0
   

Charlie Bronson

 
 
Reply Wed 18 Mar, 2009 04:59 pm
I've just got back from the movies, I saw Charles Bronson Britains most violent prisoner. It is a fine portrayal how the prison system does not work. A breeding place for bullying PO's which does nothing to help the Queen's image either. They let out rapists and child killers but chose to use Charlie as an example like they did the Kray Twins which in my opinion does not work. He's done 32 years in solitary, it's time they let him out, he hasn't been violent for 8 years. Before making judgemet see the film and SCUM is also another example of how ordinary men do hard time for Her Majesty's Pleasure.

To use someone's life as an example, someone who doesn't deserve it is wrong, not only do they take away the person's life and freedom for their own use, they are not looking at what the person deserves which I think is really wrong. The authorities should use rapists and murderers as an example, they deserve it and it's right. Supposedly we live in a democracy, I think this is an example of abuse of power. The Kray Twins were old men, served their time and paid their dues as has Charlie, (who has never killed a soul), they were ill too but were used by the authourities for their own means. After leaving the cinema, a known murderer walked past us, I ask myself-why is he walking the streets free along with child killers when Charlie Bronson is still banged up, what kind of example is that setting. And I dont feel safe knowing this murderer is free, why why why? The US bang up up killers and rapists for life and it means life, that makes me feel secure, England should be taking a leaf out of their book after all isn't prison about keeping the public safe not just about justcie and punishment. Where is the justice in keeping Charlie in for life, I didn't think prisons were about setting examples which are obviously not affective as prisons are overcrowded.

Im not condoning what the Kray Twins and Charles Bronson did, but they paid their dues and if you ask anybody who was around the Kray Twins they'll tell you that the twins stopped alot of scum taking over like protection rackets, people said we rather have the twins running things then someone who just went in and abused everything and everyone, (savages). I quote 'I'd rather be ruled by people who are more fare than pure scum.'
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,724 • Replies: 11
No top replies

 
Caroline
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Mar, 2009 04:04 am
@Caroline,
I think if people were concernced about their safety in letting Charlie out then the necessary evaluations and monitering should be put in place before deciding to let him out. Inside he is treated worse than peodophiles by the system. They could at least assess him to see if he still is a danger, it is only fare to give the guy that. That is what I think is wrong, you're messing with someone's life here for your own means, shocking, he still has some basic human rights.
0 Replies
 
Dave Allen
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Mar, 2009 05:53 am
@Caroline,
The prison system is run to the end of rehabilitation. It is not merely about punishing a person to some proportional measure based on what he or she did, but of releasing people who have served their time if they present no clear danger of reoffence.

A child abuser who shows contrition and convinces the prison board that he will not reoffend (by being registered, seeking councilling, taking medication etc) will therefore be released after serving time.

An armed robber who repeatedly reoffends when let out of prison, and who is unable to control his temper when not in solitary confinement, will obviously not be given the same chances.

I've no doubt that there are worse criminals at large, and that the employees of the prison service are far from angelic - but the fact that Charles "paid his dues" is irrelevant whilst he fails to convince the board that he is anything but a violent sociopath.

I'm not very keen on this bleeding heart hand-wringing over celebrity criminals. There are people who have served time who have been entirely innocent of any crime. Why people laud terrible human beings like the Krays or 'Mad' Frankie Fraser when they could expend their energies on fighting real injustices is beyond me.
0 Replies
 
Caroline
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Mar, 2009 01:56 pm
@Caroline,
I dont think my opinion is based on celebritism, it's based on old men who've served their time and are being used to set an example,nor do I think im a whinging bleeding heart,I'd be the first to say they deserved what they got and keep them locked up if they stiil prove to be a risk to the public,I wouldn't like to be attacked either! Fact is he's not been violent for 8 years and is kept in not on the basis of his rehabilitation but to be used to set an example. A serial killer was let out only to kill 20 women,(by the way he's not a celebritiy), I do use famous criminals as an example to bring to light certain flaws and that is he hasn't been violent for years so tell me why hasn't he been let out. Often killers are let out too only to kill again,(they're not famous),why aren't they used as an example? I think 8 years may or may not prove he has reformed,im not an expert,but he is kept in solitary and by the way have you seen the film,if you have then maybe you'd understand why he was violent in prison,the fact that he's famous makes no odds to me as I would say the same about any prisoner in the same boat,my point is the flaws in the system.
0 Replies
 
Caroline
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Mar, 2009 02:06 pm
@Caroline,
I some how dont think an 80 year old ill person is a risk to the public but they keep him banged up,why,to set an example but its ok to let out rapists who continue to rape again and again and again dont you think there's a flaw somewhere,yes keep mad fraser locked up up as i said i wouldnt like to be put at risk either but where do you draw the line?
0 Replies
 
Dave Allen
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Mar, 2009 02:10 pm
@Caroline,
No I have not seen the film - does it mention as other news sources do that he attempted to take a prisoner hostage just over a year ago?

He elicits pathos because he is somewhat humorously honest about the apparent fact that he is insane. If he goes up before the parole board on his immanent hearing and doesn't attempt to harm himself and others and pleads his case good luck to him.

But there are far more deserving objects of pity in the british justice system who are not given such pulicity - because they aren't comedy psychos.
Dave Allen
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Mar, 2009 02:14 pm
@Caroline,
80? He's in his fifties.
Caroline
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Mar, 2009 02:18 pm
@Caroline,
Yes you are right Dave, however we dont hear about them, (less fortunate prisoners), and I do feel their injustice far more than CB's im not necessarily kissing CB's [email protected]@ i would do it for all of them especially those far more deserving than CB,he probably doesn't deserve to be let out, (and I would be extremely cautious about releasing him), im just using him as an example of the flaws in the whole of the system if you like:)
Caroline
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Mar, 2009 02:20 pm
@Dave Allen,
Dave Allen wrote:
80? He's in his fifties.

I mean't the Krays sorry.
0 Replies
 
Dave Allen
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Mar, 2009 02:25 pm
@Caroline,
Caroline wrote:
Yes you are right Dave, however we dont hear about them, (less fortunate prisoners), and I do feel their injustice far more than CB's im not necessarily kissing CB's [email protected]@ i would do it for all of them especially those far more deserving than CB,he probably doesn't deserve to be let out, (and I would be extremely cautious about releasing him), im just using him as an example of the flaws in the whole of the system if you like:)
I'm sure things could be improved - but did the film give out any ideas for prison reform that could be practically implemented?
0 Replies
 
Caroline
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Mar, 2009 02:48 pm
@Caroline,
Yeah it did actually,it's like what you said about PO's they are far from angelic that's one of the problems,when the prisoners are doing well in programmes already implemented they need to be encouraged not discouraged,basic human rights too, you may think that they get this that and the other but alot of the time they get banged up for 23 hours in a cell with nothing. Looking back it is only recently that they have their own latrines in stead of a pot, things like that can send a prisoner into depression which can progress to suicide. It's about basic human rights, better food, (in the 90's they were still serving food that they gave to pigs to eat and cells crawling with cockroaches), better educational programmes and better staff and parole boards who know who are likely to reoffend. More funding to build more prisons to stop overcrowding and releasing violent dangerous prisoners too early who should be still locked up. Also a better aftercare programme to reduce the risk of reoffending. I think they should lock up ones that deserve life for life not a life sentence and then get out after 7 years. Im not condoning what criminals do far from it, keep them locked up out of harms way but dont exasperate the problem nor let dangerous ones slip through the net and we end up paying for it.

I think it depends on the individual too, a crim who's stole food to feed his kids coz he cant find work is gonna be different to a psychopath and a violent sadistic bank robber and therefore you cant apply genral rules and that takes alot of time planning and money, none of which anyone is prepared to do.
0 Replies
 
Caroline
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Mar, 2009 04:48 pm
@Dave Allen,
quote=Dave Allen;54230]No I have not seen the film - does it mention as other news sources do that he attempted to take a prisoner hostage just over a year ago?

no it did not and it doesnt surprise me but if you see the film it's as if he's frustrated with the system, again im not saying what he did was right infact it was stupid, in the film it does portray him as using the hostage taking as a way of dealing with his frustrations with the system and that although he holds them against their will and scares them,(which is wrong), he doesnt physically harm the hostages.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Take it All - Discussion by McGentrix
Cancelled - Discussion by Brandon9000
John Stewart meets Bill O'Reilly - Discussion by Thomas
Recommend good HBO series? - Discussion by dlowan
BEFORE WE HAD T.V. - Discussion by edgarblythe
What TV shows do you watch? - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Orange is the New Black - Discussion by tsarstepan
Odd Premier: Under the Dome - Discussion by edgarblythe
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Charlie Bronson
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/23/2020 at 01:48:56