Peter Sutcliffe died yesterday. Known as the Yorkshire Ripper, over a period of five years he murdered thirteen women and tried to murder another seven. He was arrested nine times in the course of the investigation but was released by police. The investigation was further muddled by a man known as Wearside Jack, who pretended to be the murderer and who sent the police tapes and letters which appeared genuine. Eventually, Sutcliffe was identified as the killer. He claimed he was told to do the killings by the voice of God. He was found guilty and was given life imprisonment which in his case meant what it said.
It’’s a ghastly but interesting case to consider. Clearly Sutcliffe did terrible deeds in murdering these defenceless women. He had nothing to gain from taking their lives. A great number of people would say that the authorities were right to imprison him and throw away the key. This was an evil and dangerous man, and needed to be punished for his crime and for the safety of the general public.
But here’s the thing. Would someone who was sane be likely to embark on the killing spree that Sutcliffe went on? It’s hard to believe that he wasn’t suffering from some awful psychosis, given the things he did. If that is the case, then he was a victim too: a man driven by insane delusions to do what he did. If Sutcliffe was insane, then clearly he needed to be confined to and treated in a psychiatric institution, not a high-security prison. Put bluntly, when a man is mentally ill, he can’t be held responsible for the actions he engages in.
The only alternative interpretation is that Sutcliffe was a thoroughly evil man who knew what he was doing and delighted in doing it. But isn’t that what we call insanity? And insane people can’t or shouldn’t be held responsible for their lethal actions.
Footnote: it’s odd how Sutcliffe is seen as the embodiment of evil for his murderous actions, while others who have killed at least as many people are accorded state honours every 11 November.
Comments are closed.