Justice or Compassion? (or both?)

We heard an item about Ronnie Biggs, the Great Train Robber on the TV yesterday. I just assumed he'd died, but it was a bad assumption. He has been released. All my instincts say 'leave him to rot in jail, its what he deserves'. This is also true for the other 'iconic' criminals from my childhood, for example the Moors Murderers -Myra Hindley & Ian Brady. It is an instinct that comes from a time when things didn't get considered in the way an adult considers things.

So was Jack Straw right to release Ronnie? If he had been following the recommendation of the Parole Board he would have done so a while ago. Biggs is very ill and unlikely to recover. So ill that he is no longer a danger to the public - and there fore safe to release.

Before I can consider this issue further I must ask "What is prison for?"

• Punishment - again and instinctive reaction, but punishment to achieve what?
• Rehabilitation - sounds like a nice idea, but there are some who are determinedly against being rehabilitated. Should we keep them in for the remainder of their lives? What about those who fake showing remorse, and act rehabilitated?
• Protection - of whom? - The prisoner so that no revenge can be carried out - it seems a bit extreme, but sometimes it may be the case. Protection of the public from the offender re-offending.
• A requirement to make amends. It's a nice idea, but rarely fits the bill for crimes that result in time spend 'at Her Majesty's pleasure'.
  

If we can get a clear answer to the question then we can make a more reasoned decision, and not rely on childhood instinct. Let's make the assumption that prison sentences are primarily about protection of the public. This would allow for some rehabilitation.

The sentence passed by the court must be served, it is only fair to the prisoner (yes, we have to be fair to prisoners too) that they are aware of the term to be served and the conditions under which the term may be reduced (parole granted), or extended - by further criminal activity. We could make loads of rules covering every circumstance, it's what we try to do in other areas of life. For some its ideal, but when dealing with people it is probably better to exercise compassion.

On those grounds then I have to say that it was the right thing to do, but it still feels wrong.

This is not in conflict with my previous post or perhaps I should say outburst? John, who always helps me to think things through, wrote on Facebook:
There is a big difference between euthanasia (putting an end to some one's life because you feel it is the best thing for them. e.g your cat), and assisted suicide, which is helping someone to end their own life because they are begging you, and because both you and they know their life is intolerable, and will get worse, and they have made a lucid... Read more, considered decision so to do, but lack the physical capacity or the means to complete the act.
In my view both are wrong, but I will not be signing the petition, because I don't believe people who genuinely fall into the latter category should be prosecuted under British law. (Bold Italics are mine)

Neither do I. I have signed the petition. My concern is that de-criminalising the act will lead to more occurrences of it, and to some that would still be criminal even after the change, but now much more difficult to prosecute than they are now.

From my limited perspective I think we have things about right. Assisted suicide is illegal, but the justice system rarely investigates, and has yet to prosecute successfully, so far as I know.