boyfriday Posted August 4, 2010 Author Share Posted August 4, 2010 Yeah,they keep raising his hopes by giving him ones with "From 2 to 4 years" printed on the box... LOL, very good truman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geraldo Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 I guess that some people regard the fact that Sutcliffe is behind bars still , being refused release still, is a success for our justice system. IT IS NOT! He should never even be allowed the right to appeal. He has cost this country millions of pounds and is still alive, still laughing at the system. He has claimed damages (a six figure sum) at least once for injuries sustained in prison. While ever he is still alive, still breathing, still appealing, still costing us money, HE is winning! We are the losers! He should be long since dead! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IamChiChi Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 I don't blame him. He's got nothing to lose has he. I'd do the same if I was in his position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geraldo Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 That quite clearly isn't true, as he wants out of prison and he has been refused. And of course he should be able to appeal, the same as anyone else that has been convicted of a crime. In fact i bet there are a few people who quite like that he can appeal so that his hopes can be raised then dashed again. I disagree. His human rights should have finished when his prison sentence began. He is too expensive to keep and should be put down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IamChiChi Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 I disagree. His human rights should have finished when his prison sentence began. He is too expensive to keep and should be put down. ...but you are referring to the death penalty, which is a whole different debate completely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 I disagree. His human rights should have finished when his prison sentence began. He is too expensive to keep and should be put down. People said the same of Stefan Kiszko; and if right to appeal were revoked upon sentencing, he and many other innocent people would still be inside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geraldo Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 People said the same of Stefan Kiszko; and if right to appeal were revoked upon sentencing, he and many other innocent people would still be inside. So? .....sometimes... happens! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 People said the same of Stefan Kiszko; and if right to appeal were revoked upon sentencing, he and many other innocent people would still be inside. Are you suggesting Peter Sutcliffe is innocent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 Are you suggesting Peter Sutcliffe is innocent? I very much doubt it. On the other hand, I was entirely convinced that Kiszko was guilty, and I was wrong. Since neither I nor anyone else is psychic, and nobody knows which convicted felons have been wrongly convicted, we need an appeals process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 I very much doubt it. On the other hand, I was entirely convinced that Kiszko was guilty, and I was wrong. Since neither I nor anyone else is psychic, and nobody knows which convicted felons have been wrongly convicted, we need an appeals process. I can't remember so this is a genuine question..did he appeal straight after his trial..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.