Because then, even if battalions of psychiatrists swear on a stack of Bibles that he’s as mad as a hatter, it’s really because he’s a misogynist:
The so-called Yorkshire Ripper, the notorious serial killer who murdered at least 13 women and left another seven for dead, is back in the news.And what’s wrong with that? Is this the first time in recorded history a Guardian columnist hasn’t wanted due process for a crime?
On Monday, his lawyers won a ruling from a high court judge that a hearing should be held to set his tariff – the length of time he should serve before being eligible for parole.
In Sutcliffe's mind, the streets were filled with vermin – women – in need of elimination.Well, yes.
And the ‘Son of Sam’, David Berkowitz, took advice from his neighbour’s talking dog. He was a fruitloop too.
The attacks carried out by this misogynist were the most extreme hate crimes imaginable.Ummm…
Sutcliffe did not go on a killing spree because he had some sort of moral objection to women in prostitution, as was suggested at the time by much of the media, and since, by authors and commentators, but because he hated women.Thank you for that insight, Dr Bindel. It IS Dr Bindel, isn’t it?
It isn’t? Oh, right then….
If the murders of Ian Banyam, the gay man kicked to death in Trafalgar Square, and Stephen Lawrence, the young black man stabbed to death by racists, are viewed as hate crimes, why are the sex murders of women seen as the actions of individual madmen, rather than an expression of deep-rooted, institutionalised hatred of women?Because a whole raft of medically qualified people took a good look at him and made that little ‘twirly’ motion with their finger at their temples, I suspect…
For the sake of Sutcliffe's survivors, such as the brave Marcella Claxton, who was bludgeoned with a hammer in 1976 and still suffers from blackouts and headaches, we should never let this man see the light of day again. It would serve no purpose to release him.Wow, this is new. A Guardian columnist claiming that, for the sake of the victims, a notorious criminal must be kept behind bars until he dies.
I wonder what her position on Aileen Wuornos is?
…Sutcliffe's crimes were so heinous, and his remorse so absent, that he should never have the privilege of freedom. The lawyers representing him will argue that they are merely ensuring that his human rights are exercised.A lot of people say the same. I suspect, though, it’s for entirely different reasons to you, Bindel…
I say, let him die in jail and rot in hell.
And I can’t let this little factette pass without comment:
In a way, Sutcliffe is partly responsible for me becoming a feminist…Blimey! He should get a few extra years for that alone!
Longrider also touches on this, and points out the offensive suggestion that “legions” of men are harming women and children...
6 comments:
I'm not sure I agree that Sutcliffe was a nutcase- he didn't claim to be hearing voices from God until about three months after he was caught.
Furthermore his supposed illness didn't seem to prevent him from leading a seemingly normal life when he wasn't murdering.
Ian Brady (himself a sadistic psychopath, but undeniably without any of the bizarre schizoid delusions claimed for Sutcliffe) gives his own verdict on Sutcliffe in his book The Gates of Janus. He claims (for what his opinion is worth) that the man is totally unhinged, virtually incapable of coherent conversation. This could, of course, be the result of the battery of powerful psychiatric medication he has been put on, rather than any pre-existing condition.
Of course Sutcliffe's wife Sonia (to whom he has always been devoted, contra Bindel's cartoonish distortion of his personality, which in fact seems to be much more disturbing than she is capable of imagining (with her own obvious stunted ability to empathise meaningfully with any other human being)) is a bona fide schizophrenic, so he certainly knew what symptoms he needed to exhibit to be diagnosed as such.
Murder motivated by pathological sexual sadism, like other crimes driven by a perverted libido combined with a stunted empathic sense (such as sexual abuse of children), has never been addressed with adequate comprehension by the legal system. An offender of this type who (like Brady, Dennis Nilsen... and Sutcliffe if he's faking it) does not suffer from the obvious delusions required for legal classification as 'insane' is then put in the same category as criminals motivated by greed, anger, jealousy and other common human drives. With the death penalty for murder, this would not be such a problem. Without it, there is a real danger of people like this - who are intensely aroused by the idea and act of murder, and unrestrained by conscience - being released onto the streets.
For what it's worth, we can at least be certain that Sutcliffe is no longer much of a threat, even if (grotesque and wrong though it would be if such a thing happened) freed from his cell and his chemical straitjacket - he was attacked by another inmate years ago and almost completely blinded. He is and will always be a predator, but he is largely incapable of effective predation.
Bullet.
Bullet.
This is indeed (at the current state of medical science) the only truly effective treatment for compulsive sex murderers, once they have been correctly identified as such.
There is an additional advantage to the availability of the death penalty which has been seen in many US serial murder cases - it means that there is an incentive for the killer to cooperate (for example, in the location and identification of victims' bodies), in the hope of plea bargains etc. reducing the sentence to (genuine) life imprisonment.
I've no idea when a nutcase is not a nutcase and this recent bit of news hasn't helped either.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8549608.stm
True, a lot of BBC producers need locking up but this one seems an unlikely candidate with so much competition.
To me he seems like a de nos jours carver of notches into the bedpost with perhaps a smidgen of extra digital perviness.
The BBC fails to report possibly the best bit, namely that the girlfriend was responsible for 'shopping' him and getting him sent down but has decided to 'stick by him'.
Good grief!
"Furthermore his supposed illness didn't seem to prevent him from leading a seemingly normal life when he wasn't murdering."
Which is something he has in common with a lot of other serial killers, isn't it?
"This could, of course, be the result of the battery of powerful psychiatric medication he has been put on, rather than any pre-existing condition."
True enough. Was he mad before, or is he just mad now?
"There is an additional advantage to the availability of the death penalty which has been seen in many US serial murder cases - it means that there is an incentive for the killer to cooperate..."
Good point.
"To me he seems like a de nos jours carver of notches into the bedpost with perhaps a smidgen of extra digital perviness."
A prison sentence for this, and nothing for the chap in my latest post?
Good grief indeed!
Post a Comment