Author Topic: Who has more rights thirty years on: Jeremy or Colin?  (Read 32479 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Jane J

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 23318
Re: Who has more rights thirty years on: Jeremy or Colin?
« Reply #15 on: October 29, 2015, 07:39:PM »
I'm thinking mainly of the judicial process, where Jeremy has been incarcerated for thirty years in a tiny cell measuring not more than ten feet by seven if I hazard a guess, trapped in a cage of iron, which if it were mine I think I'd prefer to end it all today, innocent or guilty. On the other hand we have Colin, the silent victim who has quietly gone about rebuilding the shards of his shattered life with dignity, has remarried and now has more children of his own. Should Colin's wish to see the killer of his sons interned for life be paramount, or has Jeremy served his time and earned the right to eat pot noodle on a Dorset beach, the waves lapping at his feet as he saunters along the sands, or dons a wetsuit to partake of a spot of windsurfing before taking a bite to eat in a nearby cafe?

Steve, I would never have expected less, from you, than this thought provoking and many layered thread.

I'm not Colin and I have no idea what may be his capacity for forgiveness. I don't have children so I will never experience their lives being torn away by another human being but I suspect that if I did I would NEVER forgive them. Doing away with the death penalty eliminated total finality -incidentally, I never saw it as a deterrent but as sending out the message that should someone commit this particular crime, it would be the punishment they'd receive- so when a life sentence is handed down, it should be exactly that. The incidences of those who have murdered, that I believe should be released, are very few.

Having got that out of the way, I wonder how a wholly institutionalized person would cope in the outside world. A person who has had all their thinking done for them surely won't -how ever much they may have longed for their freedom- be able to cope. Then there's the problem of public opinion which isn't easy to change. Especially when the crime committed has involved children. Of course, in the case of younger people being released there's the possibility of changing their identities, but the older the released person, the more difficult they are likely to find the transition. Whatever their age, I see the strong possibility of a life of drinking and drug taking to avoid facing the difficulties and potential loneliness. I also see the possibility of new crimes being committed in order for them to go back to the confines of a prison OR suicides.

Offline Jan

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8913
Re: Who has more rights thirty years on: Jeremy or Colin?
« Reply #16 on: October 29, 2015, 07:39:PM »
Do you think that the original sentence was adequate? I don't think it was an adequate punishment for the crimes committed, the 5 lives extinguished for sheer greed - I think that the sentence not being adequate is a good reason for it being changed.

It was the sentence at the time made by the judge. And normally when a sentence is changed each individual case has to go through due process. I don't think this was done in Jeremys case was it?

Offline mat

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6564
Re: Who has more rights thirty years on: Jeremy or Colin?
« Reply #17 on: October 29, 2015, 07:43:PM »
I wonder what the point of keeping people behind bars for life is solely to vegetate if they are not deemed a risk to the public? If they are criminally insane they should naturally be placed in the appropriate institution.

Well personally I think Bamber is a bullet point psychopath. But there is no other options than to keep him behind bars for life because his crimes and the mitigating circumstances are seen as enough to warrant a whole life tariff which is the strongest sentence possible in a country without the death penalty.


 
It was the sentence at the time made by the judge. And normally when a sentence is changed each individual case has to go through due process. I don't think this was done in Jeremys case was it?

It was changed by the home secretary, they have that power.

Do you think that the original sentence was adequate?

Offline Jan

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8913
Re: Who has more rights thirty years on: Jeremy or Colin?
« Reply #18 on: October 29, 2015, 07:47:PM »
The criminal justice system is supposed on paper to strike a balance between punishment and rehabilitation. The problem I foresee is if Jeremy wished to travel to a Cornwall beach and find himself in close proximity with Colin and his daughter it would surely be an unacceptable state of affairs?


a young man I know was killed in an extremely deliberate act of dangerous driving - but the sentence for death by dangerous driving  with parole was pathetic - the culprit NEVER showed any remorse or apologised ever. And is now driving around in the same area as the family . I am sure the affect on the family will never go away - but if he had had a longer sentence that actually affected his life it may have been a tiny bit of compensation.

I don't know how Colin would feel about the above situation because he has his own individual way of dealing with things but I am sure he would not be happy.

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 19595
Re: Who has more rights thirty years on: Jeremy or Colin?
« Reply #19 on: October 29, 2015, 07:48:PM »
I'm thinking mainly of the judicial process, where Jeremy has been incarcerated for thirty years in a tiny cell measuring not more than ten feet by seven if I hazard a guess, trapped in a cage of iron, which if it were mine I think I'd prefer to end it all today, innocent or guilty. On the other hand we have Colin, the silent victim who has quietly gone about rebuilding the shards of his shattered life with dignity, has remarried and now has more children of his own. Should Colin's wish to see the killer of his sons interned for life be paramount, or has Jeremy served his time and earned the right to eat pot noodle on a Dorset beach, the waves lapping at his feet as he saunters along the sands, or dons a wetsuit to partake of a spot of windsurfing before taking a bite to eat in a nearby cafe?

I don't understand the question Steve. Obviously it's no contest - Jeremy relinquished any rights when he killed 5 people and I don't think he should ever be compared with Colin. Jeremy deserves hi life sentence - Colin was given his when Jeremy pulled the trigger on his children.
100% GUILTY - No doubts!

Offline Jan

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8913
Re: Who has more rights thirty years on: Jeremy or Colin?
« Reply #20 on: October 29, 2015, 07:49:PM »
Well personally I think Bamber is a bullet point psychopath. But there is no other options than to keep him behind bars for life because his crimes and the mitigating circumstances are seen as enough to warrant a whole life tariff which is the strongest sentence possible in a country without the death penalty.


 
It was changed by the home secretary, they have that power.

Do you think that the original sentence was adequate?

I already said what I thought the sentence should have been .

But  why in Jeremys case do you think they should change it ? What had he done to change their minds ? Because he would not admit guilt?

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 19595
Re: Who has more rights thirty years on: Jeremy or Colin?
« Reply #21 on: October 29, 2015, 07:50:PM »
The criminal justice system is supposed on paper to strike a balance between punishment and rehabilitation. The problem I foresee is if Jeremy wished to travel to a Cornwall beach and find himself in close proximity with Colin and his daughter it would surely be an unacceptable state of affairs?

How do you rehabilitate someone who has NEVER taken responsibility for their actions?
100% GUILTY - No doubts!

Offline Steve_uk

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8563
Re: Who has more rights thirty years on: Jeremy or Colin?
« Reply #22 on: October 29, 2015, 07:51:PM »
Letter from Jeremy in Wormwood Scrubs to Colin written 16 August 1988:

DEAR COLIN

I READ THE ARTICLE IN YESTERDAY'S INDEPENDENT WITH MUCH SADNESS,THE SAME SADNESS I ALWAYS FEEL WHEN I READ ABOUT YOU AND WHAT YOU'VE BEEN THROUGH IN THE LAST THREE YEARS.

YOUR LETTER TODAY,COLIN,WAS I'M AFRAID A TOUCH PREMATURE.YOU'RE WRITING TO ME HOPING,I GUESS,FOR THE LAST FEW PIECES OF THE JIGSAW SO THAT YOU MAY HOLD THE PICTURE OF WHAT HAPPENED IS NOT POSSIBLE. IF I COULD FURNISH YOU WITH WHAT YOU WANTED THEN I WOULD GLADLY DO SO-WHATEVER HAPPENED THAT FATEFUL NIGHT WILL NEVER BE FULLY EXPLAINED,IN FACT YOU COULD PROBABLY TELL ME MORE THAN I COULD YOU.

THE PAPER DID MENTION IN THE ARTICLE YESTERDAY THAT I WAS APPEALING AND NO DOUBT YOU KNEW THAT ANYWAY. HOW ARE YOU GOING TO REACT WHEN THEY QUASH MY CONVICTION ,COLIN,BECAUSE IT'S VERY PROBABLE THEY WILL DO SO? YOU MAY BELIEVE ME GUILTY,YOU MAY NOT,BUT I HOPE THAT IF NOTHING ELSE YOU'LL TRY AND KEEP AN OPEN MIND BECAUSE AT MY APPEAL I WILL PROVE MY INNOCENCE AND BY DOING THAT THE CORNER-STONE OF THE PROSECUTION EVIDENCE WAS FABRICATED,BY WHOM I CAN'T PROVE YET AND IT'S NOT NECESSARY TO DO SO FOR MY APPEAL BUT EVENTUALLY I'LL FIND OUT BECAUSE IT CAN ONLY BE ONE OF FIVE PEOPLE. IT SOUNDS LIKE I'M TALKING RIDDLES AND I'M SORRY THAT I CAN'T EXPLAIN IN A LETTER TO YOU.IT SEEMS SO POINTLESS IN ME SENDING YOU THIS LETTER AS IT'LL ONLY ADD TO YOUR CONFUSION BUT FOR YOU TO WRITE TO ME MUST HAVE TAKEN A GREAT DEAL SO MY REPLYING IS THE LEAST I CAN DO..

Offline mat

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6564
Re: Who has more rights thirty years on: Jeremy or Colin?
« Reply #23 on: October 29, 2015, 07:54:PM »
I already said what I thought the sentence should have been .

But  why in Jeremys case do you think they should change it ? What had he done to change their minds ? Because he would not admit guilt?

Because his case falls under what they are allowed to give a whole life tariff, Jan. Which only the home secretary can give, I don't think they trial judge could do so.

Offline Jane J

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 23318
Re: Who has more rights thirty years on: Jeremy or Colin?
« Reply #24 on: October 29, 2015, 07:56:PM »
I already said what I thought the sentence should have been .

But  why in Jeremys case do you think they should change it ? What had he done to change their minds ? Because he would not admit guilt?


Jan, it wasn't STRICTLY changed. Justice Drake gave him a MINIMUM of 25 years after which his suitability for release would be assessed. I believe he also said that it was possible he may never be released, although I'm certain Jeremy was clinging to his term being no more than 25 years.

Offline Steve_uk

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8563
Re: Who has more rights thirty years on: Jeremy or Colin?
« Reply #25 on: October 29, 2015, 07:56:PM »
I don't understand the question Steve. Obviously it's no contest - Jeremy relinquished any rights when he killed 5 people and I don't think he should ever be compared with Colin. Jeremy deserves hi life sentence - Colin was given his when Jeremy pulled the trigger on his children.
Well I was thinking generically as to whether a murderer can ever earn release and its implications. As Jane says many lifers will have become institutionalized but I just wonder what the point of keeping someone like an animal in a confined space is and whether someone just going through the motions of existence enduring the same stale routine might be better off dead..

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 19595
Re: Who has more rights thirty years on: Jeremy or Colin?
« Reply #26 on: October 29, 2015, 07:57:PM »
I already said what I thought the sentence should have been .

But  why in Jeremys case do you think they should change it ? What had he done to change their minds ? Because he would not admit guilt?

they probably didn't think 5 years per person was adequate - neither do I.
100% GUILTY - No doubts!

Offline Steve_uk

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8563
Re: Who has more rights thirty years on: Jeremy or Colin?
« Reply #27 on: October 29, 2015, 08:02:PM »
Jeremy's letter to Colin(continued..)

IN THE SAME WAY THAT YOU QUESTION WHAT WAS WRITTEN ABOUT SHEILA IN THE NEWSPAPERS SO YOU SHOULD QUESTION WHAT WAS SAID ABOUT ME-I'M NOT GAY OR BI-SEXUAL,I WASN'T A COCAINE SMUGGLER,I DIDN'T KNOW HALF THE PEOPLE I'D BEEN ASSOCIATED WITH,I DIDN'T BREAK SOMEONE'S ARM AT SCHOOL,I DIDN'T KITE CHEQUES AND I DIDN'T RAPE JULIE.WHAT OTHER ODIOUS STUFF THEY WROTE I CAN'T RECALL-EVEN DURING MY TRIAL THEY COULDN'T GET IT RIGHT.

I WON'T GO ON,YOU KNOW ME AND WHAT I WAS LIKE AND I DIDN'T WRITE TO CONVINCE YOU OF MY INNOCENCE EVEN THOUGH I AM,JUST WELL WHATEVER

                                                                                      LOVE
                                                                                         JEREMY

PS.I TRULY WISH I COULD HELP YOU.

Offline Jane J

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 23318
Re: Who has more rights thirty years on: Jeremy or Colin?
« Reply #28 on: October 29, 2015, 08:04:PM »
they probably didn't think 5 years per person was adequate - neither do I.

Consecutive v concurrent?

Offline Jan

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8913
Re: Who has more rights thirty years on: Jeremy or Colin?
« Reply #29 on: October 29, 2015, 08:06:PM »
The trial judge, Mr Justice Drake, sentenced Bamber to serve ‘life’ and both he and the Lord Chief Justice recommended that Jeremy Bamber should serve a minimum of 25 years before a review. However, in 1988 the Secretary of State, Mr Douglas Hurd, imposed a whole life tariff without informing Bamber.[5]

After prisoners won a Judicial Review of the Secretary of State’s reserved right not to tell prisoners the length of their sentence, on the 15th of December 1994, the Home Office Prison services, then formally advised Jeremy Bamber of this decision.[6] Until this point, Jeremy Bamber had been unaware that his sentence had been upgraded by the Government retrospectively. The fact that whole life sentences were introduced in 1983, and the first one was not set until 1988, is surprisingly not in breach of Article 7 (1) of the Human Rights Convention.

The Home Office Prison Service also formally advised Jeremy that he would serve the whole life sentence with a review which was already set for 2002 by the Secretary of State.[7]  But this review was withdrawn when the House of Lords held that the Secretary of State was not an ‘independent and impartial tribunal.