Deterrent Sentences

GREAT BRITAIN

"Let us clear any romantic notion of daredeviltry from our minds," said Justice Edmund Davies before passing sentence on the twelve Great Train Robbers before him. "It is nothing less than a sordid crime of violence inspired by vast greed." For their parts in the $7,369,000 robbery of the royal mails last August (most of the money has not yet been recovered), seven of the men drew 30 years apiece, only one got less than 20.* "Don't worry, Mum, I'm still young," shouted out one of the men who had received a 25-year sentence, as guards hustled him away. But even with maximum time off for good behavior, he will in fact be nearly 50 when he gets out.

The sentences raised immediate controversy. Loud cheers in the House of Commons greeted Home Secretary Henry Brooke's comment that Justice Davies proved that judges "are not afraid of imposing deterrent sentences." The Conservative Daily Express saluted them as "a measure of the com munity's need for defense." But perennially angry Methodist Dr. Donald Soper called them "miserable and dreadfully unchristian." The Daily Herald pointed out that the train robbers were not armed, saw the sentences threatening Britain's "great technical and ethical difference between crimes at gunpoint and crimes without guns." Since even murderers often serve an average of only 15 years, the Daily Mirror asked: "Does this mean that stealing bank notes is regarded as more wicked than murdering someone?"

By coincidence, as the furor mounted, a royal commission was beginning a thorough review of British sentencing, punishment methods and prisons--the first in nearly 70 years.

*They were the most severe prison sentences to be imposed in Britain in this century, except for Foreign Office Spy George Blake, who got 42 years in 1961.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.