The government's decision is reported here.
On one hand, Nick Cohen is highly critical of the decision, seeing in it another sad example of the government's gesture-ridden decision-making. In short, he is skeptical about the government's stance.
On the other hand, Joan Smith in The Independent, is critical of the sentimentality that she sees attending this matter, and she compares the sympathy which the decision may elicit with the hard evidence of what Biggs and his gang actually did, and what they were prepared to do.
Both Nick Cohen and Joan Smith are being skeptical, but they differ fundamentally.
My own thoughts are mixed.
I am generally skeptical of penal policy and of populist decision-making; but I am also skeptical of those who celebrate dangerous people as folk heroes.
In my view, prison is in general an expensive way of making bad people worse and it entrenches criminality in society; but I also believe serious crime has to be dealt with in a hard-headed and clear-eyed way.
Instinctively I supported Nick Cohen on Ronnie Biggs, but I really did find Joan Smith's article a difficult counter-challenge.
I wonder what other skeptics think about this issue...
Posts
10 comment(s):
You're right, it is a complex issue. On one hand, a criminal should serve their sentence (if you can't do the time, don't do the crime) and the system should not be swayed by sentimentality. On the other, is it not the mark of a humane society that rare exceptions can be made?
I wonder if it is now possible to make a rational decision when both sides are so loaded with emotional responses?
Tricky one.
On the one hand, he took the decision to escape from prison; he took the decision to come back to the UK so he should damn well serve the rest of his time with some added on.
On the other hand, he's and old person whose days are severely numbered and he'll need round the clock care: his life outside will be the same as his life inside. He's no danger to anyone. As long as he doesn't do media stuff (if he's up to it), why not let him out?
At the moment I'm probably 60% favouring the former, 40% the latter but I'm open to persuasion in either direction.
I have some sympathy with one of his reasons for coming back to the UK: to go to proper English pub again!
I see it slightly differently but, unfortunately, with no more clarity.
On the one hand Biggs is clearly being made to die in prison as an example to others and a political gesture. He is not being punished for his crime but suffering for someone else purpose.
On the other hand: with so many decent people suffering why do I give a flying **** about the suffering of Ronnie Biggs?
What function do prisons serve? They don't seem to rehabilitate, just look at the high numbers of recidivism. Do they seek to punish? Perhaps they do, but in a limited way and in few cases does the punishment 'fit' the crime. Really they act to stop the bad guys doing it again while they are inside. With little Ronnie Biggs, he's not being rehabilitated, he's not likely to do the crime again in his enfeebled state, so all we're doing is punishing an old man, to what end. Is he serving as a warning to others who would try the same thing? I think not. So really, what is he doing inside? I'd be inclined to let him out, let him pass his remaining days outside of a prison, he's suffered and will continue to suffer in his own way. Time for the government to step back and let him away.
I agree with David Laws' comments on last weeks Question Time... Biggs committed a crime and fled the country for decades, then returned in ill health seemingly to make use of the NHS (without ever paying taxes) and for that he should have no sympathy; it's right he was put into prison upon his return. Laws even question whether he should even have been let back into the country - an interesting point. Having said that, he has served 10 years, is costing the country thousands of pounds and is using up scarce prison space which could be occupied by far more dangerous criminals.
Biggs isn't really danger to anyone and he has at least served some time. There is, in my opinion, no legitimate reason to keep him in prison.
On a broader note, the situation with Biggs does seem to reveal the vast differences between past and current prison sentences. I wonder what sentence his crime would receive had it been committed today, and how long he would have to serve? I recently read of 9 years being the average 'life' sentence and 13 years being the average 'life' sentence for murder! I don't know how legitimate these figures are, but if true then it really is shocking.
I guess I wouldn't have such a problem with him serving his full sentence and essentially dying in prison, if serving the full sentence was the norm, however when we have criminals (some more dangerous that Biggs) only have to do a fraction of their sentence it doesn't seem right for Biggs to be denied parol.
Ronnie Biggs is a welfare tourist - he seems to have come back to Britain to get the free medical care, relying on being released because he's old and sick. Having spent 35 years on the run, he should not be allowed to exploit the benefits of British citizenship without serving his sentence.
You ask: "What, if any, should be the skeptical approach to the recent decision by Jack Straw to deny parole to Ronnie Biggs?"
I'll answer that question with a question: why are parole decisions made by a politician?
(cf interest rate decisions and the Chancellor of the Exchequer)
"What, if any, should be the skeptical approach to the recent decision by Jack Straw to deny parole to Ronnie Biggs?"
An honest skeptic, unless they were a legal expert such as Jack, would decline to comment.
I have no idea what should happen to Biggs. I don't know enough to form a reasoned opinion. (I also don't care, but if I did, I would still be ignorant).
If I did offer an opinion on the matter I would deserve a "What the hell do you know?"
To assume that everyone has something useful to say about every news story is absurd (what I call the "Speak Your Branes fallacy")...
Biggs was a brutal man, in denial about the consequences of the crime he comitted.
He also became a high-profile nose-thumber at justice. If he had just served his time, he would have been free by now. Instead he went to Rio and swanned in the sun for years.
I have no problem with keeping an 80-year old in prison, especially if he spent 30 years in the sun instead of doing his time.
It is wrong that we don't lock up dangerous criminals for long enough, but it's not right to treat him too leniently just because we are too soft on other scum who commit premeditated acts of violence.
Lest we forget but should not justice be tempered with mercy some of the comments on this blog dismay me.
Post a Comment