any other way and i think that they should be punished for it

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

because public outrage over this kind of thing always seems really self-righteous and stupid.

Erm, he killed a baby.

I know it's Socialist orthodoxy to oppose stories like these just because their natural home is probably the Daily Fail, but c'mon, this should draw a reaction out of any human being. The guy is a fucker and is out after 2 years.

I'm what you might call (if you are one of these pro-Capital Punishment and Gulag types) a social liberal in that I believe in rehabilitation and not sending people to jail unnecessarily, but even I find this outside the bounds of moral righteousness.

If that makes me self-righteous and stupid, then so be it.

[electro_fan]

Exactly, I don't understand why you'd be indifferent to it? Disagree on what should be done, yeah, but indifferent??

[electro_fan]

exactly

[#FF0000]

Erm, he killed a baby

hey, it's just how i feel. any twinge of emotion i might feel just disappears as soon as I picture some doughy self-righteous moron having a conniption fit over it in front of a type writer or in front of a camera to get a rise out of people to drive up readership or ratings.

[electro_fan]

so anyone who's concerned and upset about this sort of thing is a "doughy self-righteous moron"? how is it self righteous to be upset over someone deliberately torturing a baby to death, and plenty of people being in a position to do something about it which they didn't, and then them being given completely inadequate sentences while some poor fucker steals some water and gets given a criminal record for life? it doesn't seem fair? it seems like the state cares about its own prestige and about giving the impression that it's "orderly" more than about life, hence why all these cover ups go on, and why they are putting people in jail over things they've written on facebook, but not caring about stuff like this??

there've been plenty of moral panics over the years about hysterical mobs of (mostly) working class people, supposedly attacking people over this type of issue, and much of it has turned out to be a complete fabrication

[brigadista]

there would be something seriously wrong with a person who was not revolted by the facts of baby P's terrible short life and death

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Caging a person for life, even if the bars are padded, does not strike me as having rehabilitative potential. I think we're starting to use private prisons here in the UK, which does not bode well either.

[#FF0000]

so anyone who's concerned and upset about this sort of thing is a "doughy self-righteous moron"?

No. I'm talking about people like (in the US) Nancy Grace. Jesus, read my post again, please.

[electro_fan]

umm, it seemed perfectly clear to me the first time. nice of people who cry about creatures like this being "caged for life" (i havent even suggested that this guy should be locked up for life) to characterise people who don't want these people in their community as "self-righteous" and "doughy" (wtf, is that the same as "pasty faced"??)

i do, btw, fully agree about "grief porn" and people using this type of stuff to push up ratings, which doesn't really end up helping anyone

[#FF0000]

umm, it seemed perfectly clear to me the first time. nice of people who cry about creatures like this being "caged for life" (i havent even suggested that this guy should be locked up for life) to characterise people who don't want these people in their community as "self-righteous" and "doughy" (wtf, is that the same as "pasty faced"??)

that isn't what I said, silly.

[Bronco]

The response that is often shown to crimes like this normally disgust me almost as much as the crime itself. Yeah it's terrible what he did but at the same time I hate how we instantly have most the population and all the national newspapers baying for blood and sensationalising the whole thing with the usual buzzwords; evil, scum, monster etc.

We'll never get anywhere just by mercilessly condemning and simply being guided by emotional knee-jerk reactions of anger and bloodlust, that won't solve anything.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Even so, the above post is the sort of post that is really out of touch with popular opinion, and we need to be careful not to come across as bleeding heart liberals, as it's not necessary, because many social liberals are nothing to do with our movement.

We need to show we aren't always playing politics and that we do understand the natural human emotions of retribution and revenge. We just need to, calmly, point out that they are wrong, rather than denying there is any reason for their existence.

[electro_fan]

i agree, but i don't think that it's always wrong to want to get retribution or revenge. like shouldn't people be held accountable for their actions at times? i'm not talking about someone who shoplifts due to a drug habit and then manages to sort themselves out or something, im talking about serious crimes. like shouldn't they be held accountable for whatever they've done?

like with this guy, or anders breivik. i don't think that it's wrong that they should be punished, i don't think they should be put to death or anything, but surely they should learn that what they've done has consequences and they can't go around and do whatever they want?

[Demogorgon]

Erm, he killed a baby.

I know it's Socialist orthodoxy to oppose stories like these just because their natural home is probably the Daily Fail, but c'mon, this should draw a reaction out of any human being. The guy is a fucker and is out after 2 years.

I'm what you might call (if you are one of these pro-Capital Punishment and Gulag types) a social liberal in that I believe in rehabilitation and not sending people to jail unnecessarily, but even I find this outside the bounds of moral righteousness.

If that makes me self-righteous and stupid, then so be it.
It certainly stirs horror in me, however when you look at the punishment, you have to think clearly. Remember three people were convicted of crimes relating to this case and the one who has been released is the one who was convicted of the least serious offences and was given the shortest sentence. The one who was convicted of the rape for instance is serving a life sentence for it and won't be out any time soon. The mother will be in fail for a few more years as well.

None of this minimises the horror of what happened, but courts should and do look at what people's involvement was and give the most involved the harshest sentences. You can't have people with lesser involvement being punished equally to the most culpable.

[Demogorgon]

Even so, the above post is the sort of post that is really out of touch with popular opinion, and we need to be careful not to come across as bleeding heart liberals, as it's not necessary, because many social liberals are nothing to do with our movement.

We need to show we aren't always playing politics and that we do understand the natural human emotions of retribution and revenge. We just need to, calmly, point out that they are wrong, rather than denying there is any reason for their existence.
You want to be careful about being out of touch with popular opinion because the sad fact is that popular opinion is sometimes flat out wrong. I agree we need to try and explain carefully why these views are wrong, but we cannot frame our own outlook around what is the popular view.

The desire for retribution and revenge is natural, but so is the temptation to commit crimes in the first place and comes from much the same emotions. I suspect that the same social causes that are responsible for crime make so many people want brutal retribution for said crimes.

[Bronco]

Even so, the above post is the sort of post that is really out of touch with popular opinion, and we need to be careful not to come across as bleeding heart liberals, as it's not necessary, because many social liberals are nothing to do with our movement.

We need to show we aren't always playing politics and that we do understand the natural human emotions of retribution and revenge. We just need to, calmly, point out that they are wrong, rather than denying there is any reason for their existence.

So what if it's out of touch with public opinion, the fact is so is our whole idealogy as leftists. I'm not really too fussed when the Daily Mail readers slap the "bleeding heart liberal" tag on me, they do that to anyone who even suggest rehabiltation is possible, I have no desire to pander to that crowd.

Sure it's natural for people to feel disgust and anger, but that doesnt mean that is a sound basis for judging a suitable punishment when it comes to a crime like this. It's not just the mentality of the public we should be looking to understand, it is also worth trying to show some understanding to the offender himself, instead of purely showing condemnation.

And as has been pointed out above, it's important to remember he was charged with a lesser offence than the other two, not murder, and it's oversimplistic to just label him a "killer" and create a moral equivilancy between the three offenders