3 x police killer Harry Roberts was NEVER “our friend”, but……

[Isitmebut]

Living in London in the 1960’s, there was a sick anti police chant used for decades, that I heard too often on those inner London streets, ‘celebrating’ Robert’s actions.

Harry Roberts has now served 48-years in prison, and on his parole review, three members of the Parole Board has chosen to release him.
“Police killer Harry Roberts to be freed”
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-29734816

I have very mixed opinions on this, involving IMO the usually too light sentence served for any murder, the justified time served ‘premium’ for killing a police officer and after 48-years has Roberts paid his debt to society - with the proviso that we can never bring a murdered victim back and the ‘life sentence’ carries on for everyone that knew those three policeman.

And I seriously cannot rationalise the answer, which is personally worrying that I might be going soft, as would have hung-him-high THREE TIMES in one day 48-years ago, and a few decades after.

Any thoughts?

[edamsavestheday]

Personally, I think 48 years is enough for a life sentence, unless the murderer still poses a danger.

[2shoeprintsintheblood]

I don't think he should be freed, I think life should mean life.
but at least he served 48 years, not just a couple of years.

[PigletJohn]

"Paid his debt to Society" is I am sure wrong.

What has he done to compensate us? Nothing.

Possibly the white-collar criminal who gets off with community service can claim to have "paid his debt."

I do not agree that the lives of murder victims have a value graduated by their occupation.

[CogitoErgoSometimes]

48 years is a mammoth amount of time served. If someone no longer presents a risk to society there is no good reason to keep them incarcerated for more decades. To do so would go beyond reasonable punishment, make no attempt at rehabilitation and be inhumane.

[Isitmebut]

PigletJohn ..... A jail term completed is generally considered to mean a criminal has ''paid their debt to society' - maybe in likes of Palestine or the Ukraine "compensation" like a live goat or sheep to a relative is required - but not here.

If I didn't make it clear, I am in favour of the 'eye for an eye' malarky you might be suggesting, but within our system, doing ones time is meant to have paid that debt.

I wonder how many other murderers within the UK e.g. of children, considered ok to be released have SERVED 48 years, or anywhere near?

[MsHerodotus]

Paid his debt to Society" is I am sure wrong
Completely agree.

[KeeperOfBees]

isitmebut

Your last paragraph sums up my thoughts exactly.

[creighton]

he and his associates killed 3 police officers in one go. he should not be released. his debt to society is so great that he can never pay it back. I don't think that, in this case, it matters whether he is a current threat to the public, he went too far and should remain in jail.

[PigletJohn]

creighton

What in your view is the ratio in sentence for killing three people vs. killing one, and what percentage do you increase or reduce the tariff if the victims are children/milkmen/surgeons/policemen/teachers/nurses/unemployed/retired/barmaids?

[Redglitter]

whole life sentences should be the norm for most murderers. Why should he be released. He killed 3 men he should remain locked up for the rest of his life

[IPityThePontipines]

Agree with Piglet John that someone's profession should make no difference to the sentence passed for murdering them.

Apparently, Theresa May wants to make killing a police officer a whole life tariff offence. I think the law should be above such gestures by politicians.

48 years is a very long time. If he is deemed safe, he should be released.

[caroldecker]

Killing olice officers should have a higher tariff becasue they put themselves in danger to protect us. Most people would run away, but the police cannot, so there needs to be a detrrent to criminals.

[OutragedFromLeeds]

I think 48 years is sufficient. If he poses no risk then he should be released. It wasn't even pre-meditated murder was it? I think people do far worse and serve far less time.

[ScarlettlovesRhett]

Ian Brady has done roughly the same amount now - would you agree with him being released?

Life should mean life imo (especially in the case of pre-meditated and serial/mass killings).

[OutragedFromLeeds]

I think Ian Brady's crimes were worse because they were pre-meditated.

But I think he was declared insane or something....so if he had been 'cured' and was no longer a risk, then maybe yes.

[hackmum]

48 years is far far longer than most people serve for murder. Sadly, Baby P's killers are already out of prison.

[LilAnnieAmphetamine]

If the government wants to show the esteem in holds public servants in, it can start by paying them properly, stop fucking with their pensions, staff the services better and increase funding and training.

Not stupid meaningless gestures that don't have any effect other than sentimental headlines in the more reactionary papers.

[Mama1980]

I think 48 years is a huge amount of time, if he poses no danger he should be released, it's the humane thing to do.

Brady is insane and therefore still a danger, so it's different in his case. But if he weren't then the same stands.

[pantone363]

Baby P's killers are out of prison?

I'm sorry WHAT?

[creighton]

the circumstances of the crime were premeditated, they went out with guns, 2 different people used guns. they were ready to shoot at anyone who got in their way and coldblooded killed 3 policemen. the police should be held to higher standards of behaviour as far as their own involvement in illegal activities is concerned and should also be given higher protection under the law for being the ones who should protect and uphold the law.

[Wolfbasher]

The increase in sentence for killing a police officer is necessary to deter criminals from attacking the police officers confronting them.

Other professions aren't required to confront criminals as a daily part of their job. It's not so that police officers are 'worth' more, it is that it makes all of us safer if criminals are deterred from trying to kill officers questioning/arresting them. If police officers are routinely killed in the line of duty, they will be less likely to confront dangerous criminals.

[Isitmebut]

I reiterate a point within my OP, that society should know that in attacking/killing policepeople, the punishment they will receive will be harder and longer than for anyone else, we as a society OWE the police that much.

Furthermore I’d concede that nearly 50-years ago, whether 1,3, or 10 policeman had approached those criminals, they would have been murdered.

But playing the devil’s advocate, few criminals would have known a police killer COULD SERVE 48-years before this story came out, so there should be some consolation that they do now - and that will be on any future criminal (or terrorists) mind, when taking guns out on the street.

There have been very few issues that I can remember being ‘on the fence’ about, but I am on this and can’t see me coming down on either side. If Roberts is deemed to be no longer a threat to society, 48-years is a very long time to be institutionalised, but that is not a call I’d ever like to make.

[Aussiemum78]

I tend to wonder if being let out is really that great for him. He's elderly, probably has few friends or family, possibly in ill health, no financial security. He hasn't got a life built up with family and memories over the last 50 years.

What will he do? I imagine his life outside will be almost as bleak as prison.

Hopefully he regrets immensely his crime, and appreciates the small window he has to live outside, before his own death.

[PigletJohn]

if you kill a cop, you can expect to be caught, because the others will never stop looking for you.

For those who think that the length of sentence should vary by the occupation of the victim, how many investment bankers or Ipswich sex workers are worth one paramedic or two teachers?

[Isitmebut]

PigletJohn ... I could give you a rough estimate on those ratios, but I'd suggest that would get us no-where, unless you are an Investment Banker or an Ipswich sex worker and need to be reassured.

For the answer to why killing a policeman should have more penal sentencing, I'd suggest you re-read poster Wolfbasher's post.

Furthermore, the assumption that any person killing policeman will always get caught, is flawed in two ways.

Firstly there is no guarantee police killers will be caught, we don't usually automatically know their names or that they'll stay in the country, never mind their homes, waiting to be caught.

Secondly, and more important, is that as a DETERRENT, is might make them think twice about pulling the trigger - and saving a police life in the first place.