I think if they are over 70 they should be shot in the back of the head with a pistol and incinerated.
I neither disagree nor disagree with the sentiments, but the way you seem to glorify shooting someone in the back of the head and then burning them seems a little bit mentally unhinged to me.
In the case of very old, rich, men like Rolf Harris, take away their millions and put the money to a good purpose. Living life in poverty, with everyone knowing what they have done, would be sufficiant punishment for them at their age .
..and with such an approach, they may again offend - people commit sex offences at all ages - there exists the possibility that they may then see themselves as having nothing to lose, and strike again..
...I'll bet that victim(s) would agree that a sensible punishment had been imposed.
Loss of liberty in the form of incarceration, whereby they lose the right to choose their daily actions, are segregated from society and ostracised for their behaviour in an environment, which will be burnt into their psyche - if they live to see freedom again - is barely an adequete punishment in light of how lenient such predators are treated in the prison system as it is.
In the case of very old, rich, men like Rolf Harris, take away their millions and put the money to a good purpose. Living life in poverty, with everyone knowing what they have done, would be sufficiant punishment for them at their age .
According to one of the victims she said the jail term was "immaterial".
"I feel fine, I think the guilty verdict was actually what I wanted, what I went to court for."
I can understand that. For some victims, it's more about being vindicated and knowing the criminal has been publicly acknowledged as such that means more than the actual punishment
I am concerned at the way the old are now seeming to be given hefty sentences which goes backwards in terms of sentencing guidelines.
Old people given these sentence's nearly always die in prison or get so ill in prison that they are released only to die shortly after release.
These old men have had at least two opportunities to not get locked up in their final years. First, they could have avoided committing the crimes to begin with. Second, having committed the crimes, they could have confessed to them earlier (in Harris's case, decades earlier). If he'd voluntarily confessed to this stuff earlier in his life he would have been able to live out his older years in freedom. No sympathy here.
Jailing a man of his age is not ideal, but he has benefitted from the best years of his life as a free man and his victims have had there lives destroyed by his actions.
I neither disagree nor disagree with the sentiments, but the way you seem to glorify shooting someone in the back of the head and then burning them seems a little bit mentally unhinged to me.
Not really, as you could use their ashes to fill the potholes in the roads of Kensington and Chelsea.
I'm in two minds about this. If someone has committed a crime then they should be punished accordingly, however jailing people of 80 like Rolf is unlikely to achieve much.
I guess he must be guilty of the crimes he committed but I doubt very much that he is a 'danger to the public' now. The loss of his good name and reputation must mean that he hasn't got much to look forward to in terms of work opportunities any more. Keeping him in prison just means that we are paying for him in his old age now.
I'm not sure what the alternative answer is, but locking up very old people who are no longer seen as a threat to the public seems quite evil in itself.
It's not evil. What is evil is what he did.
The idea of him being unpunished for what he did its utterly repulsive, and frankly community service or a fine is not really commensurate with the horrific experiences he inflicted on his victims.
anything else sends out the message that if you can conceal your crime for long enough you can get away with a lighter sentence, please explain how that is justice.
edit: it could also prevent victims from coming forward.
This is precisely it.
People cannot be allowed to escape prison just because they got away with it a long time.
If he dies in prison, i will have a very hard time feeling pity for him. He has had an extremely privileged and depraved life until now. Now the time has come to pay the piper.
Also it is hard enough to accuse already, they is so much pressure still not to 'cause trouble'.
Aren't people just a little bit horrified about just how many of these complaints were made many years ago with NO ACTION being taken.
These monsters, Savile, Hall, Harris,etc got away with it for decades, and MANY people were a part of letting that happen
Ah I was always with Simon Wiesenthal on this one. No statute of limitations for some crimes - esp crimes against people. Felt exactly this about nazi war criminals - and will do about Bush n Blair no matter how long they live - there should come a day when people face their crimes and take responsibility for actions that devastate others' lives.
I agree that jailing a man of Harris' age seems somewhat unnecessary, as he clearly represents no danger to the public and the humiliation and ruination of his name and reputation is quite a heavy price to pay also.
However, what kind of message would it send out if he wasn't jailed for crimes of this nature? I think, when all is said and done, he has to serve some jail time due to the severity of the offences.
Personally, I think a shorter jail sentence and deportation might have been more appropriate; if deportation is possible in this case.
I'm in two minds about this. If someone has committed a crime then they should be punished accordingly, however jailing people of 80 like Rolf is unlikely to achieve much.
I guess he must be guilty of the crimes he committed but I doubt very much that he is a 'danger to the public' now. The loss of his good name and reputation must mean that he hasn't got much to look forward to in terms of work opportunities any more. Keeping him in prison just means that we are paying for him in his old age now.
He is worth about 11 million pounds so, no hardship by not being able to work
After Rolf Harris I have rarely seen courts actually jail elderly men and never elderly women. I find that jailing the very old and infirm pointless and not the best advert for
justice and its objective of rehabilitation of the offender/s .
I am concerned at the way the old are now seeming to be given hefty sentences which goes backwards in terms of sentencing guidelines.
Old people given these sentence's nearly always die in prison or get so ill in prison that they are released only to die shortly after release.
There will be an appeal at the Harris tariff
My own view - FWIW - is that in the case of people like Harris, who are wealthy, it serves little purpose at their age, in sending them to prison. At 84 he's no longer going to be a threat to the public. What I do think is that there should be heavy confiscation involving his capital and estate - maybe up to 60% - which can then be distributed amongst his victims.
Supposedly, prisons are like 5* Holiday resorts, and prisoners are treated better than the elderly? So being sent to prison should be a doddle...
Exeter prison has an end of life / palliative care unit (nice little garden area) for people dying, elderly or disabled and I think more prisons are going to have such units
Comments
Is that if you have committed a crime or just a general principle?
I neither disagree nor disagree with the sentiments, but the way you seem to glorify shooting someone in the back of the head and then burning them seems a little bit mentally unhinged to me.
..and with such an approach, they may again offend - people commit sex offences at all ages - there exists the possibility that they may then see themselves as having nothing to lose, and strike again..
...I'll bet that victim(s) would agree that a sensible punishment had been imposed.
Loss of liberty in the form of incarceration, whereby they lose the right to choose their daily actions, are segregated from society and ostracised for their behaviour in an environment, which will be burnt into their psyche - if they live to see freedom again - is barely an adequete punishment in light of how lenient such predators are treated in the prison system as it is.
Seems rather hard on Rolf Harris's wife Bindi.
"I feel fine, I think the guilty verdict was actually what I wanted, what I went to court for."
I can understand that. For some victims, it's more about being vindicated and knowing the criminal has been publicly acknowledged as such that means more than the actual punishment
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Don't+do+the+crime%2C+if+you+can't+do+the+time.
These old men have had at least two opportunities to not get locked up in their final years. First, they could have avoided committing the crimes to begin with. Second, having committed the crimes, they could have confessed to them earlier (in Harris's case, decades earlier). If he'd voluntarily confessed to this stuff earlier in his life he would have been able to live out his older years in freedom. No sympathy here.
Not really, as you could use their ashes to fill the potholes in the roads of Kensington and Chelsea.
I guess he must be guilty of the crimes he committed but I doubt very much that he is a 'danger to the public' now. The loss of his good name and reputation must mean that he hasn't got much to look forward to in terms of work opportunities any more. Keeping him in prison just means that we are paying for him in his old age now.
They should just get the normal sentence and if they don't live long enough to complete it, so be it.
The idea of him being unpunished for what he did its utterly repulsive, and frankly community service or a fine is not really commensurate with the horrific experiences he inflicted on his victims.
This is precisely it.
People cannot be allowed to escape prison just because they got away with it a long time.
If he dies in prison, i will have a very hard time feeling pity for him. He has had an extremely privileged and depraved life until now. Now the time has come to pay the piper.
Also it is hard enough to accuse already, they is so much pressure still not to 'cause trouble'.
Aren't people just a little bit horrified about just how many of these complaints were made many years ago with NO ACTION being taken.
These monsters, Savile, Hall, Harris,etc got away with it for decades, and MANY people were a part of letting that happen
Bindi is his daughter, but yes, why should his wife share the punishment of his crimes.
Would we give a new found ex SS bod a low sentance now when those caught post the war hanged.
However, what kind of message would it send out if he wasn't jailed for crimes of this nature? I think, when all is said and done, he has to serve some jail time due to the severity of the offences.
Personally, I think a shorter jail sentence and deportation might have been more appropriate; if deportation is possible in this case.
He is worth about 11 million pounds so, no hardship by not being able to work
My own view - FWIW - is that in the case of people like Harris, who are wealthy, it serves little purpose at their age, in sending them to prison. At 84 he's no longer going to be a threat to the public. What I do think is that there should be heavy confiscation involving his capital and estate - maybe up to 60% - which can then be distributed amongst his victims.
Exeter prison has an end of life / palliative care unit (nice little garden area) for people dying, elderly or disabled and I think more prisons are going to have such units
An allowance could be made available for Alwen.