Monday, November 12, 2007

Prison Should Be A Punishment.

For some more than others, in exceptional circumstances.

Ronald Castree has been convicted for abducting a twelve year old girl, sexually assaulting her, and then stabbing her 12 times and leaving her for dead on an isolated moor. He was brought to justice more by a fluke than anything else.

To make Castree's atrocious crime even worse, he has only been convicted of the murder today. It happened in 1975. In the intervening period, a man named Stefan Kiszko was jailed for the murder and spent 16 years in prison even though he could not have committed the crime. It destroyed the awkward Kiszko, and he died shortly after being released from prison. In prison he succumbed to paranoid delusions, which is hardly surprising, given he was a hated child killer serving life at Her Majesty's pleasure. And the only way he could even be considered for parole was by confessing to a murder of which he was entirely innocent.

Of course, Castree didn't put Kiszko in prison. Poor defence at his first trial, bullying police officers and lying witnesses did that. But the fact remains that if Castree had not committed his rape-murder, then Kiszko would never have been imprisoned.

Castree will serve a minimum of 30 years in prison - the earliest he can be released is when he will be 84. Good, quite honestly. And I hope that every day he spends in prison is an abosolute hell. His crime destroyed not only the family of Lesley Molseed, but also the family of Stefan Kiszko.

So not only do I hope that Castree's time inside is an unmitigated misery, but I hope his fellow prisoners rise to the occasion. And rip his fucking dick off and make the pudgy faced child killing cunt eat it.


Sam Tarran said...

I'm not sure what's worse: the story in the post, or the story in yesterday's News of the World of a headteacher that sexually molested an 8 year old pupil frequently, and yet was sentenced to a mere 9 months.

William Gruff said...

I think the treatment of Stefan Kiszko makes the most compelling case against the re-introduction of capital punishment.

Had he been executed, not only would an innocent man have been effectively judicially murdered but there would have been no campaign to secure his release and exoneration, nor the eventual apprehension and incarceration of the actual murderer.

Umbongo said...

It's more than possible that had there been capital punishment for rape/murder Castree wouldn't have committed the crime in the first place so that both the immediate victim and Kiszko would have been alive today.

John Trenchard said...

Molest a 8 year old child??

That'll be 9 months in prison so.

what the fuck???

Longrider said...

It's more than possible that had there been capital punishment for rape/murder Castree wouldn't have committed the crime in the first place so that both the immediate victim and Kiszko would have been alive today.

Given that plenty of people were executed for crimes they did commit - then it is equally likley that he would have taken the chance. The only thing that you can reasonably argue in favour of capital punishment is that it prevents recidivism - assuming that the system gets the right person and this case is evidence that that ain't necesarily so...

Fidothedog said...

Well said, lets hope his fellow lags give him a bath similar to that dished out to Dhiren Barot.

Struan Jamieson said...

If one thinks about it Castree took two lives. Lesley Moulseed and Stefan Kiszko.

For 16 years Castree said nothing while an innocent man suffered in jail.

The Moulseed family have had to go through two trials and everyone must feel for them

Trouble is this will now go to appeal and no doubt further appeal no doubt cuasing more concern for both the Moulseed and Kiszco families.

A length of rope is all Castree deserves

Robin said...

When will they really let him out ? I cant see the do gooders wanting an old man in jail.There will be the "hes not a danger now" and 18 years is long enough etc.

Umbongo said...


I'm not making the argument that post hoc ergo propter hoc but in, what, 1965 when capital punishment was abolished we had according to this House of Commons research paper around 325 murders per year in England & Wales. In 1975 (when the instant murder occurred) the number was over 500. The figures bounce around a bit but certainly since the abolition of capital punishment numbers of instances of homicide have increased.

My point is that it is possible that capital punishment acts as a deterrent (it is certainly not an encouragement) to murder. I doubt if it is "equally" likely that he would have committed murder if he stood to hang for the offence.

the doctor said...

I am with you all the way with this one , Castree deserves all he gets .
As for cutting dicks off , make that the start , then the balls , followed by fingers and toes !!!

Mark Wadsworth said...

Capital punishment is wrong.

Automatic life imprisonment for violent crimes is absolutely fine, and, in practical terms, cheaper and less risky.

verity said...

Mark Wadsworth - capital punishment is right.

You commit a murder, the marker you pay with is your own life.

You are writing from a perspective of 30 or 40 years ago. Now, we have DNA evidence, which did for this vile creature and may he suffer torture in jail from inmates who aren't especially dainty, but can't abide people who murder little 12-year old girls ... little 12-year old daughters of people who sent them out to the shops to go and buy a loaf of bread ... puir wee soul!

Where there's any doubt, I would hold fire, but where there's DNA evidence, lethal injection, strapped down on a stretcher, televised for us all to watch this pervert pay his price.

Devil's Kitchen said...


I am with Mark here, I'm afraid: as a libertarian, I will not condone state-sanctioned murder.

I am happy for "life" to mean life though.


William Gruff said...

Capital punishment is neither 'right' nor 'wrong', it is simply not appropriate, given the appalling miscarriages of justice that have occurred.

The deeply unpleasant Lord Denning once said, apropos of the Birmingham Six, that if we'd still had capital punishment, we wouldn't have had all the 'fuss' of their appeals. The equally unpleasant Quentin Hogg was of similar outlook.

With regard to DNA evidence. Possibly its first use by police was in Norfolk, when a suspect who had been coerced into confessing to one of two murders that detectives knew had been committed by the same man adamantly refused to confess to the second. Determined to charge him with both murders they resorted to DNA evidence only to find that he had committed neither. In an earlier age his confession would have guaranteed his death by hanging, as happened to Timothy Evans in the case of the Christie murders.

There is no moral argument for or against capital punishment; it is simply not safe because we can never be certain that the convicted man is actually the culprit, even when the evidence is supported by a confession.

Pascal said...

Be careful with DNA evidence.

It is not as foolproof as the series on TV would have you believe.

Shug Niggurath said...

Did I have a comment pulled??? Just checking not complaining...

Devil's Kitchen said...


I never pull comments* unless they are spam**. It must just have not taken properly, sorry.


*Apart from one that got me threatened with legal action about a year ago.

**I haven't had one of those for years.

Roger Thornhill said...

What Mark, William Gruff, Longrider and DK says.

Maybe to make myself clearer, such people should not be sentenced to "Life", but be sentenced to "Die in Prison". Maybe that would be clearer to everyone what is actually going to happen to them - I think "Life" does not shock, but the term "Die in Prison" should make it very very clear.

If they want their sentence shortened...erm, they can be given a pair of shoelaces, perhaps.

Umbongo said...

roger thornhill

I think I recall - but I stand to be corrected on this - that at the time of the abolition of capital punishment - it was intended that the substitute punishment of life imprisonment would literally mean "life". Well, that was quickly forgotten. Accordingly, your suggested sentence for murder (to "die in prison") which could have been an acceptable alternative has failed in practical terms (actually it's never been tried). This failure is probably due to the influence of the NACRO/Howard League tendency in UK punishment policy which meant that the true life sentence (except for a very few instances like Hindley) has never been consistently applied and never will be.

Shug Niggurath said...

No worries DK, cheers.... feel free to delete these for being o/t, just letting you know I read your reply...

verity said...

If the DNA evidence corroborates all the other evidence, then I would still go for the death penalty. Its mere existence acted to concentrate minds most miraculously.

In Texas, they get years of taxpayer funded appeals - often around 10 years of appeals. If, after 10 years of judges in ever-higher courts finding the evidence, including the DNA evidence, sound, I think we could go for it.

Robin said...

After the abolition of the death penalty,and despite some changes to the defintions of murder (manslaughter being one)the number of UNLAWFUL killings has increased.A statistic not used by the abolitionists.

At least if their put down, the authorities cannot go back on their word, as they have over Life imprisonment.

Vlad said...

Just give him to me - then ignore all the animal-like noises emanating from my back garden.

That? Oh, that's a new kind of Sunflower.

I have a solution to every problem. Of course, it's the same solution every time - but it is a good one.

bernard said...

'Rip his dick off and make him eat it'... what a silly comment.
As if somehow his willy is to blame.
Rip his cerebral cortex out, and make him eat it, is more logical.