https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-64786436

 

 

This is interesting. 

 

The man has served 18 years more than the sentence he is serving. Can they keep him imprisoned just because of what a few parole officers think of him?

Watched the 2 part documentary on Iplayer. I don't think his going to make it this time.

15 minutes ago, puchooay said:

The man has served 18 years more than the sentence he is serving. Can they keep him imprisoned just because of what a few parole officers think of him?

He got further jail sentences for crimes committed whilst in jail and every time his parole hearings come up, he doe something to prolong his stay .

   He seems to want to stay in jail , last time he was up for parole , he sent a threatening letter to someone on the outside and his parole wasn't granted 

5 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

He got further jail sentences for crimes committed whilst in jail and every time his parole hearings come up, he doe something to prolong his stay .

   He seems to want to stay in jail , last time he was up for parole , he sent a threatening letter to someone on the outside and his parole wasn't granted 

If you add all of his sentences together, he has still been in prison 18 years longer than his sentences.

 

I actually watched a documentary about him yesterday based on his up coming parole hearing. Many of the experts suggest he is ready to leave prison. Even the prison officer whom he held hostage for 44 hours says it's time.

 

I think, with procedures and restrictions in place, it could be time to let him go.

 

It has to be remembered he has never killed anyone, never attacked or hurt a woman and never abused children. There have been prisoners released recently who have done a lot worse.

 

15 minutes ago, norfolkandchance said:

Watched the 2 part documentary on Iplayer. I don't think his going to make it this time.

It was interesting.

 

Particularly those suggesting it is time to give him a chance.

Maybe he has a death wish.

hes an evil mofo so needs to stay behind bars till death

27 minutes ago, 3NUMBAS said:

hes an evil mofo so needs to stay behind bars till death

That's one opinion.

 

However, is it legal to keep someone in prison based on an opinion?

 

This appears to be different to usual parole hearings. It's not a case of him being let out early. It's a case of can we still hold him as his sentence has expired. 

 

Reputations should be overlooked to a certain degree. As an example, look at how long the Krays stayed inside. Each of them jailed only for one murder. Many murderers were released whilst those two were in prison. Most having served less than their original sentence. The Krays were kept in because of other crimes they were thought to have committed

 

Remember, no one goes to prison for committing a crime. They go to prison for getting caught, found guilty and being sentenced.

He's now known as Charles Salvador. Spain is worried he will relocate there if he gets out.

It will be a very brave parole board that lets him out .....

 

IMHO - He's a loose cannon and on the outside, only needs the slightest thing to make him go off on one .....

 

Not worth the risk, .....

1 minute ago, piston broke said:

It will be a very brave parole board that lets him out .....

 

IMHO - He's a loose cannon and on the outside, only needs the slightest thing to make him go off on one .....

 

Not worth the risk, .....

In reality, the would really need to charge him with another crime to keep him in.

 

To me, that's what makes his case intriguing. I'm sure his lawyers will ask what he is being kept inside for.

1 hour ago, youreavinalaff said:

That's one opinion.

 

However, is it legal to keep someone in prison based on an opinion?

 

This appears to be different to usual parole hearings. It's not a case of him being let out early. It's a case of can we still hold him as his sentence has expired. 

 

Reputations should be overlooked to a certain degree. As an example, look at how long the Krays stayed inside. Each of them jailed only for one murder. Many murderers were released whilst those two were in prison. Most having served less than their original sentence. The Krays were kept in because of other crimes they were thought to have committed

 

Remember, no one goes to prison for committing a crime. They go to prison for getting caught, found guilty and being sentenced.

He was sentenced to life imprisonment.

44 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

In reality, the would really need to charge him with another crime to keep him in.

 

To me, that's what makes his case intriguing. I'm sure his lawyers will ask what he is being kept inside for.

He got a life sentence for kidnapping and keeping a prison worker hostage at knife point .....

 

He's a nutcase ....

 

 

4 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

He was sentenced to life imprisonment.

A discretionary life sentence to last for 3 years. Expired in 2003.

 

4 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

A discretionary life sentence to last for 3 years. Expired in 2003.

 

No . The sentence was to be for a minimum of 3 years. 

If it was only required to last for 3 years then it would not be a life sentence.

8 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

No . The sentence was to be for a minimum of 3 years. 

If it was only required to last for 3 years then it would not be a life sentence.

Discretionary sentence that expired in 2003. That was the situation. 

 

Charles Bronson, as pointed out by the lawyers, has only ever been sentenced to 33 years imprisonment. He has been in far longer. Longer still if you consider the fact, with the exception of whole life tarrifs, very few pridoners see out the entirety of their sentence.

 

Don't get me wrong. I'm not condoning what he did. I'm not suggesting he should or should not be released. I'm asking on what grounds he can legally be detained.

3 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

Discretionary sentence that expired in 2003. That was the situation. 

 

Charles Bronson, as pointed out by the lawyers, has only ever been sentenced to 33 years imprisonment. He has been in far longer. Longer still if you consider the fact, with the exception of whole life tarrifs, very few pridoners see out the entirety of their sentence.

 

Don't get me wrong. I'm not condoning what he did. I'm not suggesting he should or should not be released. I'm asking on what grounds he can legally be detained.

Danger to the public I would have thought.

17 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

Discretionary sentence that expired in 2003. That was the situation. 

 

Charles Bronson, as pointed out by the lawyers, has only ever been sentenced to 33 years imprisonment. He has been in far longer. Longer still if you consider the fact, with the exception of whole life tarrifs, very few pridoners see out the entirety of their sentence.

 

Don't get me wrong. I'm not condoning what he did. I'm not suggesting he should or should not be released. I'm asking on what grounds he can legally be detained.

He was sentenced to life  around 1999/2000 to run for a minimum of 3 years. The minimum term of 3 years has passed allowing him to be considered for parole. The actual life sentence has not expired.

The 3 years was a minimum not a maximum.

1 minute ago, cleopatra2 said:

He was sentenced to life  around 1999/2000 to run for a minimum of 3 years. The minimum term of 3 years has passed allowing him to be considered for parole. The actual life sentence has not expired.

The 3 years was a minimum not a maximum.

What part if "discretionary" do you not understand? 

 

Hostage taking was not a life sentence crime at the time of the offense. It's all in the lawyers brief.

A normal guy, that's just misunderstood. 

13 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

What part if "discretionary" do you not understand? 

 

Hostage taking was not a life sentence crime at the time of the offense. It's all in the lawyers brief.

His sentence was to a maximum term of life . With a minimum of 3 years to be served.. Not a maximum of 3 years.

The term discretionary in this context relates to the issue that the court has the discretion to apply a life sentence for the act committed.

54 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

No . The sentence was to be for a minimum of 3 years. 

If it was only required to last for 3 years then it would not be a life sentence.

The general concensus amongst lawmakers is that he has served his time and more.

 

The reason for the parole hearing is to decide if he is a risk to the public.

8 minutes ago, puchooay said:

The general concensus amongst lawmakers is that he has served his time and more.

 

The reason for the parole hearing is to decide if he is a risk to the public.

Having being given a life sentence , the Parole Board can only release him on life licence . If he was to breach the conditions of the licence he would be returned to prison to continue serve his sentence.

 

25 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

His sentence was to a maximum term of life . With a minimum of 3 years to be served.. Not a maximum of 3 years.

The term discretionary in this context relates to the issue that the court has the discretion to apply a life sentence for the act committed.

I can see your point and this is a point of contention in the discussions. Bronson' s lawyers believe the wording of the life sentence would mean it has expired and that he only received that sentence because of his reputation. As mentioned before, even the hostage believes this.

 

Should that be the only reason for him being held, it could be suggested that serving 23 years for hostage taking, when the recommended term for judges to issue was alot less, should be enough for him to be paroled.

 

As I said, it is an interesting case.

 

Unfortunately, or fortunately for him if he is released and behaves, there is only one way to find out.

5 hours ago, puchooay said:

If you add all of his sentences together, he has still been in prison 18 years longer than his sentences.

 

I actually watched a documentary about him yesterday based on his up coming parole hearing. Many of the experts suggest he is ready to leave prison. Even the prison officer whom he held hostage for 44 hours says it's time.

 

I think, with procedures and restrictions in place, it could be time to let him go.

 

It has to be remembered he has never killed anyone, never attacked or hurt a woman and never abused children. There have been prisoners released recently who have done a lot worse.

 

You sure about that? Accordiing to the BBC article you linked to he was given a "conditional life sentence".

5 hours ago, puchooay said:

 

I actually watched a documentary about him yesterday based on his up coming parole hearing. Many of the experts suggest he is ready to leave prison. Even the prison officer whom he held hostage for 44 hours says it's time.

 

You can understand a prison officer who had been held kidnapped by him, wanting him to be released from prison .

  

19 minutes ago, placeholder said:

You sure about that? Accordiing to the BBC article you linked to he was given a "conditional life sentence".

No. It was discretionary, to serve 3 years.

 

At the time the sentence for hostage taking was 1 to 12 years. That is the arguement from his lawyers.

1 minute ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

You can understand a prison officer who had been held kidnapped by him, wanting him to be released from prison .

  

Why? The teacher, not prison officer, is retired. Surely he would rather Bronson stay locked up.

2 minutes ago, puchooay said:

No. It was discretionary, to serve 3 years.

 

At the time the sentence for hostage taking was 1 to 12 years. That is the arguement from his lawyers.

No,it was a discretionary life sentence. Here's an explanation of what a discretionary life sentence is as opposed to a mandatory life sentence

 

Discretionary life sentences
There are a number of crimes – such as rape or robbery – for which the maximum sentence is life imprisonment. This does not mean that all or most offenders convicted of these offences will get life.

Parliament has made provisions that deal with how offenders who are considered dangerous or who are convicted of a second, very serious offence may be sentenced to imprisonment for life.

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/sentencing-and-the-council/types-of-sentence/life-sentences/

 

Bronson is currently serving a life sentence after taking a teacher hostage in prison, and has been through six Parole Board hearings without release since his minimum term expired in 2003.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/notorious-prisoner-charles-bronson-open-justice-parole-board-high-court-a4464331.html

 

I think taking a teacher hostage probably counts as a very serious offense.

28 minutes ago, placeholder said:

No,it was a discretionary life sentence. Here's an explanation of what a discretionary life sentence is as opposed to a mandatory life sentence

 

Discretionary life sentences
There are a number of crimes – such as rape or robbery – for which the maximum sentence is life imprisonment. This does not mean that all or most offenders convicted of these offences will get life.

Parliament has made provisions that deal with how offenders who are considered dangerous or who are convicted of a second, very serious offence may be sentenced to imprisonment for life.

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/sentencing-and-the-council/types-of-sentence/life-sentences/

 

Bronson is currently serving a life sentence after taking a teacher hostage in prison, and has been through six Parole Board hearings without release since his minimum term expired in 2003.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/notorious-prisoner-charles-bronson-open-justice-parole-board-high-court-a4464331.html

 

I think taking a teacher hostage probably counts as a very serious offense.

I don't recall saying it wasn't.

 

However, the sentence appears to be on the high side.

 

Even the teacher himself suggested time served is already sufficient