Showing posts with label murderers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label murderers. Show all posts

Friday, October 24, 2025

Prison Morality

The murder of an utterly degenerate sex criminal evokes a visceral atavistic reaction. Good job. Reinforcing the universal belief that sex cases are invariably harshly dealt with by other prisoners, that criminals are somehow best placed to judge the crimes of others, the conscience of society.

And so we can find ourselves tipping our hats to the two murderers who did for sex criminal Ian Watkins at Wakefield nick the other day. Murderers being elevated as moral arbiters isn’t a common event, but due to the mythos of prison, we find ourselves in this embarrassing position of having sent two men to prison for murder, now wanting to buy them a pint for, er, killing again.

It is true that, as in all cultures, prisoners have a hierarchy. Or rather, hierarchies. As it is impossible for a single source of complete power to ever reside amongst prisoners, there are many hierarchies. There are those at the top of the wealth pile, others top of the physically tough pyramid, and so on. One's position across these hierarchies doesn't rest on one factor, your crime. Rather it rests on several features, some fixed, some fluid, your peccadillos being only one.

Pop culture has you believing that sex cases are invariably rock bottom of every possible hierarchy, including cockroaches. There is a visceral reaction against sex crimes that simply doesn't exist for any other breach of normality, even amongst those who themselves committed the most serious of crimes, murder. Murder doesn't repel us in the same way, which its why murder is a staple of popular entertainment. Sex crimes against children, not so much.

The measure of which crimes are worse than others is an exercise in painful mental contortions and staggering hypocrisy. How can you possibly calculate, even define, what is “worse”? Worse for who? Society, or the individual? It would take me little effort to argue that reckless bankers cause far more harm than paedophiles. But no one duffs up shady bankers.

The measure is, in reality, centred on that visceral reaction to certain crimes, that truly brainless reaction. And so we find murderers at the top of prison society, as a class, with sex cases firmly held to be at the bottom. Murder as the most SERIOUS crime, but not the WORST crime.

However, prison myths are just that. The black and white judgement on the crimes of others is regularly tempered by self interest. If a sex case is a 7 foot black belt, he’s often good to go. If he has a good supply of drugs, his crimes are obfuscated by addiction. If he is surrounded by friends who defend him, again , he walks with impunity.

Prison morality is a figment of the imagination, a projection by a society who actually wants us to commit violence on other criminals, a society that exercises its loathing through prison justice. It's a morality that absolves the cannibal while condemning the rapist. It's a morality built on narcissism and hypocrisy. Because if you suggest to the killers of Watkins that the families of THEIR victims would like to be allowed to kill them, I'm guessing they’ll unwaveringly cling to the rule of law…

Wanting to hurt those who have hurt us is all very human. But controlling our base urges is what separates us from animals. To this extent, the role of the criminal justice system is to protect us from ourselves, from our worst urges. It should not exist as a channel through which we call upon bogeymen to do our bidding.


Friday, January 8, 2010

Bad Memories

It sounds weird but I have always believed that a fair number of murderers suffer from aspects of post-traumatic stress. I say weird, because of course it is we ourselves who caused the awful event that now haunts us. But then, if you chop your own fingers off, the fact it is self inflicted doesn't reduce the pain and suffering.

There are now drugs that are able to erase painful memories. Should these be available to murderers as well as the families of their victims?

The proposition raises a range of questions, foremost amongst them being, what is the nature and purpose of punishment? Perhaps it is interesting that the first murderer, Cain, was left unmolested by God, possibly because the lifelong weight of his conscience was punishment enough.

Is it intrinsically part of a murderer's punishment that he carry the memory of what he has done? Or is the legal and moral debt to society expunged at the end of the punitive portion (tariff) of the sentence and so memories, as well as "the slate", could be wiped clean?

Wednesday, November 4, 2009

Murder as an Almighty Fuck-up

Many people believe that the legal definition of murder includes a deliberate intent to kill. This is wrong. All that is required is an intent to cause serious harm, with death resulting. Contrary to the portrayal of murder in the popular culture and media as being a Machiavellian act, deliberate and instrumental, the reality is far different. The overwhelming majority of murders result from emotional and psychological 'blown fuses' - outbursts of anger, jealousy, rage, hate, love, fear or panic. They are 'moments of madness1 and conscious deliberate thought doesn't enter into it. They tend to be an almighty fuck-up and not intended events. These, though, are dull murders. No TV series could be based on the reality of most murders. And so our culture highlights the tiny minority, the serial killers and the conscious plotters. But in doing so, people are led to believe that these people comprise the bulk of the murdering-classes. And this distortion of the reality in the name of entertainment may go a long way to explain why the criminal justice debate is so warped, so out of touch with reality. Sound debate and sound policy flow from an appreciation of things as they really are, rather than the reality offered by the mass media.