[UK] Judge lifts ban on naming killer who murdered and raped 6 year old - Sensationalist Headlines

The identity of the teenage boy who raped and murdered six-year-old Alesha MacPhail has been revealed. The judge who presided over the trial has lifted a ban on naming 16-year-old Aaron Campbell. Media outlets, including the BBC, made a case for reversing the court order which had protected his identity because he was under the age of 18. Judge Lord Matthews said: "I can't think of a case in recent times that has attracted such revulsion." After hearing the legal arguments on Friday, he said: "I intend to grant the application. The press may name the accused and publish images of him." Campbell is facing a life sentence after being found guilty of killing Alesha, who went missing while on a visit to her grandparents on the Isle of Bute on 2 July last year. On Thursday, Lord Matthews said he had committed some of the "wickedest, most evil crimes this court has ever heard". Campbell took Alesha from the bed where she was sleeping and inflicted "catastrophic" injuries before dumping her naked body in woodland. Alesha had suffered 117 injuries and died from significant pressure being applied to her face and neck. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-47330774 He couldn't be named due to being under the age of 18. The judge threw that out.

Good.

Sorry - but it's for cases like this I think the death penalty should be left on the table.

but he could potentially be a useful resource ! ! !

I'm not sure about how it is in the UK, but in the US putting someone to death is more expensive than keeping them alive (iirc) Why give them the easy way out? Plus they still are very likely to be killed by other inmates.

i see it more as getting it over with

Not to justify this sicko but as long as there is a non-0 chance of anyone ever getting wrongly executed for their crimes I cannot see the death penalty as permissible. This lad will probably rot in a cell for the rest of his days and think about what he has done, nothing good will come of killing him besides making it OK for the state to kill people. This is a rather feelsy way to do things that A: solves nothing B: helps nobody and C: doesn't deter people. No need for society to bring itself down to his level and open the door for something that could get someone innocent killed in the future.

Absolutely a healthy attitude to have when discussing the state sanctioning peoples deaths.

I get the arguments against the regular institution of the death penalty, I really do, and I have come to be generally opposed to it. But I have always felt it should be there in the bottom of the bag as a last resort. This guy kidnapped, tortured, raped, and killed a six year old, and there’s no doubt he did it. He’s irredeemable. There’s no rehabilitating this monster, and, really, I see no reason it’s worth paying for his comfort and health for the rest of his godforsaken life. Why not just put him to the wall?

From where I see it, you either allow the death penalty or don't, making "exceptions" leads to more exceptions and eventually the list of exceptions will pile up and lead to something reprehensible. Besides, we're not going to pay for his "comfort" merely his life, he may at best get a television but would he really be living? No aspirations, no future, no hope. Only his cell, his prison and a TV. In a philosophical kind of way life imprisonment could be deemed more cruel, becoming little more than a living piece of clockwork. You eat a prison times, you go out at prison times you sleep at prison times, you will contribute nothing you will not amount to anything more. And in the off chance that you (not this lad in particular but in general) are fount later not guilty due to new evidence at least your undue punishment can be undone. But in a way you may never get your old life back. This lad, even while he might not be killed will not have an easy time of it, nor will he find much in the way of "comfort"

it's very easy to say that, but coming to that conclusion requires a deep and involved analysis of him, which you can't really get just from what you read in the news.

Do you believe ISIS combatants should be spared the death penalty as well?

Indeed, whilst war is a different matter, once you have one and have someone in custody I earnestly believe that if they can no longer be a threat then there is no need to kill. You wouldn't execute them as prisoners of war would you?

The death penalty is fucking useless as a deterrent and costs more than in could ever possibly return. So uhhhh, yup. The mere chance that there could be mistakes during an execution should rule it out entirely. Making exceptions for "dead certain" cases just opens the door to further exceptions.

Pedos are usually segregated from the other inmate populations to protect them. Personally in cases where the evidence has been so strong, i really dont understand why it should take so long for someone to be executed.

wait list, lawyers drawing out the process with appeals, and pharmaceutical companies don't like selling the gov the execution drugs. those aren't really all the reasons but it's a few of them

Yes

There's always the off chance society finds an ethical way to treat sociopathy, pedophilia and aggressive violent tendencies. Right now we still don't have a good grasp on fixing mental issues rather than treating symptoms, and treatments for these kinds of symptoms are weak, debilitating or non existent. I'm confident in the future there will be ways to fix these kinds of disorders and actually rehabilitate people back into society, which is one of the reasons I'm against the death penalty. It's hard to keep emotion aside when judging people who commit heinous acts. I totally understand why people advocate for the death penalty or why they believe these people do not deserve to exist in society. I try to focus on pragmatic solutions rather than indulge in retribution, but there are people out there that are so sick and twisted it's hard not to wish violence on them.

I don't consider it a revenge/retribution measure. Putting someone in a cell for life because it's "more cruel" (like someone above mentioned) doesn't sit well with me either. I just don't see the point of housing someone who is apparently beyond any hope of repair for another 80 years.

I think it's only right for life-sentencees to have the option of suicide.

Prison for life is better. And also more painful than death.

Because you can't resurrect the dead. There's been plenty of cases now where people who literally confess to heinous crimes were found innocent decades later, in some cases after their execution. Believe it or not, police interrogations aren't exactly perfect, and in many cases their goal is to extract a confession through psychological torture rather than actually seek the truth. You can't sentence people to the irreversible when your methods are so poorly accurate. Even if they weren't, there would still be a non-negligible risk of judicial error. The point of "housing" them is to keep them isolated from the rest of society to prevent them from doing harm while not violating one of the most fundamental human rights, which any nation that brags about being a democracy ought to respect. If you think that's unfair to the people who don't have housing, then you're barking up the wrong tree. Push for better social security measures rather than for giving governments their "right to murder" back, which was taken away for very good reasons. Fuck that shit.

this is what i meant by getting it over with. what point is there in keeping someone in a cell for the rest of their life if it is known beyond doubt that they committed a reprehensible crime, one where rehabilitation is a null prospect? why prolong the suffering?

Why would ISIS combatants surrender when they are going to die anyway?

because it's not permanent like death, if you kill a guy and he was innocent then whoops you can't un-kill him. But you can let a guy in prison for life out of jail, it won't undo those years he lost but he will have a chance to continue his life. You might talk about "what if he definitely guaranteed triple dog lock did it for absolute suresies pinky promise" but that boils down to just a regular old death sentence which as I have discussed has a non-zero chance of killing an innocent.

more importantly, how the fuck are people in this thread arguing that "killing ISIS prisoners could radicalize more people". Have you fucking been near a phone or computer with internet access, how would anyone with internet not see the atrocities like filleting prisoners on meathooks, burning pilots alive or drowning them in a cage, throwing gays off roofs, selling yazidis into slavery etc. Bunch of spineless fucking britposters who think that killing the literal jihadists and not leaving them in a prison (to be jailbroken like the taliban has done multiple times) is a good thing. How's that moral highhorse doing for ya

Are you aware of the concept of martyrdom? Or the fact jihadists are brainwashed to seek it? No?

Because just killing all the jihadists has worked out great over the past 19 years right

There was a time when the British would of had this man drawn an quartered. But i guess everyone thinks theres some kind of hope for these kind of monsters. It would be nice to live in a world where these sort of mental aberrations can be cured but lets get real, that wont happen anytime soon if ever.

You clearly aren't reading what people are saying.