I agree with Jack Straw’s decision not to let Ronnie Biggs go free. He has served, in total, a third of his sentence, and the parole board, despite recommending his release (on the grounds that he is so physically frail that he is no longer a threat to anyone), have reported that he has no remorse for his crime. Biggs took part in what became known as the Great Train Robbery in 1964, in which the driver was coshed over the head; he never worked again and died six years later. Biggs escaped from prison after 15 months, lived for decades in Brazil which had no extradition treaty, was not extradited when there was one as he had sired a Brazilian citizen, and returned voluntarily in 2001.
The fact is that if he had served his time, he would have been released decades ago. Judging by reports from his family today, his health is failing anyway, so keeping him locked up will mean he is not a drain on the public purse for much longer. Perhaps it might be true that had he committed the crime today, he would have received less than he got, but then, parole is not a right. I also strongly oppose letting people off their just deserts on the grounds of decrepitude; if someone evaded justice in their youth, and was brought back to it (or stupidly walked back to it, thinking they would get off lightly) in their old age, they should be shown no more mercy than they showed at the time.
Possibly Related Posts:
- The differences between the Inglis and Gilderdale murder cases
- “Trick or treat” murderer back in jail
- Getting others’ hands dirty
- Media shame over Dugard frenzy
- With friends like this …
Tags: ronnie biggs
Given his physical and psyvhological condition is Biggs being punished any more by being imprisoned than by being free? Is life in gaol any worse for him than life itself? Is his present condition no more than his “just deserts” anyway? I don’t think Biggs would be any better off out of prison than in it and at least hos family, who have shpwn loyalty he never deserved, would not be punished for his crimes. The problem is Biggs’s taste for publicity and admiration which stops him facing up to what he has done and which could be more easily supported if he were free. The question of whether Biggs ought to be imprisoned is one thing; I am much more concerned by Jack Straw’s vindictive attitude. There is something repellent in someone who wants to inflict punishment on a man who probably cannot realise he is being punished.
Isn’t Jack Straw a thief himself?
For me, this is a no brainer, if you commit the crime then you should serve your sentence in full - none of this compassionate release or good behaviour rubbish. Criminals should know that there is no hope of an early release…. Maybe then these thugs would think twice about offending? Liberty should not be subject to your physical or mental health - Criminals take forsake their right to liberty when they execute their crime. Maybe it is vindictive to let them rot, but I think it would be a genuine deterrent.
Also if Ian Brady suffered multiple strokes should we allow him back into society?
“Maybe it is vindictive to let them rot, but I think it would be a genuine deterrent.” I doubt if Biggs needs deterring from committing other crimes now.
“Also if Ian Brady suffered multiple strokes should we allow him back into society?” Apart from the fact that there is a considerable difference between the crimes they committed, it is is not proposed to let Biggs back into society, but to let him back into the care of his family.
Thanks for the comments - I meant that maybe it would be a deterrent to others. A friend of mine recently left went to prison (he was innocent!) - and he said that life was really comfortable in there.
Maybe if criminals knew that there was no chance of coming out after committing a violent crime then they would think twice? I am no authority on this subject, just expressing a thought.