Harry Roberts. When will a life sentence be life ?
Discussion
TooMany2cvs said:
So, just to summarise...
On the one hand, we've got a parole board with the full set of case files and access for interviews.
On the other hand, we've got a handful of Daily Mail links and vague references to "lefties" from somebody whose username suggests he likes guns.
Riiiiiight.
My comments are based on a belief that some crimes merit a lifetime's incarceration. I have worked with public services for over thirty years. All of those I mentioned are dominated by left wing thinking.On the one hand, we've got a parole board with the full set of case files and access for interviews.
On the other hand, we've got a handful of Daily Mail links and vague references to "lefties" from somebody whose username suggests he likes guns.
Riiiiiight.
It sounds as if you subscribe to the view that no-one is irredeemable. That's fine with me and let's leave it at that without lame digs shall we?
I don't care how sorry someone may be, or what experts may say about the likelihood of them re offending, some people deserve to lose their freedom for the rest of their natural lives. I do think every case is different and so I wouldn't necessarily weight the murder of a Police Officer above that of anyone else. However, when someone has a record of criminality culminating in multiple murders with no possible justification, or just one in some circumstances, that's it, we should throw away the key.
The case of Roy Whiting is interesting and my feelings are the same regarding Roberts. I do not care whether he is rehabilitated at the age of 82 or what threat he poses at that time. It is my belief that he should die in prison for what he did. It's not vengeance but something called justice, the other end of the spectrum which starts with words of advice for a silly minor misdemeanour.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Sarah_Pay...
TooMany2cvs said:
9mm said:
My comments are based on a belief that some crimes merit a lifetime's incarceration.
It sounds as if you subscribe to the view that no-one is irredeemable.
There is, of course, a vast gulf between those two extremes.It sounds as if you subscribe to the view that no-one is irredeemable.
So do you accept that some people should spend the rest of their lives in prison or is your position that every person, regardless of their crimes, may be deserving of release at some undetermined point in the future?
9mm said:
So do you accept that some people should spend the rest of their lives in prison
Of course.But where I suspect I differ from you is that I would say that it's the person and their attitude whilst inside, not the original crime, which determines whether they are sufficiently rehabilitated to be allowed to return to society - subject, obviously, to their original sentence and the tariff before parole can be considered.
Saying "Look, this person might well be utterly contrite and safe to mix with Joe Public, but _LOOK WHAT THEY DID FIFTY YEARS AGO_!" goes way beyond justice and into vengeance.
TooMany2cvs said:
9mm said:
So do you accept that some people should spend the rest of their lives in prison
Of course.But where I suspect I differ from you is that I would say that it's the person and their attitude whilst inside, not the original crime, which determines whether they are sufficiently rehabilitated to be allowed to return to society - subject, obviously, to their original sentence and the tariff before parole can be considered.
Saying "Look, this person might well be utterly contrite and safe to mix with Joe Public, but _LOOK WHAT THEY DID FIFTY YEARS AGO_!" goes way beyond justice and into vengeance.
9mm said:
TooMany2cvs said:
9mm said:
So do you accept that some people should spend the rest of their lives in prison
Of course.But where I suspect I differ from you is that I would say that it's the person and their attitude whilst inside, not the original crime, which determines whether they are sufficiently rehabilitated to be allowed to return to society - subject, obviously, to their original sentence and the tariff before parole can be considered.
Saying "Look, this person might well be utterly contrite and safe to mix with Joe Public, but _LOOK WHAT THEY DID FIFTY YEARS AGO_!" goes way beyond justice and into vengeance.
TooMany2cvs said:
9mm said:
TooMany2cvs said:
9mm said:
So do you accept that some people should spend the rest of their lives in prison
Of course.But where I suspect I differ from you is that I would say that it's the person and their attitude whilst inside, not the original crime, which determines whether they are sufficiently rehabilitated to be allowed to return to society - subject, obviously, to their original sentence and the tariff before parole can be considered.
Saying "Look, this person might well be utterly contrite and safe to mix with Joe Public, but _LOOK WHAT THEY DID FIFTY YEARS AGO_!" goes way beyond justice and into vengeance.
9mm said:
I'm not challenging the parole board's decision or the original judgment.
So you're perfectly comfortable with Roberts' 30yr tariff and paroling, then? Because, if you aren't, and are claiming he should remain inside until the day he dies, then - yes - you are challenging those decisions.TooMany2cvs said:
9mm said:
I'm not challenging the parole board's decision or the original judgment.
So you're perfectly comfortable with Roberts' 30yr tariff and paroling, then? Because, if you aren't, and are claiming he should remain inside until the day he dies, then - yes - you are challenging those decisions.A separate issue is that I think they should be working to a different set of guidelines. It is the idea that certain murderers (like Roberts or Black or Whiting, take your pick) should ever be considered for release that I am challenging.
TooMany2cvs said:
So, just to summarise...
On the one hand, we've got a parole board with the full set of case files and access for interviews.
On the other hand, we've got a handful of Daily Mail links and vague references to "lefties" from somebody whose username suggests he likes guns.
Riiiiiight.
"At times he issued terrifying veiled threats, which coincided with a series of sickening attacks on her animals. In the worst incident, a horse’s head was hacked at with an axe the night before she was due to give evidence against him.On the one hand, we've got a parole board with the full set of case files and access for interviews.
On the other hand, we've got a handful of Daily Mail links and vague references to "lefties" from somebody whose username suggests he likes guns.
Riiiiiight.
On another occasion, days after Mrs Cartwright’s husband had resisted giving Roberts a character reference, another of her horses was attacked and had to be put down.
In other assaults between 2002 and 2006, a horse lost an eye after being battered with an iron bar; a donkey died after its pelvis was shattered, probably with a baseball bat; the family’s pet cat was electrocuted, and a peacock was strangled."
All this after the infallible parole board released him previously
righto fella.When the death penalty was abolished it was sold to the public that instead of the state taking a life, they would go to prison for the rest of their life. Times then were less clear cut and miscarriages did happen so even though I would support the death penalty, I understand the unease other feel.
The problem I have is we have reduced murder to an inconvenience to the victim and now only the most savage warrant more than a few lines in the news. There is also a belief from some that everyone can be rehabilitated, clearly that is not the case.
For the parole board it must be difficult, they want to see the best in everyone, but in reality some dupe them, say the right thing to a well meaning person who want to believe they have changed, but the reality is different. Having spent a long time with a couple who are involved in parole work via a magistrate we both knew, they were perfectly charming people who did believe in allowing even the most dangerous people out if they were satisfied they present no further harm to the public. Even when the tales of those who got out who should not, they felt the majority were a success and it worth the risk. My question was worth the risk to who?
Sentencing should reflect the views of the public more, we have the farce of the victim statement trying to sway the sentencing, why? If it was set correctly we would have no need to try to get it higher.
On here people will never agree with the extremes of the subject. Do I want someone who has made a mistake jailed for ever, no. Do I want people like this guy and his type yes. Do I feel the system reflects that no, as the system seems to treat them the same.
The problem I have is we have reduced murder to an inconvenience to the victim and now only the most savage warrant more than a few lines in the news. There is also a belief from some that everyone can be rehabilitated, clearly that is not the case.
For the parole board it must be difficult, they want to see the best in everyone, but in reality some dupe them, say the right thing to a well meaning person who want to believe they have changed, but the reality is different. Having spent a long time with a couple who are involved in parole work via a magistrate we both knew, they were perfectly charming people who did believe in allowing even the most dangerous people out if they were satisfied they present no further harm to the public. Even when the tales of those who got out who should not, they felt the majority were a success and it worth the risk. My question was worth the risk to who?
Sentencing should reflect the views of the public more, we have the farce of the victim statement trying to sway the sentencing, why? If it was set correctly we would have no need to try to get it higher.
On here people will never agree with the extremes of the subject. Do I want someone who has made a mistake jailed for ever, no. Do I want people like this guy and his type yes. Do I feel the system reflects that no, as the system seems to treat them the same.
9mm said:
Rovinghawk said:
9mm said:
If they are no longer a danger to society, as a result of old age or genuine remorse, great, they can stay in prison doing charitable works.
Who benefits from that? Nobody, AFAICS.Expense for no reason.
TooMany2cvs said:
Of course.
But where I suspect I differ from you is that I would say that it's the person and their attitude whilst inside, not the original crime, which determines whether they are sufficiently rehabilitated to be allowed to return to society - subject, obviously, to their original sentence and the tariff before parole can be considered.
Saying "Look, this person might well be utterly contrite and safe to mix with Joe Public, but _LOOK WHAT THEY DID FIFTY YEARS AGO_!" goes way beyond justice and into vengeance.
Why? Are their victims not still dead? Are their families not still haunted by the needless murder of their fathers?But where I suspect I differ from you is that I would say that it's the person and their attitude whilst inside, not the original crime, which determines whether they are sufficiently rehabilitated to be allowed to return to society - subject, obviously, to their original sentence and the tariff before parole can be considered.
Saying "Look, this person might well be utterly contrite and safe to mix with Joe Public, but _LOOK WHAT THEY DID FIFTY YEARS AGO_!" goes way beyond justice and into vengeance.
Vengeance would have been giving the families some alone time in the cells.
Life should mean life, no exceptions, no parole. The only reason the death sentence was abolished was because people believed that life would mean life.
As life expectancy has risen, 30 years now isn't what it was 30 years ago, so clearly there's room to increase sentences.
Rovinghawk said:
9mm said:
Rovinghawk said:
9mm said:
If they are no longer a danger to society, as a result of old age or genuine remorse, great, they can stay in prison doing charitable works.
Who benefits from that? Nobody, AFAICS.Expense for no reason.
Potential victims - their ability to do damage is effectively ended
Friends and relatives of the victim(s) - satisfaction that a life has effectively been exchanged for a lifetime
The probation service - they don't have to monitor him
Housing associations - they don't have to house him
GPs and their patients - for most minor ailments they'll be treated in prison and if they have to visit hospital they'll be supervised
Shops and their customers - they aren't put at risk
Social services - they'll be taken care of in prison meaning a raft of services won't need to be provided
That'll do for now.
9mm said:
Why leave financial considerations aside? Immediate beneficiaries I can think of are:
<snip>
GPs and their patients - for most minor ailments they'll be treated in prison and if they have to visit hospital they'll be supervised
<snip>
Social services - they'll be taken care of in prison meaning a raft of services won't need to be provided
That'll do for now.
Prisoners are treated by NHS employed clinical staff in all UK prisons , as the previous arrangements were felt to pose a significant clinical governance risk and there were issues with HCOs who were more interested in the discipline side of their arguably contradictory role.<snip>
GPs and their patients - for most minor ailments they'll be treated in prison and if they have to visit hospital they'll be supervised
<snip>
Social services - they'll be taken care of in prison meaning a raft of services won't need to be provided
That'll do for now.
I am unsure of the exact arrangmeents for prisoners who require assistance with personal care, but a number of prisons do have accomodation modified to accomodate disabled or elderly frail prisoners
Prisons officers nad support grades are not trained to provide personal care as the none RN HCOs went thesame way as the RN HCOs - make a choice and go one way or the other,
I;'ve only worked in Acute hospitals which served cat A and B male prisions and 'closed' female prison so i am unsureof the supervision arrangements for Cat D prisoners - many lifers are dowgraded to Cat D over the course of their sentence, it;s only those who can't behave (e.g. Bronson) or who due to the nature of their crimes are at risk in the general prison population (e.g. huntley) that stay a cat A special for long periods
TooMany2cvs said:
9mm said:
TooMany2cvs said:
9mm said:
So do you accept that some people should spend the rest of their lives in prison
Of course.But where I suspect I differ from you is that I would say that it's the person and their attitude whilst inside, not the original crime, which determines whether they are sufficiently rehabilitated to be allowed to return to society - subject, obviously, to their original sentence and the tariff before parole can be considered.
Saying "Look, this person might well be utterly contrite and safe to mix with Joe Public, but _LOOK WHAT THEY DID FIFTY YEARS AGO_!" goes way beyond justice and into vengeance.
"I think it likely that no Home Secretary in future, regarding the enormity of your crime, will ever think fit to show mercy by releasing you on licence. This is one of those cases for life imprisonment which may be well treated as meaning exactly what it says."
According to his daughter, who one might think would be in a position to know, the judge would have sentenced Roberts to hang had not the death penalty not been abolished a few months before the trial - http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/triple-cop-ki...
What the judge clearly never envisaged was that the Home Secretary would subsequently be stripped of the power to set a tariff and later still the decision to release would be taken away from him/her as well.
StottyEvo said:
TooMany2cvs said:
So, just to summarise...
On the one hand, we've got a parole board with the full set of case files and access for interviews.
On the other hand, we've got a handful of Daily Mail links and vague references to "lefties" from somebody whose username suggests he likes guns.
Riiiiiight.
"At times he issued terrifying veiled threats, which coincided with a series of sickening attacks on her animals. In the worst incident, a horse’s head was hacked at with an axe the night before she was due to give evidence against him.On the one hand, we've got a parole board with the full set of case files and access for interviews.
On the other hand, we've got a handful of Daily Mail links and vague references to "lefties" from somebody whose username suggests he likes guns.
Riiiiiight.
On another occasion, days after Mrs Cartwright’s husband had resisted giving Roberts a character reference, another of her horses was attacked and had to be put down.
In other assaults between 2002 and 2006, a horse lost an eye after being battered with an iron bar; a donkey died after its pelvis was shattered, probably with a baseball bat; the family’s pet cat was electrocuted, and a peacock was strangled."
Has he undergone a Damascene conversion? What has changed in the last five years that makes the Parole Board think he is no longer a risk to anyone? I sure as hell wouldn't want to be in her shoes because, if he could carry on threatening the family after being moved to a closed prison (see below), I don't fancy her chances now (her husband died some years ago).
StottyEvo said:
All this after the infallible parole board released him previously righto fella.
In the interests of balance, they didn't. He was on day release (RTOL) from Sudbury which is a Category D prison. That's not the same thing as being finally let out into society and living in the community 24/7. When the Cartwrights eventually complained about him, he was moved to a closed prison and that's when things turned really nasty. A coincidence? Yeah, right. righto fella.The issue now is how closely will he be supervised? What restrictions will there be on his movements and monitoring of any contacts he makes?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff