Larry Murphy can roam free but women can't defend themselves?

A Primal Nut · 13-08-2010 03:31PM

Strata wrote: »

I'm not trying to deny the horrendousness of Larry Murphy's crime and I believe he should have received a longer sentence.

Anyway I'm going OT with the drink driving.

I'm not saying I disagree, however I think it is rediulous that if someone gets into a fight and accidentally kills someone they can get life, yet if someone puts a plastic bag over a woman's head who they has been stalking for a month, and because they are caught in the act before she dies; he only gets a 15-year sentence. I'm using the example of accidental murder for comparison purposes only. For the purpose of sentencing, the judge should have sentenced Murphy as if he had succeeded, which means life.

You see I personally don't think you "accidentally" kill someone if you fight with them. You're an adult and should be aware that the consequences of getting into a fight might be murder.

If LM was charged with murder though where do you draw the line in future cases? You can't charge someone with something they didn't do. It'd be like in Minority Report!

I'm not saying the guy who accidentally kills someone in a fight should not be given a life sentence. Its off-topic and I'm not going to discuss it further. I'm using it to compare the two cases, and I certainly think a Larry Murphy murderer should be viewed a lot harsher than the accidental spur of the moment murderer.

The guy had a plastic bag over this woman's head when two hunters came across him. Now, his defence might argue that he was just playing with her and would have let her go anyway, but, as much as law has to be based on proof, there should also be a reasonable amount of common sense, and it doesn't take a lot to judge what Larry Murphy's intentions were. There is more common sense required than when the judge assumes the victim didn't punch herself in the face and break her own nose, than assuming that Murphy would have continued were it not for the two hunters.

Thats before you take into account the "she got lucky" comment and her claims that he told her he would kill her.

Strata · 13-08-2010 03:39PM

A Primal Nut wrote: »

I'm not saying the guy who accidentally kills someone in a fight should not be given a life sentence. Its off-topic and I'm not going to discuss it further. I'm using it to compare the two cases, and I certainly think a Larry Murphy murderer should be viewed a lot harsher than the accidental spur of the moment murderer.

The guy had a plastic bag over this woman's head when two hunters came across him. Now, his defence might argue that he was just playing with her and would have let her go anyway, but, as much as law has to be based on proof, there should also be a reasonable amount of common sense, and it doesn't take a lot to judge what Larry Murphy's intentions were. There is more common sense required than when the judge assumes the victim didn't punch herself in the face and break her own nose, than assuming that Murphy would have continued were it not for the two hunters.

Thats before you take into account the "she got lucky" comment and her claims that he told her he would kill her.

Again I think this shows a huge flaw in the justice system. Attempted murder should be treated more seriously and receive a higher sentence than it does.

What concerns me (and I'm not accusing you of doing this) is the focus on this case only. Attempted murder in every situation should have a greater sentence than 15 years attached.

dolliemix · 13-08-2010 03:42PM

Canis Lupus wrote: »

Strange how murderers and rapists get out of jail all the time and until the media pick one case they can make a few headlines on these same people 'venting' are never heard of.

I think there are a few people in this thread who aren't venting at the system but just reading headlines and just having a scream that Larry may rape their cat. To be properly fair this thread has gone completely OT in relation to the OP.

What is that supposed to mean?

People read the headlines and react emotionally all the time. I find it sad that there are people on this thread trying to discredit others for seeing the emotional side to all of this. If I read about a woman being raped or any other crime of a similar nature, I will always feel angry and sad for the victims and their families.

I admit that I have lost sight of the OP but I find it incredibly sad that people will fight harder to defend the justice system and in the meantime lose sight of the actual crime and the victims of the crime.

Some people can read these articles without emotion and look at the whole picture with rationale and logic. And thats fine. But if you're the victim of a crime you will be emotional. I would hate to think that if I was the victim of such a horrendous attack that somebody would be shot down for voicing their concerns on the day my attacker was released.

Strata · 13-08-2010 03:48PM

Danniboo wrote: »

Strata wrote: »

How you can write off a drunk driver killing innocent roadusers as "some asshXle who thinks they're above the law" is beyond me. That's cold blooded murder in my eyes.

Have you actually watched the news or do you know anything about the case. No he's a perfectly sane, rational, human being. :rolleyes:

On what basis could he be imprisoned in a mental institution though? (Legally I mean). Is it just this man in particular you think should be imprisoned in a mental institution or rapists in general? What about murderers too? Where would you draw the line?

Canis Lupus · 13-08-2010 03:55PM

Danniboo wrote: »

:eek: Really? I'd be siding with the kids he molested, but then I have it all wrong don't I :rolleyes:

It's become clear from this thread why the likes of Larry Murphy are roaming free, because people are all about the criminal and less about the victim. How can people protest against the system when so many people are in agreement with them. If this is the future of the country I can see a lot more people taking the law into their own hands to seek justice.

No because you're repeatedly missing the point.

If we're taking that American case into account I would have wanted a longer jail term for the criminal in a hard prison and the same with Larry, 10 years is far too short a time for the crime.

I simply stated that I feel it is not right to see a person sentenced to a crime, doing the time and is then punished again upon release for the same crime PARTICULARLY when said punishment wasn't around when originally incarcerated. That's simply wrong imo.

drkpower · 13-08-2010 05:14PM

Dublinman12 wrote: »

drkpower has obviously never had any first hand experience in relation to serious crime, it seems to me like he/she's a keyboard warrior who's just swallowed the constitution. Lots of people on this thread are giving their opinions, knee jerk or whatever you may call it.

Do you need to have been raped to determine what sentencing policy on rape should be? What type of experience of crime do you think I should have? Let me know, and then i'll tell you my experience....!

Dublinman12 wrote: »

The level of arrogance you are showing on this thread is frightening, people are venting their frustrations with the current system which is obviously not working and the best you can do is state the obvious and recite what the law currently stipulates..

Yes, people are venting their frustrations; and that is it. Nothing wrong with venting, mind you, but when you are venting, you rarely add anything constructive. And that is the problem i have with most contributors to this thread.

drkpower · 13-08-2010 05:36PM

A Primal Nut wrote: »

The legal arguments came down to what defined a mental abnormality, which was required to keep someone locked up, with Kansas law preferring a very loose definition, which the American supreme court agreed with.

First up, your link is from 1997.... given it was such a hotly contested and contraversial SC split decision, it isnt at all certain if that is an accurate expression of the law. But anyway.

What this case concerns is not necessarily how you ensure that convicted rapists and murderers are dealt with on release. It is the legislation governing the treatment of the mentally ill. Thus, where these laws are liberalised excessively, the risk of people with relatively mild mental illnesses or even personality disorders being incarcerated, sometimes indefinitely, becomes very very real. People who are not criminals; people who have never committed a serious crime in their lives.

If this is the mechanism by which you advocate that offendors be punished, you are asking for a world of trouble. We have been down this road; excessively loose or liberal laws on the incarceation of the mentally ill (or the loose implementation of such laws) leads to incredible injustice. If you want to increase prison sentences for serious criminals, make prison tougher, Im with you; but going down the route of using laws meant to treat the mentally ill to incarcerate criminal offendors is the last way to go.

Captainship · 13-08-2010 05:40PM

Danniboo wrote: »

Hi,

I'm sure everyone is as outraged as I am about the release of Larry Murphy on "good behaviour".:mad: It just got me thinking, it is illegal to carry pepper spray/mace etc in this country yet we are expected to walk the streets with this monster roaming around, what are peoples views on this? Do you think women should be allowed to carry this to defend themselves, would you carry it anyways regardless of it been banned?

He will be shot entering my property!!

Jo King · 13-08-2010 06:01PM

I am not outraged. He did the crime, he did the time. End of story. Women will just have to be more careful.

A Primal Nut · 13-08-2010 08:27PM

Jo King wrote: »

I am not outraged. He did the crime, he did the time. End of story. Women will just have to be more careful.

Yeah because its the womans fault he stalked her for a month and creeped up behind her and punched her in the face.

I know thats not what you meant but its a silly thing to say.

A Primal Nut · 13-08-2010 08:35PM

drkpower wrote: »

First up, your link is from 1997.... given it was such a hotly contested and contraversial SC split decision, it isnt at all certain if that is an accurate expression of the law. But anyway.

What this case concerns is not necessarily how you ensure that convicted rapists and murderers are dealt with on release. It is the legislation governing the treatment of the mentally ill. Thus, where these laws are liberalised excessively, the risk of people with relatively mild mental illnesses or even personality disorders being incarcerated, sometimes indefinitely, becomes very very real. People who are not criminals; people who have never committed a serious crime in their lives.

If this is the mechanism by which you advocate that offendors be punished, you are asking for a world of trouble. We have been down this road; excessively loose or liberal laws on the incarceation of the mentally ill (or the loose implementation of such laws) leads to incredible injustice. If you want to increase prison sentences for serious criminals, make prison tougher, Im with you; but going down the route of using laws meant to treat the mentally ill to incarcerate criminal offendors is the last way to go.

The fact it is 1997 is an irrelevant point - its an example of the kind of thing that happens in America. The institution in California (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalinga_State_Hospital) is a more present example. It is not legislation for the mentally ill. Thats the point. They simply claimed serious peodophiles were mentally ill because the nature of their crime.

Personally I think it is impossible to define mentally ill because its all relative; im sure there are people in institutions who consider people like us to be the mentally ill ones. However I think people who commit these kind of crimes are different enough to warrant similiar treatment to a dangerously violent schizophrenic for example, in terms of how they are isolated from the public.

It is not how I advocate punishing offenders either; it is to stop high-risk offenders from offending again. This allows them to live better lives than they would in prison without being a risk to anyone. It may not be relevant in every case, maybe not even in the case of Larry Murray but if phychologists and other authorities believe he is a high enough risk to the public, then something like this may be the answer.

Permabear · 13-08-2010 08:43PM

This post has been deleted.

Denerick · 13-08-2010 09:27PM

I don't get what is so exceptional about this man. Rapists get released every year, and people move on and forget about it. Yet the media spin this story out of control, and the public lap it up.

I don't like rapists. I wouldn't let my children anywhere near one. But I don't like it when the media spin these hysterical scare mongering tales and the people eat it all up. Back to the circuses and X factor with you!

irishh_bob · 13-08-2010 09:34PM

whippet wrote: »

every day you are are walking amongst convicted criminals from petty thiefs, violent maniacs to sex offenders .... you are just not aware of them. They will have done there sentances for the crimes they were prosecuted for and are back on the street. The chances are these repeat offenders will have other crimes that they have not been charged or caught for.

Yet, due to a massive media storm regading a single individual suddenly we are been asked to live in fear and question the 'system'.

The reality of the situation is, LArry Murphy is one of hundreds of violent offenders who are released from prision every year after completing their sentance ...why the sudden up roar ?

I don't buy the nonsense that is drummed up to justify the rag top reporting about the remission of the end of the 15 year sentance. In five years time he would have gotten out after serving the full sentance and would still be the same man ....

Regardless of how you view this man, he has served his sentance which was imposed on him by the judicial system of the state and thus is entitled to live in free society. Its not nice, mainly due to fact that most media and 'guarda sources (to the media) have more or less convicted him of the 'missing cases', but you have to have a fair and equitable justice system.

There is a guy living up the road from my parents who is a total maniac and will probably end up killing someone in a fight or attack in the next number of years due to a drink problem. He has done a couple of stints in prison for petty things like assault, criminal damage etc .... are you suggesting we lock people up because we think they may do something in the future?

Larry Murphy will be watched very closly by all and sundry especially the guards, personally I feel the likelyhood of an other offence similar to his conviction is unlikely.

Ger Colleran of the Daily Star and others of his ilk have a lot to answer for, they are driving a mass public hysteria which isn't needed. The talk of people carrying mace and pepper spray incase they come accross one particualr individual ..considering there are thousands of other maniacs walking the streets the lenght and breath of the country.

1. the OP asked the question whether she should be allowed defend herself ( violently if need be ) against the likes of murphy , she never mentioned anything about the merits of his conviction or sentence or about any other convicted criminals , yours is an answer to a question no one asked

2. yes , i believe thier are people who should be locked up in case they seriously hurt someone , i have a cousin who will eventually make headlines and i would wish to see pre-emptive action taken against him

irishh_bob · 13-08-2010 09:35PM

Canis Lupus wrote: »

If it was allowed and I give you a gun will you kill him then or do you prefer other people to do your killing so everyone can stay safe?

I was going to start another thread on this. I have no sympathy for the man but at what point is a persons 'debt to society' considered paid?

in the case of larry murphy , never , im an agnostic but let his maker deal with him

Denerick · 13-08-2010 09:38PM

irishh_bob wrote: »

1. the OP asked the question whether she should be allowed defend herself ( violently if need be ) against the likes of murphy , she never mentioned anything about the merits of his conviction or sentence or about any other convicted criminals , yours is an answer to a question no one asked

If assaulted she is entitled to defend herself to the best of her ability. For public safety and common sense reasons she is not allowed to carry a lethal weapon, because more often than not people will misuse these and end up hurting somebody innocent (Or more often than not, themselves)

I'm sorry, but I'd be more worried about the kind of women who deliberately go out to buy a knife or pepper spray. Thats some serious paranoia.

2. yes , i believe thier are people who should be locked up in case they seriously hurt someone , i have a cousin who will eventually make headlines and i would wish to see pre-emptive action taken against him

Before they commit any crimes? How do you know the inner workings of someone's mind? Its one of the shames of our time that some people who look 'creepy' will be judged upon that their whole lives, without any other kind of evidence. We live in a civilised society, we don't put people in jail unless they're actually guilty of something. We also believe that criminals have the ability to reform themselves - its a fundamental aspect of our justice system. In many cases they don't, but in many they do. If even one ex-con goes on to contribute positively to society, then that is the mark of a healthy, progressive and virtuous society in my eyes.

dolliemix · 13-08-2010 09:46PM

Here's more food for thought for those of you who believe people are over reacting to this case and that some women who would like protect to themselves are paranoid.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/the-unsolved-mysteries-of-the-dark-and-lonely-dublin-mountains-137345.html

irishh_bob · 13-08-2010 09:47PM

Danniboo wrote: »

He should at least be put in some sort of institution for the mentally ill, for life.

they dont do that anymore since the liberals took over the whole area of mental health , havent you heard of CARE IN THE COMMUNITY

Denerick · 13-08-2010 09:48PM

dolliemix wrote: »

Here's more food for thought for those of you who believe people are over reacting to this case and that some women who would like protect to themselves are paranoid.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/the-unsolved-mysteries-of-the-dark-and-lonely-dublin-mountains-137345.html

Three things:

1) 'OPINION PIECE + THE INDO'

That is all.

2) Yes, ye (As in the collective tabloid reading classes of Ireland; predominantly female and predominatly hysterical about these sorts of things) are over reacting.

3) Yes ye are paranoid if you are going to start taking knives and pepper sprays along with you to your local pub.

Denerick · 13-08-2010 09:50PM

irishh_bob wrote: »

they dont do that anymore since the liberals took over the whole area of mental health , havent you heard of CARE IN THE COMMUNITY

Come off it. Yeah, the Liberals are so bad. Imagine NOT locking people up with relatively mild anxiety disorders for life, with no promise of relief, away from the judgemental eyes of society, and mixed in with people with serious mental illnesses and disorders? Yeah, the bloody Liberals. Imagine putting an end to an era when the mentally ill were quietly locked into prisons, away from the 'civilised community'. :rolleyes:

irishh_bob · 13-08-2010 09:54PM

Denerick wrote: »

If assaulted she is entitled to defend herself to the best of her ability. For public safety and common sense reasons she is not allowed to carry a lethal weapon, because more often than not people will misuse these and end up hurting somebody innocent (Or more often than not, themselves)

I'm sorry, but I'd be more worried about the kind of women who deliberately go out to buy a knife or pepper spray. Thats some serious paranoia.

Before they commit any crimes? How do you know the inner workings of someone's mind? Its one of the shames of our time that some people who look 'creepy' will be judged upon that their whole lives, without any other kind of evidence. We live in a civilised society, we don't put people in jail unless they're actually guilty of something. We also believe that criminals have the ability to reform themselves - its a fundamental aspect of our justice system. In many cases they don't, but in many they do. If even one ex-con goes on to contribute positively to society, then that is the mark of a healthy, progressive and virtuous society in my eyes.

sorry , i was refering to mentally ill people

my cousin is mentally ill due to having suffered a brain injury in a car accident as a kid , hes a paranoid religous fanatic who is prone to violence , he has turned on family and neighbours and is convinced jesus is arriving next friday , he went around telling anyone who would listen last october that satan was running the lisbon campaign , i want to see people like him locked up but thats a different thread

irishh_bob · 13-08-2010 09:56PM

Denerick wrote: »

Come off it. Yeah, the Liberals are so bad. Imagine NOT locking people up with relatively mild anxiety disorders for life, with no promise of relief, away from the judgemental eyes of society, and mixed in with people with serious mental illnesses and disorders? Yeah, the bloody Liberals. Imagine putting an end to an era when the mentally ill were quietly locked into prisons, away from the 'civilised community'. :rolleyes:

locking them away from normal society was civilised , letting them out is whats regressive

d22ontour · 13-08-2010 09:57PM

Danniboo wrote: »

Hi,

I'm sure everyone is as outraged as I am about the release of Larry Murphy.

Outraged why ?

He was sentenced and served it with remission and is entitled to be freed like anyone else.What's the problem ?

If anything the thread should be aimed at the out dated judicial system we have.The problem isn't the criminals, they will always be there.It's how we deal with them that is.

Denerick · 13-08-2010 10:06PM

irishh_bob wrote: »

locking them away from normal society was civilised , letting them out is whats regressive

Speaking as someone who has some knowledge of how the mental health system works, I'm afraid I passionately disagree with you. Admittedly I've never been in the situation you have - I'm lucky enough to never have had a sibling with serious mental health issues.

If you really understood how horrid the old mental health system was, you'd retract that statement. People who were a bit 'odd' during adolescence were thrown into asylums, often with only the most basic mental screening. They were given little or no hope for the future. In reality it was just a way to cleanse society and get rid of oddballs who may or may not have made people feel nervous.

People with serious mental health problems; such as paranoid schizophrenia for example, are one thing. (And just for the record, rates of violence amongst schizophrenics is lower than among alcoholics) Many of these do not require permanant detention and can live among the community provided they have the support of family and others. Some do require detention both for their own safety and for others. They do not intend to cause people harm but sometimes will because they are terribly afraid that they will face imminent danger or assault. Hence in their own mind they will strike out in self defence. But for the most part this can be regulated and many schizophrenics can live a relatively meaningful existance provided the help is there.

However in the old asylums people with mild conditions such as generalised anxiety disorder, mood disorders (Such as milder versions of BiPolar or Manic Depression as it used to be called), major depression etc. etc. were lumped along with people suffering from pyschotic disorders such as schizophrenia. They were no danger to society - what they were was an embarassment to society. Thankfully those dreadful days are behind us and we have embraced a much more enlightened method of dealing with the mentally ill.

This is unrelated to the thread, so I'll stop soapboxing. I just felt like making a stand as I've noticed you beating this drum for a while and am sick of this bogman attitude to the mentally ill.

irishh_bob · 13-08-2010 10:07PM

d22ontour wrote: »

Outraged why ?

He was sentenced and served it with remission and is entitled to be freed like anyone else.What's the problem ?

If anything the thread should be aimed at the out dated judicial system we have.The problem isn't the criminals, they will always be there.It's how we deal with them that is.

so if he moved into your neighbour hood , i suppose you,d be inviting him round to a barbacue , you,d be cool with it ?????

seriously though , how should we deal with people like murphy

seensensee · 13-08-2010 10:13PM

Danniboo wrote: »

Hi,

I'm sure everyone is as outraged as I am about the release of Larry Murphy on "good behaviour".:mad: It just got me thinking, it is illegal to carry pepper spray/mace etc in this country yet we are expected to walk the streets with this monster roaming around, what are peoples views on this? Do you think women should be allowed to carry this to defend themselves, would you carry it anyways regardless of it been banned?

It's not a straightforward issue, the scenarios for rape vary considerably...

JUST ONE in three rape cases reported to gardaí are prosecuted by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), a study has revealed.

The report pointed to the binge drinking culture as a factor in the lack of prosecutions in many cases.
Alcohol plays a hugely important role, Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) James Hamilton said at the launch of the report.
“If the only witness is so drunk she cannot remember it clearly, there is a real problem in the case,” he said.
Alcohol was a factor in over three-quarters of cases that the report looked at. More than three-quarters of suspects had drunk alcohol at the time of the incident, with over 41 per cent described as “severely intoxicated”.

The report also found that cases which fit a narrow stereotype – in which a person is attacked by a stranger in a public place – are more likely to be prosecuted.
However, it also showed that in two-thirds of reported rape cases the rapist is known to the victim and it takes place in private.
If the rape does not conform to this stereotype the victim will not generally be believed and will decide not to report, Ms Neary said.
Forty per cent of those who reported considered withdrawing due to the poor reaction by gardaí, the report found.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/1208/1224260297609.html

From the above examples it appears that a weapon would be unlikely to save a woman from being raped. I would be interested in hearing of pro active defence from a woman's point of view.

irishh_bob · 13-08-2010 10:14PM

Denerick wrote: »

Speaking as someone who has some knowledge of how the mental health system works, I'm afraid I passionately disagree with you. Admittedly I've never been in the situation you have - I'm lucky enough to never have had a sibling with serious mental health issues.

If you really understood how horrid the old mental health system was, you'd retract that statement. People who were a bit 'odd' during adolescence were thrown into asylums, often with only the most basic mental screening. They were given little or no hope for the future. In reality it was just a way to cleanse society and get rid of oddballs who may or may not have made people feel nervous.

People with serious mental health problems; such as paranoid schizophrenia for example, are one thing. (And just for the record, rates of violence amongst schizophrenics is lower than among alcoholics) Many of these do not require permanant detention and can live among the community provided they have the support of family and others. Some do require detention both for their own safety and for others. They do not intend to cause people harm but sometimes will because they are terribly afraid that they will face imminent danger or assault. Hence in their own mind they will strike out in self defence. But for the most part this can be regulated and many schizophrenics can live a relatively meaningful existance provided the help is there.

However in the old asylums people with mild conditions such as generalised anxiety disorder, mood disorders (Such as milder versions of BiPolar or Manic Depression as it used to be called), major depression etc. etc. were lumped along with people suffering from pyschotic disorders such as schizophrenia. They were no danger to society - what they were was an embarassment to society. Thankfully those dreadful days are behind us and we have embraced a much more enlightened method of dealing with the mentally ill.

This is unrelated to the thread, so I'll stop soapboxing. I just felt like making a stand as I've noticed you beating this drum for a while and am sick of this bogman attitude to the mentally ill.

agree with one part of your post , you are indeed LUCKY not to have a close relative who is not the full schilling , its easy for the likes of you to pursue such PC vanity projects from the comfort of some QUANGO office HQ , your far removed from dealing with the horrors of living with someone who is not all in it

liberals like you would be better off if you cared more about normal people and less about abnormal people , thier was a time that people were thrown in the big house for having a funny hair cut but the pendelum has now completley swung the other way and its ever bit as bad as the old days , the familys of those who are not all in it , suffer terribley yet have to listen to bleeding heart liberals ( only type that work in mental health ) telling them ( from thier ivory towers ) how they need to be more englightened and tollerant , anytime i see a report on RTE about mental institutions , it concerns familys who want thier loved one released , never once have i see a report about a family who want thier family member put in , i assure you thier are familys all around the country who want a family member ( who threatens them , embarrases them in front of thier neighbours , stressed them out and is a constant worry for them ) locked up

Denerick · 13-08-2010 10:26PM

...

dolliemix · 13-08-2010 10:30PM

Denerick wrote: »

Three things:

1) 'OPINION PIECE + THE INDO'

That is all.

2) Yes, ye (As in the collective tabloid reading classes of Ireland; predominantly female and predominatly hysterical about these sorts of things) are over reacting.

3) Yes ye are paranoid if you are going to start taking knives and pepper sprays along with you to your local pub.

Because I don't agree with you it doesn't make you any more intelligent than me or better informed. I find your misoginistic views disturbing. Women reading about 'cases' like these and over reacting! This was a horrific crime. You would want to made of stone if you didn't react to this story. And its not just women who feel like this

It frightens me that somebody can actually do this to another human being. Its almost surreal to me that this actually happened. This lady was a random victim getting into her car on a Friday evening. She begged Larry Murphy to kill her because she could not take any more. Larry Murphy then left the woman to die and went home in the same car that he had repeatedly raped the woman in, and slept that beside his wife in bed.

I don't think it was right that Larry Murphy was released early on 'good behaviour' because he showed no remorse and he made no effort to attend rehabilitation that was offered to him while he was in jail. What is hysterical about that?

Making assumptions about what I read or watch regularly is pathetic actually. But even if I do read articles and watch television programs that you would deem as beneath you does not mean you are correct and that I should not be listened to.

Denerick · 13-08-2010 10:37PM

dolliemix wrote: »

Because I don't agree with you it doesn't make you any more intelligent than me or better informed. I find your misoginistic views disturbing. Women reading about 'cases' like these and over reacting! This was a horrific crime. You would want to made of stone if you didn't react to this story. And its not just women who feel like this

Ah come on. You don't think thats a bit of an over-reaction? Admittedly looking back my wording was sloppy - I didn't mean to equate the tabloid reading classes with women in general.

My point was that yes, while this is an horrific crime, horrific crimes are committed every day to little or no media spin. For some reason the media have picked up on this and have issued forth a torrent of national hysteria that will die down in a couple of days.

I may well be made out of stone, but its only because these hysterical cases come out of the woodwork every couple of months; stupid old women ring in to liveline saying 'its a disgrace, Joe', and then the world goes back to normal. Only to be awoken some other day by another hysteria-fest that oh-so-conveniently sells newspapers.

Larry Murphy can roam free but women can't defend themselves?

Comments