Jeremy Bamber - What it means to be in Prison today

[ActualMat]

When Julie came forward to confess what she knew to the police she says she was constantly harrassed by journalists. In the end her solicitor told her the only way to get them off her back would have been to arrange an exclusive deal with one of the papers-this was all because of her solicitor's advice, in fact she said the solicitor actually negotiated the fee if I remember rightly. She also says that didn't put an end to being hassled by journalists but she has never sold another story to the press about it since despite many offers. I very much doubt she would have had much of a say in the eventual piece and probably was told to pose for those pictures and felt pressurised to do what she was asked-I'm sure she could have refused though and certainly not refusing to pose for those semi naked pictures was very ill advised.

That's what I read too Goat. And you make a good point, Julie has never exploited the situation after the NOTW article and she could easily have made a book deal at the time and earned a small fortune.

Abs I don't think anyone is saying that NOTW article is in anything but very bad taste. Julie sold her soul a little with that move!

In fact Julie won't even speak to the Press or anyone else for that matter.  We know, we tried.

We tried to open this door during the CCRC submissions, she doesn't even take phone calls anymore and doesn't have a cell phone due to the press uncovering her number time after time.

Oh I got through to her with little difficulty just before the CCRC was due to make their decision.   

It was around the time I spoke with Nick Martin at the Winnipeg Free Press.

Ah, yeah, you gave him a good telling off. One he deserved.

[John]

Ah, yeah, you gave him a good telling off. One he deserved.

I was seething the first time I rang him and he knew it.  He nearly put the phone down on me.  I don't think he quite realised the strength of feeling against Jeremy Bamber and the raw emotions which his case invokes.  A certain person not a million miles away must have filled his head with nonsense.

Martin was more understanding the second time I rang him and I don't think he wrote another article about Julie after that.

[goatboy]

I'm not too sure I buy the argument that prisons today are just glorified holiday camps. Prisoners can have as many Gameboys and Playstations as they like, but that doesn't alter the fact that they are in prison having their liberty taken from them. I don't think there are many prisoners who would genuinely opt to stay in prison if they were given the choice! As someone else said, it is the simple things like walking down a street, or sitting in a cafe/pub etc that we take for granted that long term prisoners would love to experience again. If prisons are so cushy then why are the likes of Huntley and Brady so keen to kill themselves? I genuinely believe properly depriving someone of their liberty is the worst punishment of all. Worse than capital punishment I believe. That is why Ian Brady is being force fed when he would prefer to starve himself to death. What better punishment could there be for convicted child killer who wants to kill himself, to refuse to allow him this and let him reflect on what he has done for the rest of his days?

[only me]

I'm not too sure I buy the argument that prisons today are just glorified holiday camps. Prisoners can have as many Gameboys and Playstations as they like, but that doesn't alter the fact that they are in prison having their liberty taken from them. I don't think there are many prisoners who would genuinely opt to stay in prison if they were given the choice! As someone else said, it is the simple things like walking down a street, or sitting in a cafe/pub etc that we take for granted that long term prisoners would love to experience again. If prisons are so cushy then why are the likes of Huntley and Brady so keen to kill themselves? I genuinely believe properly depriving someone of their liberty is the worst punishment of all. Worse than capital punishment I believe. That is why Ian Brady is being force fed when he would prefer to starve himself to death. What better punishment could there be for convicted child killer who wants to kill himself, to refuse to allow him this and let him reflect on what he has done for the rest of his days?

This is one of my other arguments against the death penalty.  If you kill someone, it's all over for them.  They don't have to reflect, or live with what they've done or how it affects the people left behind.

In the case of psychopaths and others with personality disorders, who will never reflect on the damage they've done, it deprives us of the opportunity to conduct psychological and physiological testing that might one day help us to understand why they are what they are.  I really believe that prevention is better than cure (or punishment, in this example).  We should be doing everything we can to stop crime being committed, not just focusing on what happens afterwards.

[starryian]

I'm not too sure I buy the argument that prisons today are just glorified holiday camps. Prisoners can have as many Gameboys and Playstations as they like, but that doesn't alter the fact that they are in prison having their liberty taken from them. I don't think there are many prisoners who would genuinely opt to stay in prison if they were given the choice! As someone else said, it is the simple things like walking down a street, or sitting in a cafe/pub etc that we take for granted that long term prisoners would love to experience again. If prisons are so cushy then why are the likes of Huntley and Brady so keen to kill themselves? I genuinely believe properly depriving someone of their liberty is the worst punishment of all. Worse than capital punishment I believe. That is why Ian Brady is being force fed when he would prefer to starve himself to death. What better punishment could there be for convicted child killer who wants to kill himself, to refuse to allow him this and let him reflect on what he has done for the rest of his days?

Point taken Goatboy.
I very much agree with you on that one. However, I really dont think that anyone here has actually mentioned that prison is nothing more than a 'glorified holiday camp' Prison life is tough and unmerciful. However, that does not detract away from the suspicion that too many of these prisoners are given personal liberties far beyond what society (and in whose name punishes them)is aware of.
I think there is a balance that people need to draw between the two. I want people to imagine being Bamber relative. How would you feel if the the very person that brutally murdered your loved ones was being given preferential treatment or claiming compensation or allowed to torment you, or publically desecrating their memory, or being ably to manipulate outsides into doing their bidding.........because of these liberites?
Does prison mean just loss of the liberty to go for a walk and simple things? or does it mean that for these crimes society has the right to take them away. This is what it ultimately boils down to. Do you give excessive rights to the perpetrator or do you protect the victims?
I really don't care if Bamber was locked in his cell 24/7 or given hard labour. I think that punishment for a crime so despicable should reflect the crime that was committed and not what some politicians - far removed from the case - try to suggest.

[goatboy]

I'm not too sure I buy the argument that prisons today are just glorified holiday camps. Prisoners can have as many Gameboys and Playstations as they like, but that doesn't alter the fact that they are in prison having their liberty taken from them. I don't think there are many prisoners who would genuinely opt to stay in prison if they were given the choice! As someone else said, it is the simple things like walking down a street, or sitting in a cafe/pub etc that we take for granted that long term prisoners would love to experience again. If prisons are so cushy then why are the likes of Huntley and Brady so keen to kill themselves? I genuinely believe properly depriving someone of their liberty is the worst punishment of all. Worse than capital punishment I believe. That is why Ian Brady is being force fed when he would prefer to starve himself to death. What better punishment could there be for convicted child killer who wants to kill himself, to refuse to allow him this and let him reflect on what he has done for the rest of his days?

This is one of my other arguments against the death penalty.  If you kill someone, it's all over for them.  They don't have to reflect, or live with what they've done or how it affects the people left behind.

In the case of psychopaths and others with personality disorders, who will never reflect on the damage they've done, it deprives us of the opportunity to conduct psychological and physiological testing that might one day help us to understand why they are what they are.  I really believe that prevention is better than cure (or punishment, in this example).  We should be doing everything we can to stop crime being committed, not just focusing on what happens afterwards.

Well Only Me-you may sum up your argument by saying "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime". If only a politician had decided to use that as political rhetoric...

Pro's and cons of the death penalty could use up a thread on its own. But as you have mentioned it my reasons for disagreeing with it are that I don't believe the state should sanction murder, which is what capital punishment is. Morally if the state punishes someone for murder by killing them how can the state have the moral high ground? Murder is murder. The bible thumping brigade justify capital punishment by saying the Bible states "an eye for an eye". They may wish to read another section which states "thou shalt not kill". I also don't feel capital punishment is a deterrent, purely because whoever commits murder does not intend to get caught, either if they have meticulously planned it in advance or if they have committed it on the spur of the moment. Also they have the death penalty in a lot of states in the USA. One might argue the death penalty hasn't entirely deterred people in the USA from murdering people. Finally, the state could (and did on a number of occasions) kill innocent people in the name of justice. Obviously this final argument doesn't apply to Bamber but you get the point.

[goatboy]

I'm not too sure I buy the argument that prisons today are just glorified holiday camps. Prisoners can have as many Gameboys and Playstations as they like, but that doesn't alter the fact that they are in prison having their liberty taken from them. I don't think there are many prisoners who would genuinely opt to stay in prison if they were given the choice! As someone else said, it is the simple things like walking down a street, or sitting in a cafe/pub etc that we take for granted that long term prisoners would love to experience again. If prisons are so cushy then why are the likes of Huntley and Brady so keen to kill themselves? I genuinely believe properly depriving someone of their liberty is the worst punishment of all. Worse than capital punishment I believe. That is why Ian Brady is being force fed when he would prefer to starve himself to death. What better punishment could there be for convicted child killer who wants to kill himself, to refuse to allow him this and let him reflect on what he has done for the rest of his days?

Point taken Goatboy.
I very much af=gree with you on that one. However, I really dont think that anyone here has actually mentioned that prison is nothing more than a 'glorified holiday camp' Prison life is tough and unmerciful. However, that does not detract away from the suspicion that too many of these prisoners are given personal liberties far beyond what society (and in whose name punishes them)is aware of.
I think there is a balance that people need to draw between the two. I want people to imagine being Bamber relative. How would you feel if the the very person that brutally murdered your loved ones was being given preferential treatment or claiming compensation or allowed to torment you, or publically desecrating their memory, or being ably to manipulate outsides into doing their bidding.........because of these liberites?
Does prison mean just loss of the liberty to go for a walk and simple things? or does it mean that for these crimes society has the right to take them away. This is what it ultimately boils down to. Do you give excessive rights to the perpetrator or do you protect the victims?
I really don't care if Bamber was locked in his cell 24/7 or given hard labour. I think that punishment for a crime so despicable should reflect the crime that was committed and not what some politicians - far removed from the case - try to suggest.

Agreed, I must admit I hadn't thought of how it would look to relatives affected by a crime if its perpetrator appeared to be given preferential treatment. I cannot imagine how the relatives must have felt finding out that a radio station actually let Bamber call them to claim his innocence. There should be laws against this and whoever allowed this should have been punished.

[John]

Agreed, I must admit I hadn't thought of how it would look to relatives affected by a crime if its perpetrator appeared to be given preferential treatment. I cannot imagine how the relatives must have felt finding out that a radio station actually let Bamber call them to claim his innocence. There should be laws against this and whoever allowed this should have been punished.

That was indeed a step too far.  It has been tightened up much since that fiasco.  Jeremy is only allowed to telephone certain named individuals now using his own pin code and as with all prisoners phone calls they are routinely monitored and recorded.  The higher the security cat the more they are monitored.

[starryian]

Agreed, I must admit I hadn't thought of how it would look to relatives affected by a crime if its perpetrator appeared to be given preferential treatment. I cannot imagine how the relatives must have felt finding out that a radio station actually let Bamber call them to claim his innocence. There should be laws against this and whoever allowed this should have been punished.

That was indeed a step too far.  It has been tightened up much since that fiasco.  Jeremy is only allowed to telephone certain named individuals now using his own pin code and as with all prisoners phone calls they are routinely monitored and recorded.  The higher the security cat the more they are monitored.

John 'tightening up' or just plain brushed under the carpet? Bamber is clearly, for a convicted mass-muderer - enjoying unparalled access to the media which I think (and folks we need to fight fire with fire) a breach of the rights of the relatives of the victims of Bamber. I for one and many others I have spoken to know all about Jeremy Bamber and his 'rights' He speaks about them often enough.
He has lauded them loudly and unashamedly. He once refused to work - as was the remit of all prisoners to earn money for petty luxuries. He claimed a breach of his 'human rights' and got a doctor (Hmmm, we seem to have been here before) to sign a note (is there anybody that Bamber has come into contact with that he hasn't been able to manipulate?) saying he couldn't work due to some illness of other. The doctor conveniently had seemed to have forgotten Bamber's daily squash games before breakfast and his constant use of the prison gym.
Whatever the cause of the sudden amnesia by the prison doctor, it seems to have allowed Bamber to not undertake physical work like other prisoners.
Don't know how others may feel but it left me feeling feeling rather concerned. The relatives must be absolutely mortified. This is NOT fit punishment for a convicted mass-murderer and a child-killer. What does everyone else think about this issue?

[Joanne]

I wonder what the Twins (Daniel and Nicholas) dad thinks of it, poor man. 

[Andrea]

If this judicial review fails, will Bamber still have the same access to the media as before. Is it because he claims innocence that he's allowed access to the media etc?

As for working in prison? Yes he should be made to work like all other inmates have to.
I see no reason why he should be treated differently.

He's lucky he lives in the uk, had he lived in the states he wouldnt have been allowed the luxury of breathing, never mind playing squash before breakfast every morning.

[abs]

I don´t think Jeremy Bamber has access to the media - at all. That is, directly. He has people on the outside who believe he is innocent, and there is no way to stop their access to media and www. Jeremy can write his blogs by hand, send them as letters and someone on the outside will publish them.
You would have to put him in isolation if you wanted that stopped. The same goes for any other prisoner.

[Andrea]

He does have some direct access, abs.

He was interviwed by a journo for a radio station i think? I listened to it. I think he also rang up a radio station? It could have been the same incident im not sure.

[abs]

He does have some direct access, abs.

He was interviwed by a journo for a radio station i think? I listened to it. I think he also rang up a radio station? It could have been the same incident im not sure.

I think his access was stopped after that incident. It was some years ago.

[Andrea]

Oh, i see.
Was it the same incident or seperate ones?