Kate Hoey MP, via TheyWorkForYou.com:
Will the Leader of the House find time next week for those of us who disagree with the Justice Secretary’s decision to overrule the Parole Board on the Ronnie Biggs case to discuss that, given that we allowed hundreds of terrorists and murderers to go free in Northern Ireland, and we also allow murderers who have done much worse things than Ronnie Biggs to go free? The Justice Secretary overruled the Parole Board, which he could not do under today’s law. Will the Leader of the House find a way for us to discuss this matter and bring it to the House’s attention?
And we wonder why the criminal justice system is failing!
Let me get this straight. Because the UK government let a load of convicts out early as part of the cease-fire negotiation with sectarian terrorists, we should now let all criminals out early? Because the UK government has utterly failed to provide enough prison space and has to let some convicts out early we should let everyone out early?
And there was I, a naive citizen, thinking that the reason the state puts people away is to stop them from causing further harm. What does Ms Hoey think the reason is? To appease the mob? To keep them safe from the hands of the vigilantes?
Ms Hoey does have a point about consistency, though. Life should mean life, 30 years should mean 30 years, suspended sentences should be abolished and the law should be applied uniformly to all criminals no matter what hand-wringing excuses their lefty lawyers come up with. I suppose that is the difference between someone who can see the consequences of their thought processes and those who cannot.
For once, Mr Straw has got it right. If Biggs had not skipped jail in the first place he would have been a free man a long time ago. It also goes to show that, no matter how cleverly you design a system, there will always be curious results thrown out by a complex machine. There should always be room to overcome clearly “immoral” decisions. Three cheers for the old law. Up yours, Hoey.
Biggs chose to live the life of Riley, then came back when he had a medical need he wanted us to pay to treat. If he thinks he should be free in his old age, then he only has himself to blame.
Yes, we should eliminate the inconsistencies. As you say, we should do this by raising other standards to meet that of Biggs, not dropping his standard.
Biggs wa still part of a gang which caused huge problems for innocent people.
He’s looked after well enough, and he can stay there.
The principal point of prison is to punish offenders by depriving them of their liberty. A by-product of that is public safety, but that is not the reason we have prisons – public safety is why (or supposed to be why) we have a police force and a criminal justice system. Biggs has not yet served his punishment and therefore should not be released – nobody should be until they have served the full sentence laid down by the court. As patently says – we should eliminate the inconsistencies, but not by releasing more criminals who haven’t yet served their sentence.
I don’t agree with getting rid of suspended sentences, though – they can be a useful tool for dealing with first time offenders who are not likely to reoffend such as those normally law-abiding people provoked beyond all reasonable restraint by the sort of low level crime which takes place on sink estates all over the country. Indeed, my brother in law received a suspended sentence for assault after thumping an 18 year old when he caught him vandalising his van (for the umpteenth time and, as a painter and decorator – his livelihood).
What I do think should happen is that nobody should be allowed to have more than one suspended sentence or community service order. You make a mistake, fair enough – everyone deserves a second chance so a suspended sentence or cso is fine. You do it again and that’s it – it’s porridge time.
Stan – dare I ask whether the 18 year old was punished for tha “van”dalism?
(I do agree re multiple suspended sentences, etc)
Jack Mills, the train driver, was coshed bloody hard and never fully recovered. The law requires that a death must occur less than `a year and a day` from the actions that caused it or there can be no conviction for murder. Poor Jack, often forgotten. And don’t be sucked into sympathy by the card played by the lawyer that Biggs is `just a frail old man`. So he is, a frail, old, cocky, nasty, thieving bastard whose gang coshed a bloke who might easily have died on the spot were he not made of sterner stuf. Society owes
Biggs precisely nothing. We don’t put their heads on pikes outside the Tower anymore so to make them serve their sentence is the least we can do. Parole the genuine repenters and the rehabilitated, by all means.
Exactly H – we are all going to be old and frail one day. If we commit a crime and are sentenced for it, and we want to be free in our old age, then we must choose to serve it when we are younger.
Biggs chose to be out and free when he was younger.
Not sure that you can offer much insight into the thinking of socialists. But I suspect most of us believe that prison should also be used to help people reform and that sentences should be reduced for good behaviour – given that Biggs has shown no repentance and escaping from prison usually doen’t count as good behaviour it would be perverse to let him out after only serving 11 of his 30 year’s sentence. There also comes a point when compassion comes into play – and prisoners should be let out because they are incapable of doing any further damage to society and keeping them in prison only penalises the relatives – such a point is usually only reached very near the end however.
Hello Tory Boys, your presence makes me feel popular because you usually only spout your nonsense on the big-name blogs! If you read my post again very slowly (you are allowed to move your lips if it helps) you will understand that I was not even attempting to offer any insight into the thinking of socialists. I was using one socialist’s question in Parliament to offer that insight. Can you spot the difference?
Please come back, it will be fun having another leftie on here.
“Stan – dare I ask whether the 18 year old was punished for tha “van”dalism?”
Yes, you may ask – and no, he wasn’t. There were a gang of them and he happened to be the one who got caught by my bro-in-law – but as there was no evidence (other than my bro-in-laws testimony) that he was the one who put the brick through the window there was no charge.
“Not sure that you can offer much insight into the thinking of socialists.”
Not many people can – after all, it is so jumbled and incoherent.
Ho Ho – I think you will find that not many thinking socialists would normally include Kate Hoey within that classification. She does have some redeeming features but a deep thought out political analysis isn’t one of them.
You need to be careful with your headlines as there is a danger that people may take them literally – don’t worry I’ve never had that problem here. I did read your text, without the benefit of lips, and was just pointing out there are good socialist grounds for keeping Biggs in prison. Smiled at your reference to “sectarian terrorists” – trying to think if there are any pluralist ones!