Trying to stay impartial is very difficult when evaluating an event as controversial as whether or not Harry Roberts (a man convicted of killing three police offers in 1966) should now be freed. At the trial, the judge recommended that he never be released from his cell; yet, after 48 years behind bars, Harry Roberts will be released very soon.
The decision to release Roberts has caused an inevitable public backlash. This was to be expected, however; after all, the crime evoked emotions of anger and disbelief amongst the British public throughout the country. Spotlight has been beamed upon on Home Secretary Teresa May for this decision; but, as difficult as it may be in a moral sense, it’s one that is very easily defended. In order to achieve justice one must detach themselves of their emotions towards the case; and having served a full 18 years more than his mandatory life sentence (his official punishment), it’s arguable that he has served his time and therefore should be released.
It’s important to highlight that this is not an exoneration of his crime, as that can never be excused, it is simply the implementation of the justice system that we believe in. If were to be more draconian, such as the United States, Roberts would have been executed years ago (in the UK executions were made illegal in 1965). This system is how real miscarriages of justice occur, where wrongly accused people can potentially be locked up for their lifetime or killed. Adding to this is the vehement belief of rehabilitation, that prison can correct and mould a person into one who can function normally in society, whatever their crime. There can’t be any exception to law, even in this shocking case, and that’s why Roberts has the right to be released.
