BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Myra Hindley

 
  

Page: (1)2

 
 
Shortfatdyke
20:10 / 20.06.02
should myra hindley be paroled?

should myra hindley have been gaoled in the first place?

i've read a fair bit about the 'moors murderers' over the years, including, more recently, pieces written by hindley. i should point out straight away that hindley, as far as i am aware, has never claimed that she should not have been imprisoned, only that she has served much more time than anyone with the same sentence has done. myra hindley has never committed murder. the article explains/claims that she was bullied by brady, physically and emotionally, and was incapable of refusing him anything. was she a victim? or does it not matter - she was there and she didn't stop the killings?

the question has been academic for a long time, as no home secretary would risk the inevitable public and media outrage that would accompany her release, but a recent european ruling has made it possible that hindley could be set free. my point is not 'hindley is innocent - bless her!' but that keeping her in gaol has been more down to politics than anything else. it seems that nobody who was around during the 1960s can discuss this case without ranting and, yes, it was a series of truely horrible crimes. but how responsible was myra hindley?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,3968648,00.html
 
 
Mourne Kransky
22:39 / 20.06.02
However responsible she was, it's not the magnitude of her guilt which has kept her behind bars, it's the famous scary photo and the campaign by the relatives of the victims in the press. I don't have a strong view about how long she should be serving for her part, however large, in some disgusting crimes, but I think it should be decided fairly. Her sex counts heavily against her in this, I think. If she hadn't become such a popular hate figure, would she not have qualified for parole long since, under ordinary circumstances?
 
 
Tom Coates
06:50 / 21.06.02
It's simple as far as I am concerned. People should be treated equally under the law based upon the severity of their crime - not on the media outcry surrounding them. Politicians should have no say in sentencing. Myra Hindley would have been released years ago if she had been anyone else, and she should be released now.
 
 
sleazenation
08:32 / 21.06.02
She would of course need a new identity if she was ever released since someone probably with no connection whatsoever to the case would see fit to hunt her down under sime twisted notion of 'justice'...
 
 
Ganesh
08:44 / 21.06.02
Without hopping completely back onto an old hobby horse, women and children who kill (outwith certain defined 'after years of marital abuse' scenarios) provoke a far greater public outcry because of the perceived 'unnaturalness' of their crimes. As a result, they face extra-prolonged incarceration regardless of continued dangerousness or having 'done their time'.

In Hindley's case, as ZoCher says, that photo plays a large part. It's become an iconic canvas onto which an entire generation projected its fear of the Other, a 1960s bogeyman.
 
 
Spatula Clarke
12:03 / 21.06.02
Yep. Anyone remember the furore over this painting:

 
 
Fist of Fun
15:34 / 21.06.02
As I understand it, the reason Myra Hindley has not been released is that she is still considered to be a danger to the public. This is standard policy, and pretty much written in law, that murderers who have not repented and who are still considered to be a significant danger to the public are kept locked up.

This obviously goes wrong on occasion, but don't forget here that most prisoners do not appear to be a continuing danger to the public after, say, 18 years in jail.

I say '18 years in jail' because although the only sentence that can be passed is Life, actually most murderers only serve 12 or 14 years. This is because most murders are heat of the moment domestic killings. Crime related murders get more, as do what might be called 'pure violence' (e.g. psychopath murdering stranger) and those who kill children tend to serve longer sentences as well (although this is not an inviolable rule).

Actually Myra Hindley is not the only murderer to have a 'life means life' decision. There are a few others, all of whom are basically psychopaths and (I understand) are usually held at hospital jails, as is (again, as I understand) Myra Hindley.

Myra Hindley is surprising because:
(i) There are those who say she is no longer dangerous - Lord Longford (Long-something, anyway);
(ii) She is a woman - I am not aware of any other such case, although Ganesh is correct in the assertion that women tend to get more significant jail terms than men for equivalent crimes of violence (although less for crimes of dishonesty). Actually children get significantly smaller sentences than adults, but the sentencing structure is completely different so it isn't a comparison of like with like.

Finally, Myra Hindley has acted in ways which raise concerns. She has never identified where the bodies were buried, although she has said she would at several stages, often apparently in an attempt to negotiate some sort of improved treatment. She does, apparently, have clear psychoses. Also, to be blunt, she was an accomplice in the motiveless murder of two children who thereafter did not assist the authorities which tends to indicate that she is not somebody we want back on the streets.

On the other hand, of course politics plays a role. That's why sentencing should be purely in the hands of the judiciary!
 
 
Fist of Fun
15:35 / 21.06.02
Actually, I never realised I use 'actually' as much as I actually do.
 
 
Ganesh
17:31 / 21.06.02
While admittedly not familiar with the details of Myra Hindley's case, I can't (off the top of my head) recall the "clear psychoses" you mention. Also, I don't think I've heard an anti-parole argument based around her ongoing dangerousness. Now my interest's piqued, Fist, could you point me in the direction of some relevant reading matter?
 
 
Shortfatdyke
18:11 / 21.06.02
i'm confused here: i've never read or heard anyone claim that hindley is still a danger to the public. the public may be a danger to her, however....

the reaction to hindley reminds me in some ways to that of rose west (although there doesn't seem to be any question of west consensually taking part in numerous murders) - the male partners are seen as being less monstrous. it's almost as if the feeling is that 'boys will be boys' and can't be expected to know better. which is quite absurd.
 
 
Spatula Clarke
18:39 / 21.06.02
I'm not sure how you've drawn that particular conclusion, SFD. The interest of the press and the 'horror' of the public in the West case, as far as I'm aware, nearly always seems to be centred on Fred rather than Rose. Again, that may be partly down to the photo that's routinely trotted out; Fred's there in his late 70s big-lapel jacket, grinning at the camera. He's the one you immediately focus on in those pictures. In contrast, Rose looks almost a non-entity. Compare that to the best known images of Hindley and Brady, where it's easier to paint Hindley as the more 'evil' of the pair, what with the huge, black-lined staring eyes.

The Brady/Hindley case is in the national subconscious now, and that too marks it out as different from the West crimes, which are still too recent to have sunk into the lore of the country yet.
 
 
Ganesh
21:22 / 21.06.02
I can see what SFD's getting at. Male serial murderers are, at the risk of being flippant, ten a penny; females involved with multiple murder are much rarer. As such, their activities attract more press interest and they are more likely to be characterised as 'monsters'. The fact that their male equivalents, generally speaking, attract less attention (and are less likely to be labelled 'unnatural') suggests that we are more inured to the idea of male killers than female.

In the case of Rose West, of course, the situation is skewed by her husband's suicide. Cheated of suitable revenge/'explanation', it's only natural that the focus then devolves to Rose, whether she was instrumental in the murders or not...
 
 
Sax
22:44 / 21.06.02
Perhaps similarly Brady is in Ashworth andis considered by the public hive-mind to be beyond the reach of on-going justice, or possibly to have got his just desserts by losing his sanity, whereas Hindley's alleged turning to God can be relished as an example of her ever-more brass-necked evil.
 
 
Shortfatdyke
08:18 / 22.06.02
yeah, ganesh has summed what i was getting at pretty well. true to say, though, that fred west's rather neanderthal appearance has made it easier for the press to call him a monster, but i have read about women who kill betraying their position as life givers - i've been searching for actual quotes, but not had any luck yet. rose west's bi-sexuality has certainly counted against her.

fred west died after implying, i think, that there might be many more dead. a lot of families would have got closure on missing loved ones if he'd provided more details, but i couldn't help feeling relieved when i heard he'd hanged himself.
 
 
Fist of Fun
10:01 / 22.06.02
Hmmm, having read the law reports I appear to have been mistaken in my earlier belief that the Home Secretary applied a 'life means life' tariff to Hindley on the basis of danger to the public.

When Hindley was refused parole she appealled the decision by way of judicial review (a process of challenging an official's decision, usually by way of challenging the decision making process). The High Court (1st instance), Court of Appeal and House of Lords all upheld the Home Secretary's decision. The arguments used were mostly technical - again, concerning the decision making process and in particular concerning retrospective setting of tariffs - but generally did not deal with the question of danger to society. In argument (but not in the judgments) there are references from her lawyers to her potential danger to society which uniformly refer to her "marked improvement" and lack of dangerousness. The Government's lawyers don't really deal with the point, which usually means they didn't think they had a good argument on the issue. Accordingly, it appears she is probably no longer a danger to society. The decision of the Home Secretary was based on the fact that some crimes are so heinous as to justify life imprisonment.

As to psychoses, that comes straight out of the trial and the trial judge's conclusions that "There can be no doubt they tortured and later killed children because they enjoyed it and I am convinced that they regard those who are horrified by such conduct as 'morons' and beneath contempt." To be fair to Hindley, he goes on to say that Brady was without hope but he was not able to say that for certain about Hindley. On the other hand, having read some of the excerpts of the evidence detailing what Hindley did to the children, I have to say that I cannot believe that anybody would do those things without severe psychoses. Even as a lawyer having read and heard a lot of pretty unpleasant things, this was really nasty - even by the standards of paedophiles.

One thing which surprised me when I read the cases was that Hindley was only convicted in 1966 for 2 murders, and denied complicity in those murders. In 1987 (after she started asking for parole) she confessed to her participation in the 2 original murders AND confessed to participating in a further 3 murders over the course of 2 years before the murders she was convicted of. As a course of action, that takes a lot of explaining away. However, she has since 1987 taken up Roman Catholicism again (she was a communicant before taking up with Brady), she has taken a degree in humanities and generally studies languages (if that is relevant) and was considered by the parole board to no longer be a danger.

Finally, am I imagining it or are something like 99% of serial killers men? I might have got this statistic from Silence of the Lambs, or some ridiculous web page, but other than Hindley and West I cannot think of any serial killer women (not including multiple murders in one session, so to speak).
 
 
Ganesh
10:35 / 22.06.02
I think you're describing psychopathy rather than psychosis. It's an important distinction to make because one suggests severe illness (along with likely treatability with medication, and possibly diminished responsibility for one's actions) while the other is a disorder of personality (much less treatable if at all, and full responsibility for one's actions).

Nothing you've quoted or alluded to above is suggestive of psychosis over psychopathy.

As far as female serial murderers go, they're pretty rare. Where examples exist, they've usually been child-killers with obscure motives (Beverly Allit) or part of a murderous couple. Aileen Wuornos springs to mind, though, and I'm sure there are others...
 
 
Tezcatlipoca
12:32 / 22.06.02
In my humble opinion one of the major problems of this, and of similar high-profile cases, is the public attitude towards the crime, rather than the person. I'm not admittedly that well read on this specific case, but there can be little doubt that Hindley - whilst guilty - was demonised by the press and society at large (and I have to agree with SFD here that it was at least partially because of her gender). The result is that society seems to have turned the Hindley/Brady case into a kind of 'bogeyman' story; an example of the terrible eeeeevil lurking in our very midst. Such melodrama captures attention, sure, but does little to present a fair or just case for the prisoner in question. After such a massive campaign against her, I don't think she'll actually find *anywhere* safe if released.

Regarding female serial killers there have been several, and it's interesting to note how much more frenzied the media generally tends to be in response to a female killer...
 
 
Spatula Clarke
18:30 / 22.06.02
This got me thinking about the Shipman murders. It struck me as odd at the time, but the media uproar that usually sounds around mass murders never really appeared. Strange, because his position would generally lead to huge amounts of coverage, members of the medical profession who do wrong tending to get more column inches. I never noticed it come up as a topic of conversation at work or with friends, either.

The only real explanation I can provide is that he looks like your gentle, friendly uncle.

One of the issues with Brady/Hindley was that for a number of years they also refused to reveal the whereabouts of some of the bodies, and I do remember that being used at one point as an argument for continued incarceration as punishment for what was effectively an ongoing crime (in the sense that those responsible were still actively causing the families of their victims 'harm).

All of which is slightly off-topic. Apologies.

Ganesh:
Male serial murderers are, at the risk of being flippant, ten a penny; females involved with multiple murder are much rarer. As such, their activities attract more press interest and they are more likely to be characterised as 'monsters'.

You're quite right, of course, and it's a point that I intended, but forgot, to make. There's a view that it's almost male nature to act violently and, as such, male mass murderers can be seen as somehow more natural than females who commit similar crimes. The female who does so is characterised as even more abhorrent, acting in a manner that's directly opposite to the widespread view of female nature as gentle and nurturing.

It's not a viewpoint that's just expressed about female serial killers or female child-murderers (horribly emotive term), either, but female killers in general. The Tracey Andrews case springs to mind, although that particular one is further complicated by the way that she attempted to avoid suspicion.

That sentence, by the way, originally read "although that particular one is further complicated by the exceptionally calculated way that she attempted to avoid suspicion", hinting that I'm as susceptible to a bit of press suggestion as the next person.
 
 
Ariadne
22:24 / 22.06.02
I think the reason the Shipman case stayed low key was that he killed older women. Who don't 'matter' as much as dead children, it would seem. Plus he killed them in a fairly undramatic and (I think) pain-free way, so while it's dreadful for the women and their families, it doesn't work so well as a press horror-story.
And he looks such a mild-mannered chap, a bit wild-eyed but much less frightening than the photos of Hindley and Fred West.

I don't know enough about Hindley to say if she's still a danger but is seems unlikely - it does look as though she's been used as a political tool and has served far longer than is fair.
I wonder how she would cope if she were freed?
 
 
Spatula Clarke
23:03 / 22.06.02
So, with Hindley it's not just that we're talking about a woman who's killed, but a woman who's killed children. Evil Plus.

.. it seems that nobody who was around during the 1960s can discuss this case without ranting...

Also wondering about the possible effect of the beginning of the TV age (in terms of the medium becoming widely available to the majority of the country's population) and the increased coverage that this would have provided the Moors murders. Could that have been one of the deciding factors in how this particular case has been portrayed?

The result is that society seems to have turned the Hindley/Brady case into a kind of 'bogeyman' story; an example of the terrible eeeeevil lurking in our very midst.

Kind of what I was alluding to when I mentioned the 'lore' of England. How likely is it that there'll be a playground rhyme about Hindley in thirty years' time (Lizzie Borden took an axe...)?
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
09:15 / 23.06.02
As far as female serial murderers go, they're pretty rare. Where examples exist, they've usually been child-killers with obscure motives (Beverly Allit) or part of a murderous couple. Aileen Wuornos springs to mind, though, and I'm sure there are others...

Interestingly, terrorism seems to be a little more even-handed. The most obvious example is Ulrike Meinhof, 2, although she's far from unique. I was unable to find a link for Brigitte Schultz, who as far as I'm aware is still in a small Israeli maximum security facility constructed entirely for her. Gudrun Ensslin was responsible for recruiting Meinhof. Leila Khaled is easier to find, but she's also the media-friendly face of the PFLP. NOTE: the Leila Khaled link is on the website of the PFLP, which, whilst describing itself as 'a political party that is founded on a progressive vision of the common good', is also classified, with considerable justification, as a terrorist organisation. You may not wish to access the link at work. Or, indeed, at all.

There was a time when Germany's anti-terror units were reportedly advised to 'shoot the women first' on the grounds that they were the more committed, and the more dangerous. It occurs to me, however, that the order may have been intended to convey to the other side that the police were as ruthless as those they faced.
 
 
Fist of Fun
10:13 / 23.06.02
Interestingly, terrorism seems to be a little more even-handed.

I seem to remember that the Shining Path also had a surprisingly high female proportion (i.e. more than 50%) of members, and highly educated ones in particular. Something to do with having an additional reason to feel oppressed / disenfranchised / alienated?

I think the reason the Shipman case stayed low key was that he killed older women. Who don't 'matter' as much as dead children, it would seem. Plus he killed them in a fairly undramatic and (I think) pain-free way, so while it's dreadful for the women and their families, it doesn't work so well as a press horror-story.

Rather like the Jamie Bulger murder. Because the two murderers were caught taking Jamie out of the shopping mall on CCTV it was all over the national TV news - and when dodgy horror videos were found at one of the boys' homes it opened up that debate on TV horror effecting our children. "It couldn't have happened 20 years ago!" went up the cry when, if you look at the statistics, it did happen 20, 40 and 60 years ago - children kill children and the rate of those killings hasn't changed in the post-war era. (Not sure about pre-war - only studied post-war in politics at Uni. Also, wonder if statistics readily available.)

I agree the Shipman case got less hysteria because (a) he looks less like a serial killer (b) the victims were old rather than children - always a heart-string plucker (c) the deaths were not grusome, in the media friendly sense. But also, it always struck me as less of a story at least partially because the revelations came gradually, and it wasn't "Person found murdered" but "Person may have been murdered, but might have just died anyway, it's all a bit hazy but statistically quite a few of them were murdered." I think that shock factor probably has something to do with it - one gets used to the idea of him being a murderer, then you discover it was a bit more than just a murderer, then you discover it was a HUGE amount more, but by that stage you know he was a serial killer so it's just a matter of degree. But maybe that's me just having a low boredom threshold.
 
 
w1rebaby
17:19 / 23.06.02
I'm a bit puzzled as to this idea that the Shipman case generated no hysteria. From my point of view, it generated plenty, not on the basis of gender, but on the "betrayal of trust" aspect. Someone in a trusted profession betrays that trust to kill people at their most vulnerable - could it happen to you? see our special report at 10.
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
07:54 / 24.06.02
I seem to remember that the Shining Path also had a surprisingly high female proportion (i.e. more than 50%) of members, and highly educated ones in particular. Something to do with having an additional reason to feel oppressed / disenfranchised / alienated?

I had wondered whether it might be more that women are likely to be pointed towards nuture by most societies, and terrorism/revolution can be perceived as a kind of protecting of the nurture environment. Social norms and political revolution are both served, albeit the former in a rather unusual way. The rhetoric of defensive violence deployed by many such groups would fit nicely with this idea, but I'll acknowledge immediately that it's relatively un-thought through. I think there's something similar in 'Shoot the Women First', but I don't recall being terribly impressed by the book, so I doubt I want to call it in evidence.

It could, however, tie in with the unusual relationships between male serial killers and their female counterparts/helpers/creators (depending on whose lawyer you're talking to...). If you look at the account of Rose and Fred West in The Jigsaw Man, it depicts Rose as a weird combination of matriarch and sexual athlete. There's a strange element of twisted nurture there. I haven't looked at Hindley closely, but the warped nuclear family aspect of the killings seems to tally with this notion.

[stands ready to watch this house of cards get the reception it probably deserves]
 
 
Fist of Fun
07:38 / 25.06.02
Ooh, this thread is SOOO topical!

Has anybody noticed the (relatively) intense interest in the British media over the most recent ETA bombings? Normally it's like "A bunch of ETA terrorists blew up some BRITISH TOURISTS!". But this time it's "Let's look in detail at the two suspects who are, shock horror, WOMEN TERRORISTS... (and they aren't entirely ugly in their mugshots)."

Maybe it's just because I am aware of this topic because of this thread, but this strikes me as most unusual. Am I getting paranoid?
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
10:04 / 25.06.02
No. I noticed as well. Although they are also described as being part of an aggressive, younger element within ETA.
 
 
Fist of Fun
11:38 / 04.07.02
Just an update on this thread - the Home Secretary has announced that Shipman will never be released.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/england/newsid_2093000/2093530.stm

The story also mentions a number of other 'life means life' prisoners, including "Rose West, Dennis Nilsen, Jeremy Bamber and the 'Black Panther' Donald Neilson".

I hope and pray that I am confusing Jeremy Bamber with Bamber Gascoigne.
 
 
Ganesh
13:16 / 04.07.02
It'd be interesting to correlate degree of media attention with likelihood of being classed 'life means life' by the Home Secretary...
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
13:22 / 04.07.02
Yeees, although if you're doing that, you should probably also correlate media attention and ickiness of original crime.
 
 
Rev. Orr
14:49 / 04.07.02
Yup, because standing by and doing nothing while murders take place is the most icksome crime it is possible to commit...
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
16:15 / 04.07.02
I'm slowing down. I didn't understand that at all.
 
 
Spatula Clarke
18:03 / 04.07.02
Not the only one.

I'm slightly amazed that Home Secretaries still feel that they have the power to do this. Haven't similar decisions been ruled unlawful by various EU courts?
 
 
Ganesh
18:16 / 04.07.02
Nick, I think any 'Ickiness Scale' would, by necessity, have to include factors pertinent to the individual committing the crime as well as victim - and I'm pretty sure female criminals are considered generally 'ickier', especially when they harm or kill children. Which more or less takes us full circle.
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
09:52 / 05.07.02
That would, of course, depend on who's doing the marking. But since, broadly speaking, I agree with you, let's not go down that road, eh?
 
 
Ganesh
13:12 / 05.07.02
When you do patent it, be sure and send me a copy...
 
  

Page: (1)2

 
  
Add Your Reply