Biggs was fairly tried by his peers and should serve that sentence. The fact that he ran away until old and frail does not mean that we should forget that a just sentence was passed. It was his choice to run away and not serve his time while younger.
Pity no criminal, Biggs or Huntley. They made choices, there victims had no choices.
2007-12-30 08:40:05
·
answer #1
·
answered by Captain Sarcasm 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
What is the point of letting an old man rot it jail? In fact, he might even like that existance - I know they do in Canada! Have things way better than I do! There has just been a case over here where a man called Willie Pickton killed at least 50 protitutes and fed them to the pigs on his farm. Now he was tried for 12 murders only (the ones they were sure they could get a conviction on) and only got second degree murder for them which means 25 years without parole - I think this is a major miscarriage of justice and this guy deserves the electric chair and no less!
2007-12-30 08:37:31
·
answer #2
·
answered by curiouscanadian 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
you are trying to compare the two of them again which is sad.
Ian Huntley has murdered little children , and is still a danger to society. Why bring him into the question of Ronnie Briggs. Do you have children ? . All your anger seems to be directed at Ronnie Briggs who stole some money and yet you seem unmoved by the two girls who were killed by this animal Huntley. The two crimes are completely different and so their treatment should be also. He tried to get rich quick and succeeded for some years, but he did not kill innocent children. You need to get your priorities in order.
2007-12-30 08:35:19
·
answer #3
·
answered by Bonnie 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
Why do human beings see Ronnie Biggs as some sort of loveable rogue? he's a criminal, he prevented catch till he have been given undesirable and ill and could no longer arise with the money for the scientific scientific care in South usa, the place he lived a intense existence. he's not loss of life he's ill. English regulation and Scottish regulation is punctiliously diverse. And having months to stay isn't the comparable as having a cough.
2016-10-10 15:55:08
·
answer #4
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
What he did was peanuts compared with more recent criminals who get out after a few years. They stole a great deal of money, true, but there is no evidence that RB is a murderer, or that murder was actually committed.
So. I don't think he should rot in jail whilst people who committed worse crimes free;u walk the street, and even get a new ID and police guards whilst they're doing it.
2007-12-30 10:31:55
·
answer #5
·
answered by proud walker 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
No I don't think he should rot in jail but he did have to answer to society for the crime he committed. I wouldn't class Ronnie in the same category as Huntley. Huntley was a child killer, Ronnie was a robber.
2007-12-30 08:31:00
·
answer #6
·
answered by mini metro 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
Ronnie Biggs was one of a few who caused the death of one man - Ian Huntley tortured and murdered two little girls - no comparison.
2007-12-30 08:29:52
·
answer #7
·
answered by Sal*UK 7
·
4⤊
1⤋
Both of them should serve their time, regardless of ill health or whatever. I hope Huntley never sees the outside of the prison walls ever again.
2007-12-30 08:40:37
·
answer #8
·
answered by Sun is Shining ❂ 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Committ a crime, do your time.
The problem is caused by stupid rules,that is why anyone who is given say 10 years, they laugh all the way to the cells because they know they wont serve that time, but if they was given a certain time and knew that they have to serve everyday of it, THEY WOULD CRY ALL THE WAY TO THE CELLS.
2007-12-30 12:03:09
·
answer #9
·
answered by Arnold P. 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
How much time has he spent in prison to date? What about all of the other criminals getting released early to make more room in jails? Are you only persisting with Biggs because he's more high profile than all of the other low-life scum? (And you know his name).
Edit: What about Nick Leeson as your next cause - he swindled £1.4 BILLION from Barings Bank. Kinda makes the £2.6 million from the train robbery seem paltry doesn't it.
2007-12-30 08:30:42
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋