This week, we’ve been hearing on the news about Ian Brady and how he’s appealing to be allowed to return to a mainstream prison, so that he’s no longer force-fed by tube and can resume his hunger strike. For those of you who don’t know (and I’d be surprised if there were many) Ian Brady, along with his then-partner Myra Hindley, committed a series of kidnap-murders during a two and a half year period in the late 1960′s. The killings, known as the Moors murders, due to the locations of the graves that two of the victims were found in, were five children, aged between 10 and 17, 4 of whom were sexually assaulted.
Brady has been described as a sadist and a sexual psychopath and, even during recent times, has shown little or no remorse for what he’s done, refusing to reveal the location of his fourth victim, Keith Bennett. He’s described his actions as an ‘existential experience’ and has mocked the criminal justice system by claiming that he’s used ‘method acting’ to maintain an insanity plea.
In 1999, he went on hunger strike, deciding that he no longer wants to be alive and claims it’s his right to be allowed to die. He’s quoted as saying “Myra gets the potentially fatal brain condition, whilst I have to fight simply to die. I have had enough. I want nothing, my objective is to die and release myself from this once and for all. So you see my death strike is rational and pragmatic. I’m only sorry I didn’t do it decades ago, and I’m eager to leave this cesspit in a coffin.“
So, readers, do you believe he should be allowed to die?
I wrote recently about the Woolwich murders and about how I’d seen and heard many people saying that the two attackers should face the death penalty for what they did. Yet, here’s Ian Brady asking for death and we’re force feeding him to keep him alive. How does that sit with you?
On principal, I don’t agree with the death penalty. I understand the arguments for it; the reduction of costs, the removal of risk of recidivism, the message to other criminals. However, we don’t have the death penalty, so this in itself is a different issue.
I, personally, think Ian Brady should be made to live out every miserable second of the rest of his life, even if it means force feeding him. My reasons are these:
1. Brady’s victims weren’t allowed to choose the terms of their own deaths. Their young lives were callously taken and their families left to endure the agony.
2. When Brady committed those crimes and was convicted, his liberty was taken away, therefore he’s not at liberty to make the decision to end his life when a judge has ruled that he be punished.
3. Allowing a violent criminal to decide when to end his life, when we ban legitimate euthanasia for people who’ve suffered long and painful illnesses would make an absolute mockery of everyone who’s suffered on their deathbed, unable to consciously decide when enough is enough.
(If you want to read about people who should have been given the right to die, read up on Terri Schiavofollow, or read about Robert Latimerfollow, a man imprisoned for euthanising his severely disabled daughter)
Given the fact that Brady has been witnessed eating soup and toast while on his supposed hunger strike, all of this strikes me as his last desperate attempt to whip up a media-circus around himself, giving him the attention that he thinks he deserves. The man is the embodiment of pure evil and shouldn’t be allowed a release from suffering, given that it’s not even a fraction of the suffering he’s inflicted on others. He should be left in a room with no means of entertainment or means to kill himself, made to live in purgatory for the rest of his days.
The picture below is a portrait of each of his five victims. These are the names and faces that we should be remembering. Not those of their killers.