| HAVE YOUR SAY |  | | | MAKEOVER FOR TOWN | | | | ELVIS LIVES! | | | | OLYMPIC LUCK | | |
|
|
|
University stirs up debate over child killers
RESEARCH into child killers by Bournemouth University has forced its authors into a contentious conclusion.
They believe "Ian Huntley-type" personalities should have to prove they are safe to live among us before they are let out of prison - even if they haven't killed anyone.
The authors, in a paper published last week, found they were 1,880 times as likely to kill a child as the average person.
Prof Colin Pritchard from the school of social sciences said: "It's against human rights - but these men frighten me.
"I am hoping the paper will start a genuine debate."
The research was based on murders investigated by two police forces in what the authors would only describe as "Wessex" and on coroners' reports.
Prof Pritchard and Tony Sayer looked at "VMCCSA" offenders - they used violence, committed multiple types of crimes (burglary and theft, for example), and were also child sex offenders.
They found these "Ian Huntley" style people were rare, with only around 900 in the country, and that only two per cent of them went on to kill.
But the researchers decided that anyone in this category should have to prove they were not a risk to the community before they were released.
Children are far more likely to die from natural causes, car crashes or to be killed by their own parents.
But as individuals, the VMCCSA men are deadly.
Prof Pritchard said: "However, this two per cent as a risk to children, is more than 300 times the rate of children dying from cancer.
"If we can identify such men before they kill, what to do about them?"
The paper was published in the British Journal of Social Work.
7:00pm Monday 28th April 2008
Print 
Email this 
CommentPosted by: HAL101, Bournemouth on 9:39pm Mon 28 Apr 08
Did not "VMCCSA" offenders use to be called 'homicidal psychopaths‘? Should they be locked up?
[bold]Yes![/bold] What is there to discuss - apart from the positive diagnosis?
Prof Colin Pritchard, from the school of social sciences, appears to be rather simple. How do these people get into positions of power? I hope that we do not pay these people for their 'research'.
Did not "VMCCSA" offenders use to be called 'homicidal psychopaths‘? Should they be locked up?
Yes! What is there to discuss - apart from the positive diagnosis?
Prof Colin Pritchard, from the school of social sciences, appears to be rather simple. How do these people get into positions of power? I hope that we do not pay these people for their 'research'.
Posted by: 2Much, New Forest on 6:29am Tue 29 Apr 08
totally agree with HAL, it's ludicrous to even contemplate releasing a child killer..killers have to prove they won't kill again before release?..how does that work?..people should prove their not child killers in the first place..by not killing kids!! "Ian Huntly Types" should hang..no question!
As for the research...getting a bit tired of researchers stating the bleedin' obvious! Just the other day on the radio...researchers discovered that 92% of house burglaries were committed by unemployed people...lol
totally agree with HAL, it's ludicrous to even contemplate releasing a child killer..killers have to prove they won't kill again before release?..how does that work?..people should prove their not child killers in the first place..by not killing kids!! "Ian Huntly Types" should hang..no question!
As for the research...getting a bit tired of researchers stating the bleedin' obvious! Just the other day on the radio...researchers discovered that 92% of house burglaries were committed by unemployed people...lol
Posted by: anselm, Pokesdown on 8:58am Tue 29 Apr 08
I think you've both missed the point here. While one would obviously agree that if one of these men has killed someone they should remain locked up, what Prof Pritchard is suggesting, as far as i can gather, is that all men fitting into this category (only 2 have murdered) should have to prove that they are not going to go on to murder after release for a more minor crime.
I'm afraid it is you who are simple if you cannot even grasp the basic gist of this article. I trust that that is not the case though.
I think you've both missed the point here. While one would obviously agree that if one of these men has killed someone they should remain locked up, what Prof Pritchard is suggesting, as far as i can gather, is that all men fitting into this category (only 2 have murdered) should have to prove that they are not going to go on to murder after release for a more minor crime.
I'm afraid it is you who are simple if you cannot even grasp the basic gist of this article. I trust that that is not the case though.
Posted by: laurie marsh, australia on 10:27am Tue 29 Apr 08
THIS IS DANGEROUS GROUND. IF THESE PEOPLE CAN BE CLASSED AS CRIMMINALLY INSANE THEY SHOULD BE LOCKED AWAY. THE CURRENT LAWS COVER THAT.
IF NOT, THEY HAVE TO PROVE THAT THEY WILL NOT OFFEND.
WHERE DOES THIS STOP?
SOCIETY HAS TO PROTECT ITS WOMEN AND CHILDREN BUT HOW FAR COULD A THING LIKE THIS GO IN THE WRONG HANDS?
THIS IS DANGEROUS GROUND. IF THESE PEOPLE CAN BE CLASSED AS CRIMMINALLY INSANE THEY SHOULD BE LOCKED AWAY. THE CURRENT LAWS COVER THAT.
IF NOT, THEY HAVE TO PROVE THAT THEY WILL NOT OFFEND.
WHERE DOES THIS STOP?
SOCIETY HAS TO PROTECT ITS WOMEN AND CHILDREN BUT HOW FAR COULD A THING LIKE THIS GO IN THE WRONG HANDS?
Posted by: 2Much, New Forest on 2:32pm Tue 29 Apr 08
[quote][bold]anselm[/bold] wrote:
I think you've both missed the point here. While one would obviously agree that if one of these men has killed someone they should remain locked up, what Prof Pritchard is suggesting, as far as i can gather, is that all men fitting into this category (only 2 have murdered) should have to prove that they are not going to go on to murder after release for a more minor crime. I'm afraid it is you who are simple if you cannot even grasp the basic gist of this article. I trust that that is not the case though.[/quote] "But the researchers decided that anyone in this category (Ian Huntley Types)should have to prove they were not a risk to the community before they were released"
Am i simple to believe that these men shouldn't be given the chance to "prove" themselves?
anselm wrote:
I think you've both missed the point here. While one would obviously agree that if one of these men has killed someone they should remain locked up, what Prof Pritchard is suggesting, as far as i can gather, is that all men fitting into this category (only 2 have murdered) should have to prove that they are not going to go on to murder after release for a more minor crime. I'm afraid it is you who are simple if you cannot even grasp the basic gist of this article. I trust that that is not the case though.
"But the researchers decided that anyone in this category (Ian Huntley Types)should have to prove they were not a risk to the community before they were released"
Am i simple to believe that these men shouldn't be given the chance to "prove" themselves?
Posted by: sisyphus, Newtown on 6:07pm Tue 29 Apr 08
Surely the issue here is not that the 2% should have to prove that they're safe to be let back into the community per se but how they can do it? My webname is quite appropriate here - pushing the boulder (which gets progressively heavier) back up the hill (which gets progressively steeper). In the current climate it's an unequal task, so the 2% will stay locked up. Mr Pritchard and his colleagues are just stating the obvious.
Surely the issue here is not that the 2% should have to prove that they're safe to be let back into the community per se but how they can do it? My webname is quite appropriate here - pushing the boulder (which gets progressively heavier) back up the hill (which gets progressively steeper). In the current climate it's an unequal task, so the 2% will stay locked up. Mr Pritchard and his colleagues are just stating the obvious.
Posted by: HAL101, Bournemouth on 8:24pm Tue 29 Apr 08
anselm, Pokesdown on 8:58am today
[quote]RESEARCH into child killers by Bournemouth University has forced its authors into a contentious conclusion.
They believe "Ian Huntley-type" personalities should have to prove they are safe to live among us before they are let out of prison - even if they haven't killed anyone.[/quote]
As they cannot do this the conclusion is impractical, unrealistic and a waste of tax money on pointless research.
The answer to the treatment and cure of the homicidal psychopath will be found via serious and formal scientific method; sometime in the future when social ‘sciences’ catch up with technological sciences, if they ever do!
In the meanwhile, they need to be caged for the protection of the civil liberties of the population as a whole.
anselm, Pokesdown on 8:58am today
RESEARCH into child killers by Bournemouth University has forced its authors into a contentious conclusion.
They believe "Ian Huntley-type" personalities should have to prove they are safe to live among us before they are let out of prison - even if they haven't killed anyone.
As they cannot do this the conclusion is impractical, unrealistic and a waste of tax money on pointless research.
The answer to the treatment and cure of the homicidal psychopath will be found via serious and formal scientific method; sometime in the future when social ‘sciences’ catch up with technological sciences, if they ever do!
In the meanwhile, they need to be caged for the protection of the civil liberties of the population as a whole.
Posted by: HAL101, Bournemouth on 8:28pm Tue 29 Apr 08
[quote]In the meanwhile, they need to be caged for the protection of the civil liberties of the population as a whole.[/quote]
Not the social sciences, but the homicidal psychopaths - or perhaps - ?
In the meanwhile, they need to be caged for the protection of the civil liberties of the population as a whole.
Not the social sciences, but the homicidal psychopaths - or perhaps - ?
What are these links for?
If you liked this article and would like to share it with others on the web who might be searching for good content we've made it easy for you to do it.
At the bottom of all articles, you'll see links to six sites. These sites - commonly called 'social bookmark' or 'social news' sites - have large communities of web users who share and rate interesting, useful and fun things on the web.
Clicking the links will automatically add the address of the story you are reading to one of these sites, letting you share it with others. Each site will ask you to register to share stories. Registration is free and once a member, you can store, recommend and search for stories that interest you.
More on Digg
More on del.icio.us
More on Furl
More on reddit
More on NowPublic/
More on Yahoo!
