MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
is ill in hospital , his son has asked he be set free as he is very ill / close to dieing ,umm isnt he a crim who got life , didnt a police man / gaurd die,as a result of his and his mates actions, as far as i can rember, my veiw , is he should die in prison as his sentance has demanded , an old saying springs to mind ,if you cant do the time , dont do the crime.
I thought he'd croaked ages ago, obviously not.
If you have a life sentance -it's not just for the prisoner but the public interest/safety/scare tactic not to do it etc.
Also it shows you can get off easily if you are let out due to illness.
Having your freedom muct be hell and we all make mistakes but these serious offenders knew what they were doing.
He should stay in Prison to live until death for a life sentance as much as I hate to say it.
Maybe they will make precautions for dying prisoners but tax money?!!
Maybe ask the families of the people that suffered?
Robbed a train; bloke got killed, Biggs lived the life of Riley in Brazil.
Should serve his sentence, otherwise, what's the point of the Law handing it down in the first place?
I agree,life should mean just that.
Not being handed a 'life' sentence,then only actually doing say 10 years or so as seems to be the case nowadays.
bloke got killed
Don't think that's right - iirc no one was killed. They had no guns, and whilst the train driver received a blow to the head, he died of leukemia 6 years later. They weren't convicted of murder, and the 30ish year sentences which they received, were amongst the highest in British legal history.
In fact the harsh sentences which they received, was said many to be a contributory factor in the massive increase in criminals becoming armed. The risk of being caught just became too great - up to that point criminals generally accepted that if they were caught, they would do the time ("it's fair cop guv'nor - I done it all") but the 30 year sentences changed all that.
I stand corrected.
Still, he profited very heavily, from the robbery itself, then from his own notoriety. And was hardly a paragon of virtue.
He should serve the sentence as handed down.
Ooh, I dunno, actually. Maybe not.
Maybe if he is that ill, let him spend his last few days/weeks with his loved ones.
What if he lives for a good bit longer, though?
Nah, **** it; string him up!
Oh, I don't know.
Good thing I'm not a High Court Judge, really.
Yes he was a criminal, no the sentences were too harsh imo.
30 years ? You don't get that for premeditated murder ffs.
Their problem was that they embarrassed the government [i][b]and[/b][/i] the Queen ! ........ it was a "Royal Mail" train
- dontcha know 😯
He spent his healthy years when he should have been locked up as a free man. Tough that he has to be locked up when he's dying - he'll still serve less time behind bars than he should have.
No, I know, Gus; but he lived a life of luxury, on the proceeds of crime. And the train driver never really recovered from the ordeal.
So presumably no one on here believes in a statute of limitation either - fair enough. I do though.
Well at least I don't believe in punishing a dying old man for something which he did over 40 years ago.
Unless he was maybe a war criminal of course .......... someone who was perhaps responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands innocent people due to an illegal war ?
Thing is he did not complete his sentence. The guard was not killed by them but was severely disabled.
Usually I have a lot of compassion for folk but he avoided justice as a young man and lived abroad for years. He needs to do his time. Die in jail he should
A life sentence is that - you only ever get released on license and are always subject to recall.
Fair enough, GG, but he was (allegedly) also involved in drug-running, so was involved in quite a bit of criminal activity, most of his life.
See what you're saying, though; give the man a bit of dignity, in his last days. And I agree, locking him up when he returned was also strongly politically motivated. Mind, he broke the Law in this country, and was duly tried and sentenced. He will have spent far less than the full 30 years, whatever happens.
plenty of other murderers since seem to have been released often now they get 14 yrs and serve 7, so whilst I agree about him having to do his time and compassion shouldn't come into it, it seems unfair the original sentences were never reviewed. All crimes that the media hypes seem to attract irregular punishments - either too harsh or too soft in the case of shannon matthews
the fall guy - wrong. Murder is a mandatory life sentace with a tarrif set for the number of years in jail. If you get a tarrif of 14 yrs you do 14 yrs then you are considered for parole. Upon release from jail having completed your tarrif you remain on parole for the rest of your life and any offence no matter how minor you go back to jail.
no one gets 14 yrs for murder and serves 7. Murder is always life.
Well, Karen Matthews got 8 years, for what was essentially little more than attempted fraud. Granted, the poor little girl will have suffered emotionally, and for that, her mother should be punished. [url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7772273.stm ]But people do less time, for far worse crimes.[/url]
A life sentence is that
He didn't get "life".
Yes what the gang did to the driver was of course unacceptable, and they should have been punished for it. But they didn't set out to deliberately permanently injure the driver - and would you expect someone to get 30 years today for being in a gang which gave someone one blow to the head ? Every week we hear of worst acts of violence. 10 at a push 15 years would have been fair sentences imo.
And yes, he went over the wall at Wandsworth nick and went on to live a comfortable life for many years. But can you honestly say with certainty that the determination to spring him would have been there if he had received 10 instead of 30 years ?
As I said before, this wasn't a case of "it's a fair cop, I done all - so now I'll serve my time". The sentencing was criminal imo - and also in the eyes of much of the British public, which was always the major reason of his "celebrity status" And don't forget, they never caught him - he came back on his own accord.
I think what Karen Matthews did was rather more than attempted fraud, and she was sentenced accordingly. I do agree though with your point about the disparity in sentencing.
Not really informed enough to comment on Ronnie Biggs' original sentence - though I can't see how whether that was harsh or not has anything to do with it.
GG - I din't say biggs got life - he got 30 yrs. the coment about life ( it that was aimed at me) was directed at someone elses comment if yu see what I maen
He came back to receive medical treatment that he couldn't get in brazil. I don't see why he should not serve his time - although I do agree that the sentences were harsh. How many years has he done in total?
Do you realise that there are scores of old frail old me in jail. Many with dementia. should they all get out?
FFS, TJ. You been on the sauce? Sort out your spellins and punkchayshun please.
Yeas, but GG; they never 'caught' him, because he was in Brazil, where he couldn't be extradited from! Plus, escaping, or attempting to escape from prison is an offence. So, added to his sentence.
I'll be perfectly honest; I've had a few now, and am quite tired. Also a bit peckish.
should they all get out?
If you put 'common humanity' to one side and just look at 'common sense' instead, that should tell you that keeping an old dying man in prison for a crime which he committed over 40 years ago and which probably deserved 10 year tariff, serves no useful purpose.
And I don't agree that the harshness of his sentence is irrelevant.. The huge public sympathy which Biggs still enjoys is to a great extent, due to the harshness of his sentence. It's certainly one of the main reasons why I am sympathetic towards him - that and the fact that he's old and dying. We live in a civilised society ffs.
No they should be in a high security Prison hospital if they are danger to themselves.
I think his family will be allowed to visit him.
He came back as he ran out of money.
Maybe they could take him to his family under guard for his last few days but not without any guards to remind him/public of his crime and compassion.
But he should not be released early and given a pardon.
I think his family will be allowed to visit him.
Are you sure you're not being too soft ?
How many years has he done so far? He escaped in '65, after having done a year or so? And he's been inside since 2001. So, that's what, 9 years all in? Maybe about right.
Biggs' stated desire was to "walk into a Margate pub as an Englishman and buy a pint of bitter"
Sorry, mate; but you forfeited your right to such simple pleasures by robbing the train, buggering off to Brazil, and living it up for so long, on ill-gotten gains.
Die in prison? Well, looks like he will.
i also stand corected , no one died at the acual event, he should however stay in side,
[center][b][i]Ronnie Biggs was doing time until he done a bunk
Now he says he's seen the light and he sold his soul to punk[/i][/b][/center]
It's interesting how many times Biggs has been close to death:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Biggs
But equally it's interesting to compare the treatment of Biggs with that of Ernest Saunders who was convicted in the [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guinness_share-trading_fraud ]Guinness share trading fraud[/url].
We should have not taken him back from Rio, we are now all paying for his treatment, I reckon that is why he wanted to come back, if he had stayed there he would have croaked ages ago.
we are now all paying for his treatment
It's probably cheaper to keep him in hospital than keep him in prison.