Sex offender to be release 18 months into 36 year sentence

TwoShedsJackson

Why do they bother sentencing them in the first place? James Kelly, previously known as Brother Ambrose, is to be released next February after a year and a half of a 36 year sentence.

The reason cited is that the 75 year old is in poor health. How nice of them to be considerate of the poor man's health, what with all the consideration he showed for his victims.

I hate to think of the effect a decision like this could have on another victim's decision to report what happened to them.

Lucy_la_morte

Releasing him is very wrong.

---

Miaow.

Lucy la morte.

Lump

I agree, I don;t really understand the prision/sentancing system in this country. Fair enough the man might be dying, but let him die in prision, lying in a bed. Lying in a bed in prision is the same as pying in a bed in a hospital. When the judge gave the sentance he obliously knew that the man would die in prison. He's hardly going to live to 111 yet they still manage to let him out after 18 months for "Health Reasons". What a load of crap.


john

Magwitch

There are facilities in prison for ill or elderly people. Someone with such a long career as a pervert should not see the light of day until his term is fully served. I cannot see the justification in releasing him.

SheroN

they should bang his ******** between two cavity blocks then release him.

Lump

HE HE, good plan Sher0n

John

El Marco

I would understand if they let him out after about 15 years in prison but 18 months. He's still very much a sex offender!

---

(Insert quote here)

---

Manach

Trite I know, but I always thought "you do the crime you do the time" was apt. He should never have been let out & his age can be no excuse.

Shinji

There's a school of thought which says that the man presents no further danger to anyone, and that as a result (given that he's basically dying) its pointless keeping him in prison. It's not like he's being released to go back to a normal life, he's being released to go into hospital to die, by all accounts.

What's the point in spending a fortune on high security and wasting a prison space keeping someone like that in jail? Why should taxpayer money go into round-the-clock security for a man who can't walk? Why should prison facilities be wasted on a man who is dying and presents no further danger to anyone?

Of course there's the whole blood boiling thing of "ooh he's evil, let him rot in jail, yadda yadda", but when you get past the basic howling-for-blood instinct, what is the logical REASON for wasting money and resources on him?

You complain about the revolving door system in prisons, and in the same breath suggest that an frail old man who is no danger to anyone any more (however utterly evil and depraved he was previously) should be taking up a prison cell and prison resources that could be housing someone a lot more dangerous that society needs to be protected from a lot more.

DadaKopf

It's a bit silly really - take a guilty sex-offender out of custody after 18 months of a 36 year sentence on the proviso that he never returns to Ireland. And this is supposed to make us feel safe and confident in the legal system?

Now he's free to molest kids in Britain instead. I have to say I'm baffled and disappointed.

***I should care to mention that, despite the fact that he's ill, and old, he's still a convicted criminal regardless of his health or profession. Ronnie Biggs is kept under tight security even though, in his condition, he's "fairly harmless" now - he's still a criminal.

I wouldn't be so concerned about the compassionate view held by the criminal circut court except for the fact that I'd like to see a little more concistency from time to time.***

[This message has been edited by DadaKopf (edited 17-06-2001).]

bugler

I can see why people are annoyed and angry over this, but I'm inclined to agree with Shinji, with the provision that only the very ill be released.Which I think many of you missed out on.I think if you are incapacitated due to illness and obviously cannot re-offend then there is no real reason to use a prison space on him. If however, there is a danger of a convict re-offending then there is no way they should be let out.If your well enough to be capable of re-offending then your well enough to spend your time locked in a cell pondering on how you got there.

ConUladh

Surely it should be about punishment and rehabilitation. I find the possibility that while he's probably incapable of commiting a similar crime now he prob would still like to deeply disturbing. He's an unreformed criminal (unless he's been miraculously reformed in 18 months)

That guy extradicted to Austria for Nazi War crimes is hardly likely to commit a similar offence now.

And Charlie Haughey isn't going to be in the position again to rip us off to the extent he already has.

I agree with Manach

On a final note in what way does this act as a deterrent to other child molesters - If you get away with it now there's nothing to worry about in the future, by the time the child is an adult and has the guts to anything you'll get away with it

DadaKopf

Actually, now that I think about it, the Times articles said yesterday that in the late 60s and 70s, he expressed real regret and remorse for his actions. I think this must have gone a long way to granting his reprieve.

I hate to say it (I really do) but I agree with Shinji in a way, because prison is supposed to be about taking law-breakers out of society until they're fit to return to it as much as it is about punishment. If he can't get it up anymore, what harm is he?

Maybe the Catholic Church in Britain will stick a plaque on his house: "Bless this sex offender".

ConUladh

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by DadaKopf:
Actually, now that I think about it, the Times articles said yesterday that in the late 60s and 70s, he expressed real regret and remorse for his actions. I think this must have gone a long way to granting his reprieve.

I hate to say it (I really do) but I agree with Shinji in a way, because prison is supposed to be about taking law-breakers out of society until they're fit to return to it as much as it is about punishment. If he can't get it up anymore, what harm is he?

Maybe the Catholic Church in Britain will stick a plaque on his house: "Bless this sex offender".</font>

I take it this is the article you're talking about

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/ireland/2001/0616/hom14.htm

Last paragraph, it's good to know he regretted it, obviously figured there was no need to tell anyone else about it though

scutchy

As I recall a condition of his release is that he moves to a quiet community in England (where he has not as yet raped any children, and therefore will not be on the sex offenders list) where his sister will have to keep an eye on him.

Of course, as England is outside our duristiction, there is no way of enforcing this...

Knife and directions, please.

androphobic

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by bugler:
I can see why people are annoyed and angry over this, but I'm inclined to agree with Shinji, with the provision that only the very ill be released.Which I think many of you missed out on.</font>

While I see your point, the man - however sick or senile - destroyed lives.
This may sound strange to some people, but in my eyes rapists / sex offenders are the worst criminals. James Kelly is scum..


[edited for tags]




[This message has been edited by androphobic (edited 18-06-2001).]

Xterminator

I think it all depends on what you belive prison is for.

Do you think it is to punish the offenders? If so then why is hard labour not enforced? Why do prisoners get face to face visits, luxury cells, pooltables and leisure facilities to match any community centres.

Do you think it's to protect the public? From TV License evaders and Contempt of court offenders, these are some of the peole in there!

We know its not to rehabilitate the offenders. God knows there are virtually no resources spent on this area. EG I belive there is counselling for a handful of sex offenders available at any 1 time. You dont have to have the counselling, etc.
As for drugs rehab! Its easier to get drugs inside than it is rehab. A higher % of prisoners do drugs when released from prison, than do when they go in!

If any govt said they were adding 1.5p tax to the pound to build better sanitised prisons, where enough spaces were available, and where rehabilitation was possible.
if they made the prisons drug free, with random testing of inmates for illegal substances etc. If parole services were staffed enough so that they could keep track of paroled offenders movments/actions. If they introduced electronic tagging of high risk parollees, to ensure curfew adherance etc.
If any govenment offered to do this, no one would vote for them cause we are not willing to pay for what we get!

Shinji

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Do you think it's to protect the public?</font>

Yes. Leastways, that's what I think it should be for.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">From TV License evaders and Contempt of court offenders, these are some of the peole in there!</font>

I didn't say it WORKED though. I fully agree, this is f*cking stupid.

Kolodny

Whether it be a prison cell or a hospital bed, he deserves to spend the rest of his days lonely and miserable. What good will his 'regret' do for the ones he has made suffer. To commit such a crime should exclude him from a place in society altogether. And I agree that a case like this will not help to encourage victims in reporting attacks.

JustHalf

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by androphobic:
While I see your point, the man - however sick or senile - destroyed lives.
This may sound strange to some people, but in my eyes rapists / sex offenders are the worst criminals. James Kelly is scum..
</font>

Regardless of wheter he is scum or not (which I agree with) does not change the fact that he is dying.

If it truly makes no difference if he is in a hospital bed or in a prison bed when he dies he should be kept in prison (he should be punished for his actions).

androphobic

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by JustHalf:
Regardless of wheter he is scum or not (which I agree with) does not change the fact that he is dying.
</font>

Yeah he is dying.. and I realise that you are in favour of him being punished, not trying to pick at your words.

But, as Castor said, a lot of consideration is being shown to a man who ruined lives. Surely there must be some sort of facilities available to ill prisoners.

Karl Hungus

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by androphobic:
But, as Castor said, a lot of consideration is being shown to a man who ruined lives. Surely there must be some sort of facilities available to ill prisoners.

</font>

Hasn't anyone thought of putting him in a Brain Farm?
I mean, you are complaining that he poses no threat, and that he is sick and dying, but what good will realeasing him to a hospital or a home do?

Having him commited is a far better choice than releasing him or keeping him in.

He will be somewhere where he can have the medical services he needs, and he would still be kept away from the public.
Also, possibly people could learn a bit more about this kind of person, as he is hardly sane, is he?
Why bung him in a hole to rot when you could learn from him, and perhaps be able to prevent this kind of thing happening in the future.

This solution would easily satisfy both ends of the arguement, and would also benifit the public more than either.

Shinji

You are missing the whole bloody point.

Some of the people on this thread seem to think that prisons over here are places where you're poked with pointy sticks and have your feet beaten with hammers while being tormented by small green demons that sing celine dion songs to you all night long.

Well, revelation for you - it isn't. You talk about prison as a "punishment", yet as punishments go, it's pretty damn crappy. All prison is good for is punishing the very weak, and keeping dangerous individuals out of society.

This man is dying, evil or not. He'll be in hospital or in a prison, and either way, the care he'd recieve would be the same. You think the nurses in the hospital will mollycoddle the dear old CHILD MOLESTER in ward 6? I think f*cking not, no more than the prison guards would.

It's a question of simple economics, you can let him die in a hospital or spend a big bag of money and waste a prison cell and prison resources on letting him die in prison with totally unnnessecary security in place.

How does your innate mob mentality for "punishment" hold up when faced with the person who is the victim of the crime perpetrated by the yob released early because there's no prison space for him, while a now-harmless old bástard occupies a cell?

ConUladh

Hold on a minute,

He's going to a retirement home (a retired priests home really) not a hospital, he's 75 his ill-health is mainly associated with his age,

Getting the impression that a lot of people here think he's being released because he's actually dying, he's being released cause he's old and prob doesn't have much time left (not much diff but there is one)

Read this as the times leaves out these details :

http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=454407&issue_id=4674

It's fair enough arguing one way or the other but may as well have the facts straight in case some b0llocks like me comes along and starts getting picky

JustHalf

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by androphobic:
But, as Castor said, a lot of consideration is being shown to a man who ruined lives. Surely there must be some sort of facilities available to ill prisoners.
</font>

No problem with that, but if according to that article linked he is being released because he is old and ill. Surely facilities can be made available while still restricting his personal freedoms to the same degree as a prison?

I also don't like that he is being shipped off to Britain and told not to set foot in this country again... that sets a bad image of us as a people.

the fnj

This is just another point that proves incarceration of criminals is not the answer. I honestly believe that there has to be a better way of dealing with at least ninety percent of crimes committed in this country. I’d be happier knowing the when criminals get sentences there going to return to society as decent citizens and not hardened criminals. The Irish government should really look at methods of rehabilitating criminals as opposed to letting them stew in a cell for years.

Making them into Clockwork Oranges is not the answer either

androphobic

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by JustHalf:
I also don't like that he is being shipped off to Britain and told not to set foot in this country again... that sets a bad image of us as a people.</font>

Me either.. it's sorta like saying here take our problem, we don't want to deal with it.

PHB

So if I kill say Rich and steal his shoes, get sent to prison and i fake a bad cold i get to go home?

JustHalf

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by The FANJ:
This is just another point that proves incarceration of criminals is not the answer. <snip> I’d be happier knowing the when criminals get sentences there going to return to society as decent citizens and not hardened criminals. The Irish government should really look at methods of rehabilitating criminals as opposed to letting them stew in a cell for years.</font>

Any society needs some form of punishment, to enforce the codes and practices of itself (enshrined in laws). I find it a chilling concept that people are sent to prison for rehabilitation - most criminals don't have sick minds. Rehabilitation implies that they have, but most are just being human.

Some criminals do have sick minds though, and these should be rehabilitated (sex offenders, serial killers, etc) on top of their punishment.

Incarceration as a concept works as an effective punishment; as implemented in this country it is not.

JustHalf

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by PHB:
So if I kill say Rich and steal his shoes, get sent to prison and i fake a bad cold i get to go home?</font>

No, but claim your innocent, get a cheesy tv lawyer to help you and get some favourable coverage on Fox News and you're home free!