I hold no torch for this guy but..... come on.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/8129146.stm

Seems to me that our "Justice Secretary" needs an injection of common sense. I really can't see the need for this given then man's current state of health.

Hmmmm and to think that I once viewed Jack Straw as a possible future labour leader......

Tell that to his victims.
I see no reason why he should be let out early.

If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

He spent 30 plus years in Brazil sticking 2 fingers up at the British establishment. I suspect Its their way of saying FU ! ( payback time ).

A man who is 79, who can barely walk and who, following a stroke, can't swallow and has to be tube fed ?

The guy has served longer than many "hardened" criminals today.

Like I said.... I hold no torch for him but I think this decision is vindictive; and would come back to haunt JS, but I don't think he'll be around for much longer that 12 months for that to happen.

All that says is that criminals today are let out too early.

If he's given a set sentence, he should server it! It's no deterrent if people know they'll be out in half their sentence. Like AlunD said, this is probably the courts saying FU to him for what he did.

Parole is a stupid idea anyway.

Didn't someone get a 150 year sentence this week? For fraud I believe.

How many murderers get a sentence anywhere near that? The justice system is in a bit of a mess really isn't it!

Tbh the punishment should match the crime, but it'll never happen so long as there are "humanitarians" around -.-

The guy broke out of gaol. That should surely mean an end to any possibility of parole?

Perhaps they should offer a lethal injection as a more humane and cheaper option.

Bernie Madhoff for a billion pound pyramid scheme/fraud.


Well in the US, they have a much more stringent attitude towards gross financial misconduct than we do. Insofar as they think it's a crime and we seem to think it's a career progression.

Personally, I have to particular hatred for the bloke but I see no logic for him to be released. His state of health is irrelevant to the function of the sentence he was given. He was sentenced to 30 years in 1964 when he was 35. That essentially says to me the court said 'you will spend the best of the rest of your life in jail. You took that man's life away and therefore you will lose the best of yours'. He fled that sentence and, instead, spent the best years of his life living in relative comfort in Rio. As it stands, justice was not served. In fact I would go as far as to say that, because of his actions, justice cannot fully be served; his productive years have gone and cannot be 'paid' to offset the crime. That being so, 10 years in jail - under free medical care, which he wouldn't have got in Rio - hardly seems like a fair substitute.

He has not fairly 'paid' for the crime of which he was convicted. Therefore he should not be released. Whether he is fit and well is irrelevant. Whether he will die in jail is irrelevant. He should be released when justice has been served and, if he dies first, well that's just his bad luck.

Jon

That would probably count as assisted suicide which is, of course, illegal in the UK.

Jon

So is the death penalty except in a few non-EU countries, and possibly some very specific examples in the military.

I do realise my suggestion would require a change in the law. I've always considered it illogical that we treat mad, bad and sick dogs with greater dignity than humans.

I'm generally against the death penalty, but I'd be for it as a voluntary option.

The trouble is, how do you know someone hasn't been leant on? "Go on granny, we really need the money!"

That is the argument, and it's a fair one. Less of an issue with lifers in prison, but you can imagine some elderly people simply thinking they were obliged to stop being a burden...

If only everyone was nice, this would not be a problem.