Tuesday, August 11, 2009

Baby P's killers: Rewarded with life

Today, the ban was lifted and the faces of evil unveiled for the world to see. The perpetrators of so much grief, woe, pain and suffering, were splashed across our newsstands for the first time. Today we saw the faces in all full horror, of those who were responsible for leading little Peter into a life of sorrow, where all he saw was the strike of a hand, and torture in his short 17 month-long life.

Not an ounce of kindness did he receive. Only in death did this beautiful child receive the love he ought to have had in life.

He was just a letter, P. Only now can he be named as Baby Peter.

And how does the justice system deal with monsters, Tracy Connelly and Steven Barker who looked on and took part in the breaking of Peter's back and punched him so hard that he swallowed a tooth?

Not guilty ... of murder. Instead Connelly, was sentenced for allowing his death and may be out, free to walk the streets after a mere three years. Her lover, Barker, is signed up for 12 years behind bars, plus another ten for the raping of a child.

50 injuries Peter endured in his little life under the watch of these two. But for their crimes, and for taking away Peter's life, they have been rewarded with life.

Their lives haven't been cut short in a blood stained cot, alone. They are allowed to live and thrive and spend just a short spell fed, clothed and watered by us.

If ever there was a reason to choose the noose, this would be it.

For the protection of the innocents, we must as a country take tougher and severe steps to stop evil and misdemeanour. Only with the death penalty can we put an end to abuse and really give them what they deserve ... and it certainly ain't Sky TV in their jail cells.

A life for a life. An eye for an eye.


Benjamin Gray said...

First, Tracey Connolly won't be released unless she demonstrates that she is no longer a threat to the public. Given the high-profile nature of the case

Second, although it was neglect in the extreme, she was not the murderer, and convicting her of such would have been unsafe, and grounds for an appeal under which she would walk free. Her responsibility, though clear, does not satisfy the criteria for murder. That's why she was convicted on the charge of causing or allowing the death, rather than a deliberate, direct act of premeditated murder.

The death penalty in practice is pretty far removed from the fantasy most people entertain of it. Death row costs disproportionately more than life imprisonment (in California it works out at around $90,000 per prisoner), even though a near-majority of those sentenced to it will die before their execution date.

Wrongful convictions are inevitable, but the death penalty makes it irreversible. The result is an even greater undermining of public confidence in the judicial system. The safeguards that would have to be put in place extend the length of the sentence so greatly as to make it almost worthless.

Most importantly, there is NO evidence that the death penalty protects the public. In fact, all credible studies have pointed the other way: that areas with the death penalty have _higher_ murder rates.

Anonymous said...

Dear Benjamin,

Firstly, how exactly do you envisage that Tracey Connelly will demonstrate that she is 'no longer a threat to the public'? By saying 'boo hoo' to a panel of liberals? Also, I don't think that she is necessarily a threat to the public per se now. She is a disgusting excuse for a human being who has played her part in a hideous case and must be punished.

Secondly, it wasn't 'neglect in the extreme'. She is reported to have laughed when her Nazi lover broke her son's back and at the description of his injuries in court. That is a pretty weird definition of 'neglect'. Try sadism.

I find it rather arrogant that you presume to know what 'fantasy' most people hold of capital punishment. Oh excuse me oh enlightened one. And public confidence in the judicial system (judging by the many forums on the Internet etc) couldn't really be much lower right now.

I could go on but I can't really be bothered.

Steven_L said...

Sod the noose, fry them, that'd ruffle a few feathers.

blame the social workers said...

look at constantly furiouses post at baby p - the victims. he says the doctors and social workers who let this happen are going to tribunals and demanding their jobs back and demanding compensation!!

that makes me nearly as angry as their original cock-ups!!!


Benjamin Gray said...

Incidentally I didn't complete my first paragraph: it should have read "given the high-profile nature of the case, there's virtually no chance she will serve just the minimum tariff.


1. Look up what an IPP actually is before carping on about "panels of liberals";

2. You may not consider her a threat to the public, but that's not TTG's argument;

3. It's neglect because she failed to intervene to stop the torture;

4. The fantasy is well-rehearsed by its proponents: a quick death that sates the public's desire for revenge, never gets exercised in a miscarriage of justice, costs less than actual life imprisonment and deters people from amoral acts of sadism and murder;

5. Don't call me arrogant when in your first paragraph you make a massive ignorant generalisation about a criminal sentence you clearly know nothing about, yet see fit to carry on talking about it regardless.

Benjamin Gray said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Benjamin Gray said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Benjamin Gray said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Benjamin Gray said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Andromeda said...

Why not spend nothing on these people at all?

Tracey Connelly doesn't care about her baby so we don't care.

Baby P would only have grown up into one of those boys who tortured Jamie Bulger to death. No great loss to society then.

So we don't need to pay for her incarceration.

And we don't want to pay for her protection either.

Salman said...

This is sensationalist, emotive, heart-string tugging crap. Just the sort of thing one might expect from a death penalty advocate. We all know the details of the case. We all know how badly he was treated by people who were supposed to care for him. But reading this post makes me cringe and not for the right reasons. Leave the tabloid fluff for the real right-wing journalists.

Andromeda said...

Cringe away, Salman, cringe away. You are going to get a lot more of this in the future, until we get back the death penalty again.

I suppose you are aware that most people want it?

Probably, because you are part of the liberal elite who have so effectively conspired to prevent the majority preference from being implemented.

Sneer at us all you want, but the writing is on the wall. The days of liberal extremism are now thankfully drawing to a close.

Salman said...

Liberal extremism? What on Earth are you talking about? I think I'm going to buy you a political dictionary for Christmas. In any case, I'm no liberal. If it makes you feel any better, I'm a commie.

Andromeda said...

Salman, perhaps I misunderstand you and we are really agreed on everything. Perhaps you would like to tell us your recommendations about what you would do to prevent another Baby P case?

Or will you surprise us all by saying that there is no problem as far as you can see?

Salman said...

Andromeda, of course there is a problem. And of course preventative measures need to be in place. And of course, when tragic events such as this occur, punishment needs to be carried out. Connelly and Barker need to be locked up, if for no other reason than to prevent them harming anyone else. What I am universally against, as a basic moral principle, is the death penalty. And what I object to is tabloid sensationalism, as evident in this post, and emotive writing attempting to whip up a fervour of public death cries by tugging on the heart strings. This case needs to be analysed rationally, and conclusions need to be drawn and measures put in place by experts and policy markers. Not by hacks or the whim of a vigilante public baying for blood. Or are you really going to suggest that laws should be based on the will of the majority? What if the majority wanted to put ethnic minorities in concentration camps? I suppose you and I could have a very lengthy debate about it behind bars. Least I'd have the satisfaction of being right.

Benjamin Gray said...

The death penalty achieves nothing other than satisfying the very impulses it is meant to diminish. There is no coherent evidence-based argument for it.

Andromeda said...

What impulses are you referring to, Benjamin?

Benjamin Gray said...