Harry Roberts to Be Released After 45 Years

He was brought to justice, and did 48 years in prison.

The justice system doesn't exist to give you 'personal satisfaction'. It exists to prevent crime. If keeping him locked up isn't going to achieve that, then it's a pointless waste of taxpayer's money.

Its also exists as a form of retribution.
 
There is quite a difference between


There is nothing set in legislation. Murder is murder and the only penalty is life imprisonment. The tariff is in the gift of the judge and to some extent, the Secretary of State.

The Parole Board determine whether or not a lifer is safe to be returned to the community.
And isn't it 30 years, that is the general default sentence for murder?
 
Why should you get a longer sentence for murdering a Police Officer than you should get for murdering a child. Both are disgusting crimes.
Why should you get a longer sentence for punching a black bloke than punching a white one?

The same crime? One is somehow worse than the other due to who the victim is.
 
Why should you get a longer sentence for punching a black bloke than punching a white one?

The same crime? One is somehow worse than the other due to who the victim is.
I suppose that you're talking about mitigating factors then?
 
I recall as a youth when Harry Roberts went on the run for a fair few days. At my military boarding school in Scotland we were encouraged by one of our locum teachers in English (Brian Marjoribanks - Hearts, Hibs and Scotland) to come up with a poem depicting the events.

Stealing the lyrics from the song Daisy Daisy, I came up with the following:

Harry, Harry
The Coppers are after you
If they catch you they'll give you a kick or two
They'll tie you up in Wire
Behind a Black Maria
And we'll all sing until you swing
on a scaffold made for two!

I thought it was pretty catchy, but it never made the Top 1 million and anyway the Death Penalty had been abolished eight months previously!
 
I suppose that you're talking about mitigating factors then?
Aggravating factors more likely.

Hate crime in particular, if it is thought that you as the crim did what you did because your victim was a memember of a protected species, sorry that should read minority, then you will be in line for a much tougher sentence.

All of which shows that under UK law some victims are more important than others so this can or should be extended to the police.
 
Aggravating factors more likely.

Hate crime in particular, if it is thought that you as the crim did what you did because your victim was a memember of a protected species, sorry that should read minority, then you will be in line for a much tougher sentence.

All of which shows that under UK law some victims are more important than others so this can or should be extended to the police.

I disagree that some victims are seemingly more important. To use your own example.

Man A punches Man B purely because he is black.

Man A punches Man B because he comes home an finds him in bed with his wife.

Which is worse?
 
Aggravating factors more likely.

Hate crime in particular, if it is thought that you as the crim did what you did because your victim was a memember of a protected species, sorry that should read minority, then you will be in line for a much tougher sentence.

All of which shows that under UK law some victims are more important than others so this can or should be extended to the police.
I understand what you are saying but some people do not believe that aggravating factors have any place in sentencing.
 
He was brought to justice, and did 48 years in prison.

The justice system doesn't exist to give you 'personal satisfaction'. It exists to prevent crime. If keeping him locked up isn't going to achieve that, then it's a pointless waste of taxpayer's money.
I'm not going to argue with you - that's my opinion and you, of course, are entitled to yours.
However, the statement I made that made you respond referred to "Jihadi John", in the unlikely event that he is lifted alive and in one piece and able to face the full might of British justice.
 
Aggravating factors more likely.

Hate crime in particular, if it is thought that you as the crim did what you did because your victim was a memember of a protected species, sorry that should read minority, then you will be in line for a much tougher sentence.

All of which shows that under UK law some victims are more important than others so this can or should be extended to the police.

I've never bought into this either. It has the tendency to belittle the same crime when committed against others.

If there are aggravating or mitigating factors in a crime, they can be dealt with in consideration of the sentence. Motivation should not be dealt with as forming a separate and distinct offence. IMHO it was very bad law and was introduced to pander to minorities rather than to deal with a problem.
 
I've never bought into this either. It has the tendency to belittle the same crime when committed against others.

If there are aggravating or mitigating factors in a crime, they can be dealt with in consideration of the sentence. Motivation should not be dealt with as forming a separate and distinct offence. IMHO it was very bad law and was introduced to pander to minorities rather than to deal with a problem.
Exactly.
 
Please let the bloke called 'Justin' that was on R4 PM being interviewed by Eddie Mair not be a real copper.

He first said that status of the victims of the crime shouldn't be taken into consideration, then in the same breath said that Police killers should get longer sentences. He eventually conceded that this meant that Police killers should be treated differently, although it was painful hearing him admit it.

He asked Mair why Roberts wasn't strung up by the neck, clearly oblivious to the fact that Capital Punishment had ceased the previous year to the HR case.

He was either a Sun reading knuckle-dragger blagging to get on air, or the Police Service of today is doomed.

I'll stick up a link to the BBC Radio iPlayer once it's on. It was cringe-worthy listening.
 
Iz
I disagree that some victims are seemingly more important. To use your own example.

Man A punches Man B purely because he is black.

Man A punches Man B because he comes home an finds him in bed with his wife.

Which is worse?
It's not what I think that matters. This is the way the law stands and it proves that under UK law some victims are worth more than others, that is the way it is.
I'm saying that this same law should be applied to cops as well.
 
Please let the bloke called 'Justin' that was on R4 PM being interviewed by Eddie Mair not be a real copper.

He first said that status of the victims of the crime shouldn't be taken into consideration, then in the same breath said that Police killers should get longer sentences. He eventually conceded that this meant that Police killers should be treated differently, although it was painful hearing him admit it.

He asked Mair why Roberts wasn't strung up by the neck, clearly oblivious to the fact that Capital Punishment had ceased the previous year to the HR case.

He was either a Sun reading knuckle-dragger blagging to get on air, or the Police Service of today is doomed.

I'll stick up a link to the BBC Radio iPlayer once it's on. It was cringe-worthy listening.


Heard it, too. He sounded like the mouth-breather from central casting.

I have to say, though, that that sort of vox pop is everything that PM deserves. Eddie Mair is a skilled broadcaster and interviewer, but he (and the producer) seem hell bent on dumbing down what should be a serious current affairs programme. There are more and more quirky little bits of business being introduced.

Last week they had this thing where they got a poet or singer to 'crash the pips' each evening. What the feck was that all about? It wasn't clever, funny, educational or informative. It was pure drive time local radio filler, that's what it was.
 
I remember a couple of prisoners getting "natural life" sentences coming into the Maze, I actually done longer in there than they did, as regards Harry Roberts they could have hanged him a couple of times in those days, but they didn't so theres no point worrying about it now.
 
Aggravating factors more likely.

Hate crime in particular, if it is thought that you as the crim did what you did because your victim was a memember of a protected species, sorry that should read minority, then you will be in line for a much tougher sentence.

All of which shows that under UK law some victims are more important than others so this can or should be extended to the police.
Aggravating factors are taken into account when sentencing for murder. These include the vulnerability of the victim (a child, a pregnant woman, an elderly person, a disabled person etc), the motive (committed as a result of hate, in the course of another crime such as robbery or burglary etc) the heinous nature of the crime (whether the victim was tortured or raped before death etc) or the status of the victim (a police officer in the execution of his/her duty, a prison officer on duty, a judge sitting in court etc). Note that the 'ordinary' murder of an off-duty police officer (where his/ her occupation is not a factor) would not be considered an aggravating factor - it's nothing to do with the individual person, it's what they represent when on duty - as seen yesterday by the Canadian police officers running towards the sound of gunfire - something not expected of many other occupations.
In many countries, murder is categorised into degrees, depending on the heinousness of the particular crime. Perhaps that should be considered in the UK.
 
You just know that before a year is up the Sun and/or Daily Wail will line him up with the memorial to the three policemen for a photoshoot. He will be given a cushy pad, loadsa dosh and will soon be living the good life on published proceeds of his crime. I only hope the bus that runs him over is full. :cool:
 
I recall as a youth when Harry Roberts went on the run for a fair few days. At my military boarding school in Scotland we were encouraged by one of our locum teachers in English (Brian Marjoribanks - Hearts, Hibs and Scotland) to come up with a poem depicting the events.

Stealing the lyrics from the song Daisy Daisy, I came up with the following:

Harry, Harry
The Coppers are after you
If they catch you they'll give you a kick or two
They'll tie you up in Wire
Behind a Black Maria
And we'll all sing until you swing
on a scaffold made for two!

I thought it was pretty catchy, but it never made the Top 1 million and anyway the Death Penalty had been abolished eight months previously!

It obviously caught on though because my cousin taught that to me in Hull in the mid seventies.
 
This for me wouldn't be a difficult call. He's killed three policemen. He shouldn't be released. There are other alternatives that the prison authorities could consider for Mr Roberts if they think he isn't a danger to the public. For example, an open prison until he dies.

All that said, I'm not aware of the facts concerning Mr Roberts. I'm wondering really whether at his age, he probably needs care that cannot be provided in the prison?

At the end of the day, the authorities have made a decision and they obviously are aware of all the pertinent facts. We have to trust them to have made the right decision according to the rules. If they have done so, that's something that has to be accepted by us all.

It's just a terrible shame we can't bring back those three policemen as well.

Roberts opened fire and killed two police officers. The third was shot and killed by his accomplice, John Duddy.

Kate Kray interviewed Roberts for a book she was writing and found him completely unrepentant. He expressed no sympathy for his victims or remorse for his actions. Indeed, he regularly painted pictures that recreated the shootings, and even baked pies, "decorated with pastry cut-outs of dead police officers". The armed robber Ian McVicar also stated that Roberts gloated about the killings when they were in the same jail.

Roberts is a psychopath. It's impossible to reform someone like him; he's got a head full of bad wiring. He was lucky enough to dodge the death penalty on two occasions. He should have locked in solitary confinement and the key thrown away 48 years ago. Instead, he will enjoy whatever time remains to him in comparative comfort. A luxury he denied his victims. And their surviving families.

The fact that Roberts is unlikely to re-offend is not the issue here, although it was only recently that another elderly mass-murderer was arrested after making threats to kill again and stockpiling homemade ammo. The issue is that an unrepentant double murderer should not be freed. Ever. There were very good reasons for abolishing the death penalty, but the legal system must retain some kind of ultimate sanction for the most serious crimes. And that should be Life Without the Possibility of Release. If you take away someone else's life for selfish reasons, then yours will be over in all but name. You will never be free again.

Anything less may be the Law, but it certainly is not Justice.
 

Latest Threads

Top