Petition for poor little Arthur

I'm all for it. Shockingly, apparently.

Me too. Where rehabilitation is a possibility, jail would be appropriate but these 2 will never be rehabilitated sufficiently to allow them to be any where near a child again.

If we still had the death penalty the father would not have hanged, he was not charged with murder

If we still had the death penalty the father would not have hanged, he was not charged with murder

We don't have it so it's not really worth discussing, apart from the fact the the female wouldn't be killing again.
He would have been charged with murder, ideally, but that also isn't on the cards, sadly.

The recordings of that poor little boy put me in mind of Moors murderers Myra Hindley and Ian Brady. Arthurs’ killers should face the same fate - life should mean life.

I am sure the crown prosecution service thought about charging him with murder but decided that manslaughter was the correct charge. They had more information than we have. Better that he is found guilty of manslaughter than being found not guilty of murder.

Germanshepherdsmum

My concern is rather more focused on the 21 years meted out to Hughes. I have said before that if he behaves himself in prison (and survives long enough) he could be out on parole in less than 10 years with time spent on remand being credited against his sentence.

Yes, that is extremely worrying; he could be out and impregnating more women in 10 years.

I don't know why he was charged with manslaughter - does incitement to murder carry a longer sentence?

I hope their sentences are reviewed and increased to whole of life and for any others who torture and kill defenceless children.
Tony's Law will not be applied retrospectively as far as I know. Tony's biological parents should have their sentences increased too imo.

Rehabilitation? Some criminals will never be rehabilitated.

Yes, although it lets him far too easily.

If the father is released will he be monitored for the rest of his life? The thought that he could become a father again, quite likely by an unstable woman given his history, and be allowed unsupervised access to a child is frightening.

No, once his sentence is complete he will no longer be monitored. Unlike a sex offender.

I guess the CPS considered that manslaughter was the charge most likely to succeed. Despite what we heard of the ghastly phone messages, conspiracy to murder would probably have been considered less likely to be proved. The last thing they wanted was an acquittal.

Well, I'm sure he would be monitored, but that is only as good as the system in place and relies on people to join the dots.
Plenty of crimes have been committed by people who are being monitored.

I'm not sure how the land lies, because he will have served his sentence for manslaughter, how ethical would it be to then present him with a list of things he mustn't do, including ever having a relationship again?
He will be "rehabilitated".
What a joke!

Conditions can be attached to release on parole but once the sentence is complete it would be a breach of his human rights (ha ha) to be monitored.

Thank you.
I suspected as much.
Despicable.

Germanshepherdsmum

Conditions can be attached to release on parole but once the sentence is complete it would be a breach of his human rights (ha ha) to be monitored.

How did they manage to re-arrest Pitchfork?

(Not sure re-arrest is the right word.)

He was on parole and breached the conditions attached to it, apparently the most stringent ever imposed (thank goodness). He had been given a life term with a minimum of about 30 years, at which point he was eligible to apply for parole.

I moved across town 14 years ago, I was told a man who had been charged and found guilty of sexually abusing children had recently been housed in a property which my grandchildren had to pass to visit me.

I admit as a police widow I made an off the record telephone to
the local station. It was explained to me that they could not
discuss it, to do so would a breach of human rights.

Pitchfork was a double murderer, so was monitored, I presume, on his release.
Went straight out to try again as soon as he was released.

For those who are rehabilitated then they should be able to live in peace (or even those who aren't, I suppose)
Until or unless they reoffend.

I think that if a man has a powerful urge to murder women for sexual reasons then as long as he’s capable he will always have those urges. Murdering in temper or as part of criminal activity is dreadful but to murder for no reason, apart from some sick gratification, is, in my opinion, something that can’t be changed.

When they finish the sentence they were given but not if they’re released on parole which might be halfway through or less. If they breach parole conditions they can be recalled to finish their sentence so monitoring is important (though I suspect in many cases it’s carried out pretty ineffectively due to lack of police resources).

Thanks GSM, MissA

Sorry that was to MissA.

I read an interview with someone who had shared a cell with this creature when she was on remand, apparently she was telling everyone she was in there because her boyfriend had abused his son. When it was found out what she was really being held for other prisoners threw salt at her and laced her food heavily with salt. The only time she cried was when she returned from a remand hearing and said her boyfriend hadn't looked at her once!

I also hope both their sentences are increased but even more I hope that "lessons" really will be learned and no other child suffers as little Arthur did.

Thanks GSM.

I agree with you, tickingbird
100 percent.