Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Only recently Ronnie Biggs, Great Train Robber, was released early as it was believed he was close to dying - then shortly afterwards his freedom was reported to have given him a new lease of life. Whether or not it will be a full recovery we will have to wait and see but it reminded me of Ernest Saunders a member of the 'Guiness Four' who was released early as suffering from Alzheimer's disease. On release Saunders made a swift recovery from "Alzheimer's" and subsequently took on the roles of Chairman and Consultant for various international firms.


So, should this 'compassionate' back door to early release be kept open - or should we take the line that someone convicted of a serious crime (such as the 'terminally ill' Libyan convicted of the Lockerbie bombing) be kept behind bars with the same dispassion as the original crime(s) regardless of their state of health (real or manipulated)?

Can doctors be bought or conned by wealthy people? eg Saunders.


If their release in on the basis that they are ill and they are only being released on these grounds then it should be subject to regular post release reviews to ensure the Ernest Saunders' of this world cannot buy/con their way out of justice.

Mick Mac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Can doctors be bought or conned by wealthy people?

> eg Saunders.


Medico-legal opinions have long been a commodity. Court-approved experts have immunity in respect of their testimony: they can say virtually anything within the bounds of possibility in the certainty that their reputation will not be impugned even if their opinion is challenged.


Money can usually buy a favourable opinion if one shops around - something denied to those relying on a state funded defence, who have to disclose any opinions paid for by public funds - if they can get funding for even one opinion, in the first place.


(Caveat: that was the case when I was a campaigner against miscarriages of justice until a few years ago - things may have changed since then.)


> If their release in on the basis that they are ill

> and they are only being released on these grounds

> then it should be subject to regular post release

> reviews to ensure the Ernest Saunders' of this

> world cannot buy/con their way out of justice.


Given that this avenue is only open to the very rich, any attempt at reform is likely to fail.


It is often said: British Justice is the finest that money can buy - in my experience, that's true.

angetastic Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> In most cases prison is neither a deterrant nor does

> it rehabilitate. More like a no frills holiday camp.


It is also a university of crime: a place where new techniques and technologies are shared and life long camaraderies established.


Professional criminal gangs won't recruit new members unless they are known to have done time thus hoping to avoid infiltrators and informers.


In response, undercover police and customs officers often 'serve' time in prisons befriending known gang members or gathering general intelligence. Some prison cells are wired for sound. Prison authorities maintain logs of prisoner relationships that are entered into the Holmes computer database.


In short, prisons have become an important element in the fight against crime.

  • 2 weeks later...

Tricky one.

I think if someone has shown genuine remorse and rehabilitation for their crime then yes, but each case would need to be judged on it's merits, and not a general rule that allows criminals out when they're old and sick.


In Biggs case then yes. Despite his years on the run and cocking a snoot at the British legal system, he's now a frail old man with not long left in this world.

What would be proved by keeping him inside?


Alternatively i wouldn't agree that Charles Manson should ever be released, regardless of his health, based on his crimes and his lack of remorse for what he was responsible for.


I would think that prison would appear to be more acceptable for some people if they knew they'd be allowed out to die in peace with their family towards the end.

For somebody to be released on compassionate medical grounds I believe that they should be of the state that they require permanent medical care and are therefore being released into medical care ie. a hospital or holistic hospice for the dying, rather than into the general community. If this is not the case then I do not think that they can be determined as sick enough to warrant this consideration.

Robyn0312 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> For somebody to be released on compassionate

> medical grounds I believe that they should be of

> the state that they require permanent medical care

> and are therefore being released into medical care

> ie. a hospital or holistic hospice for the dying,

> rather than into the general community.


I think I would agree with this. Release should be conditional rather than absolute - if they turn out not to be as sick as previously thought then they should return.


This is of course going to be harder to implement in the case of foreign prisoners such as the libyan jailed for the Lockerbee case.

Jeremy wrote:-


It really depends on whether the government can broker any oil or weapons deals as a direct result of the release.





That cynical post made me laugh Jeremy, as if anything like that could happen here:))



Sticking two fingers up at our most powerful ally does not bode well either.

  • 2 weeks later...

Should Criminals be released early on compassionate grounds?


yes they should where the cost of caring for them in prison outweighs the benefits to society of them being there or where the seriousness of the crime doesn't warrant them dying in prison. pretty straightforward I think.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Per Cllr McAsh, as quoted above: “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution. " Is anyone au fait with the Clean Air Act 1993, and  particularly with the state of 'Smoke Control' law and practice generally?  I've just been looking  through some of it for the first time and, afaics, the civil penalties mentioned  were introduced into the Clean Air Act, at Schedule 1A, in May 2022.  So it seems that, in this particular,  it's a matter of the enforcement policy trailing well behind the legislation.  I'm not criticising that at all, but am curious.  
    • Here's the part of march46's linked-to Southwark News article pertaining to Southwark Council. "Southwark Council were also contacted for a response. "Councillor James McAsh, Cabinet Member for Clean Air, Streets & Waste said: “One of Southwark’s key priorities is to create a healthy environment for our residents. “To achieve this we closely monitor legislation and measures that influence air pollution – our entire borough apart from inland waterways is designated as a Smoke Control Area, and we also offer substantial provision for electric vehicles to promote alternative fuel travel options and our Streets for People strategy. “We as a council support the work of Mums for Lungs and recognise the health and environmental impacts of domestic solid fuel burning, particularly from wood-burning appliances. “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution.  “This work is being undertaken in collaboration with other London boroughs as part of the pan-London Wood Burning Project, which aims to harmonise enforcement approaches and share best practice across the capital.” ETA: And here's a post I made a few years ago, with tangential relevance.  https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/278140-early-morning-drone-flying/?do=findComment&comment=1493274  
    • The solicitor is also the Executor. Big mistake, but my Aunt was very old, and this was the Covid years and shortly after so impossible to intervene and get a couple of close relatives to do this.  She had no children so this is the nephews and nieces. He is a single practitioner, and most at his age would have long since retired - there is a question over his competence Two letters have already gone essentially complaining - batted off and 'amusingly' one put the blame on us. There are five on our side, all speaking to each other, and ideally would work as a single point of contact.  But he has said that this is not allowed - we've all given approval to act on each others behalf. There are five on her late husband's side, who have not engaged with us despite the suggestion to work as a team, There is one other, who get's the lion's share, the typicical 'friend', but we are long since challenging the will. I would like to put another complaint together that he has not used modern collective communication (I expect that he is incapable) which had seriously delayed the execution of the will.   I know many in their 80s very adept with smart phones so that is not an ageist comment. The house has deteriorated very badly, with cold, damp and a serious leak.  PM me if you want to see the dreadful condition that it is now in. I would also question why if the five of us are happy to work together why all of us need to confirm in writing.             The house was lived in until Feb 23, and has been allowed to get like this.
    • Isn’t a five yearly electricity safety certificate one of the things the landlord must give for a legal tenancy?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...