General Chat

he should stay in prison until he dies - would you want Ian Huntley, the Soham muderer, released at any time because he was ill? I donlt think so and the same goes for Myra Hindley's partner in crime - he is ill too, albeit mentally ill, but in prison he should stay, along with that other piece of dross Rose West. Jamie Bulger's murderers were let out - why I will never knoiw - they were old enough to know what they were doing and they should never have walked free

Ronnie Biggs lived the high life free from justice for so many years - he became a sort of celebrity - he was part of a gang which was responsible for the ultimate death of an innocent hard working man - had he served his sentence in the first place he would have been free years ago - what goes round comes round!!!

Thank you Ann, that is it in a nutshell !!!!!

Something I find appaling, as Ann has mentioned the Jamie Bulger murderers, one of them was due to get married (can't remember what one..Thompson I think) and his then "wife to be" was not told anything about his past...all covered up! Let's hope she doesn't decide to do his family history!!

Still undecided about Biggs; but Jack Straw freed the dreadful Pinochet.

and Margaret Thatcher ran after Pinochet's plane to give him a farewell gift!!!!!

How does Pinochet come into this? As far as I know he never committed a crime against anyone in Britain. He was certainly not tried for train robbery and violence in any British court.

just that it was a Jack Straw decision to free him

We are now speaking of an elderly, incapacitated man.

According to his son, which is common knowledge, I believe, Ronnie Biggs cannot communicate or feed himself. He cannot stand up unaided.

Ronnie may well have been guilty of a crime in the 60's. Yes, the driver assaulted, died about 7 years later.Was his death solely due to this event?

Whilst I do have sympathy with the driver's family, we have to remember, that this is now the 21st century.

This is now when it seems acceptable to release paedophiles after 5 years sentence, when it is known that this particular individual, will certaily re- offend.

Who is the most dangerous to society?....Not Rocket Science...Is It?

well the train driver was never able to work again - with regard to releasing paedophiles, that it plainly wrong, as is much of the justice system it seems to me

The question is - what's the point?

Do we send people to prison to protect society? If so, fair enough- there are people who are so maladjusted that we can't take a chance on ever letting them free to reek havoc ever again.

Do we send people to prison to punish them by taking away their liberty?
Fair enough, again - but how much more do we need to punish a man who's incapable of speech and movement?

Or do we send people to prison to make us feel as if we've had an eye for an eye? if so, we should hang our collective heads in shame.

Sue x

He made his choice when he absconded and lived the life of riley in Brazil.

No one made him come back.........he did it for purely mercenary purposes.

I don't care what he's in for.......he has a sentence to serve.

And if you make an exception for him.........who next?

Ian Huntley?

The point is, he did the crime and now he needs to do the time. Yes he is ill and like Muffy has said, he came back for mercenary reasons...........

He "stole" his money and spunked the lot of it away in Brazil living the high life. He has never shown any remorse for his crime. Now he wants out of jail and wants the UK tax payer to foot the bill for his nursing home fees (as that is where he will end up) ..........well I am a tax payer and I dont want it spent on scum like him..............I don't want it spent on the likes of Huntley/Bradey and the likes either, but at least they are locked up and will never get out................i hope.

If I had my choice, my tax would be spent on Great Ormond Street and the likes and animal welfares as opposed to tophats like him.......................

rant over................

good debate Sue.x

The point here is legal precedence.

Ronnie Biggs absconded from jail whilst serving a 30 year sentence. The Law demands that when he re-entered the UK he had to be re-arrested to serve the remaining "tarriff" of his sentence. If he was to be freed, the decision could be used in the future as a legal argument in other cases where an absconder returns to the UK. This person could be a mass murderer, paedophile or whatever, but because Biggs had been freed under a certain set of criteria then if those same criteria applied to another criminal, they would be perfectly entitiled to use the Biggs case as a valid legal argument to be released from their sentence.

The Law has to be seen to be applied on an equal measure to everyone; therefore any decision made by the court or the judicial system does set a precedent and has ramifications for any subsequent cases. If Huntley DID escape and return in 35 years time with failing health, he could legitimately argue that as Biggs had been freed under these conditions, then he should be freed to.

Now who would want that?

Not me xx

The argument being used to free Biggs is that he is old and frail and no danger to the public.
What the do-gooders in politics (and on these pages) don't grasp is that this man was a convicted criminal who escaped justice for decades and came back to the UK only because his money had run out and he wanted the British taxpayer to look after him as his health deteriorated.
There is a prisoner in Sudbury Prison, Derbyshire, named Harry Roberts, who was convicted of the massacre of three policemen in London in 1966. I mean massacre, when the car in which he was travelling was pulled over, he drew a gun and calmly shot one policeman. As the other unarmed officers retreated he shot one of them and his accomplice shot the other. There are now calls for this piece of scum to be released, the bleeding-heart brigade claiming, "he is an old man".
One day Ian Huntley will be an old man and no doubt the do-gooders of the future will be saying in 2040, "but he is just a poor old man and can do no harm".
Unfortunately the selective memories of reformers forget the victims from decades ago and and concentrate on the perpertrator in his/her present state. They can never see them as they were at the time.
Try and release Rose West or Ian Huntley now and there would be uproar, because their crimes are fresh in our minds. But Robert's, Bigg's and the Moors Murderer's crimes are distant and forgotten.
Biggs should serve the remainder of his sentence, if that means dying in gaol, so be it. It was his choice to escape justice for so long, he now has to pay the price.

One other thing which happened, he Only married that woman out there to have a child with her so he could,nt be extradited back to the UK. The Brazillian Government would not allow it as he was then the Father of a Brazillian National.**M**.

Bernie my Boy,

I fully agree. I have argued in the past (and on another thread) that this country needs to decide what the object of the criminal justice and penal system is - is it to punish/deter crime, or is it to rehabilitate? In my mind, these two goals are mutually exclusive, and to try and do both weakens the other aim.

My personal belief is that it should be to punish and deter. Make it hard, make it uncomfortable and make the sentences long. Added to that, there are people who you cannot risk being released back into society, and as the death penalty is no longer an option, then they have to be locked up until they die - if you can't prevent someone from committing the crime once, then you certainly can prevent them from doing it twice. This should be accomplished by dropping them about 8' whilst wearing a hemp collar - I mean we shoot mad dogs, don't we? - but as this is not an option, then lock them up for good and let them rot.

PS, it's nice to see someone else spelling "gaol" properly and not the American way.

I am old enough to remember the arguments and promises made when hanging was abolished in the UK. The abolitionists promised that the end of capital punishment would be replaced with severe sentencing, many MPs stating that "life would mean life " in serious cases.

Within a very short time the bleeding heart brigade had ensured that the average "life" sentence was 14 years. Today it is under 10 !!!!!!

But then, we cannot erode a prisoner's "Yuman Rites" can we?

Yeah, it seems to me that the only people who get a life sentence now are the families of the victims.

And it seems to me that the only people who qualify for "Yuman rights" are the criminals - not the victims, not their relatives.

In my opinion, if you commit a serious enough crime then you forfeit you "Yuman rights". You had no consideration for you victim's rights, so why should you be entitled to any?

There used to be, many centuries ago, the concept of "Outlawry". If you committed and were convicted of a crime serious enough, you were declared "Outside the Law". The state no longer offered you protection and you could be legally killed by anyone without recrimination.

Evening all,

Ed has begun to nail the point of this whole debate, when he asks what the point of the penal system is:

"Is it to punish/deter crime, or is it to rehabilitate? In my mind, these two goals are mutually exclusive, and to try and do both weakens the other aim"

I'm not sure you can use the objective of punishing crime in the same breath as detering same. Detering crime implies that it will effect others; punishing crime implies that it will effect the perpetrator.

Do you want to deter crime? If fhat's the motive, then you'd be better employed in this case lobbying for extradition from Brazil

Do you want to rehabilitate criminals? Then more emphasis on self-awareness, learning etc would be a step in the right direction.

Do you want to punish crime? Which would achieve precisely what?

For the record, I'm not a "bleeding heart", I'm just pragmatic.

Sue x