Monday, June 13, 2011

The Very Worst

The milestone of my 31st year recently passing inevitably made me ponder. A tariff of ten years, served thirty-one...where did it all go wrong?!
And I ponder...what is the worst that has been said of me during my sentence? What is the worst act that I have been accused of? Just what have I done that merited that 21 extra years? After all, if my tariff for a murder was 10 years, then surely another 21 must reflect for special type of further wickedness?
Obviously, allegations accrue. Through mischief as much as anything else, my file contains the odd spicy titbit. The Princess Anne assassination plot, for example (http://prisonerben.blogspot.com/2009/11/royal-assassination-plot.html). But if we disregard rumour, what is the worst that can be said?
A phone...an attempted escape 18 years ago...borrowing someone’s Playstation...refusing to work... The list of minor crimes is pretty broad over those 31 years. What is, for me, most interesting is what is absent.
Violence. I'm always open to the claim of being an imperfect human being, I'd never deny it. But does that add up to 31 years...and counting?

12 comments:

  1. On the 'outside' we all have to play by the rules. What makes you think you are any different?

    If you had really wanted to be released you would have been by now.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think you mean we are supposed to play by the rules. We don't. Aside from the attempted escape (which is fairly serious) then the listed above are on par with;

    Riding a bike with no light (@#$! batteries)
    Reversing a car through a garden wall (criminal damange)
    Breaking the speed limit

    None of these acts would warrant any more than a fine. All of these have been done by me in the past year (fortunately a relatives wall who didn't complain too much). By your logic I should be in prison for these crimes.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Alot of sentences seem to be given with a maximum and a minimum - was the ten years the minimum?

    If it was the maximum, I'd say this is a human rights violation.

    If ten years was the minimum, it still strikes me as akin to human rights violation. As tallguy said, if you do this stuff outside you aught to be fined/a slap on the wrist and on your way.

    And to be mercenary, given the amount it costs to keep you in jail, the people bumping up your time for these things are almost commiting fraud.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The Parole Board are supposed to asses if one is a risk to the public - and the treatment of Ben shows that is not what they do. Ben's one off episode of violence was so long ago that no-one could really assess him as still violent. I know from first hand experience that the assessment made by the Board and prison staff are often a load of rubbish. The Parole Board should also be prepared to take risks or eventually our prisons will be full of prisoners who present little or no risk to the public, leaving little or no resources to deal appropriately with people who do present high risk. One other thing that concerns me about this is the fact that nobody with any clout seems to stand up in public and shout for people like Ben and the 1200 hundred or so people who received less than 2 year tariffs on an indeterminate sentences and are still in prison some several years beyond their tariff. Surely Ben should be given a chance to prove he can cope outside of closed prison - then perhaps someone who should be in prison would be there.

    Keep strong Ben.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Ben, do your self a favor. 31 years is enough for anyone to do, whatever they have done (unless criminaly insane). Life is short, and the years fly by, Get out and put the past behind you. Tell some godforsaken neanderthal probation officer what they want to hear.

    There is a whole world out here, about time you came out to enjoy some of it.

    ReplyDelete
  6. @Mary-Part of the problem I think is that the parole board are being asked the wrong question. They have to answer "why should this person be let out" when the question ought to be "why should this person be left in jail"

    ReplyDelete
  7. Cuz he is a murderer. Normally a good reason to keep some yone in jail. But I am missing something here. From what Ben says and his supporters say he should have been out years ago. But he is not. So there are either things he is not telling us or something very wrong going on. Also checking the rules out prisoners are not allowed blogs so why is Ben exempt. Tell me please why do things not add up.

    ReplyDelete
  8. @saint07

    There are no rules concerning a prisoner having a blog. If you read the title of the blog (yes, actually READ it) Ben does not have internet access and posts via a friend using snail mail. However I do agree with your second point, something smells fishy about this whole thing. We have seen examples, admitted to by Ben that he does not abide by the rules. He has admitted to having a mobile phone recently.

    I have been to prison, I got out and started making amends and living my life. I give you this advice Ben, STOP thinking the rules don't apply to you, they bloody well do and start behaving yourself. From what I have read on this blog you are an arrogant little pissant and a thorn in the side of your keepers, SORT YOURSELF OUT.

    ReplyDelete
  9. That's a bit harsh. Even if true, can you justify locking someone up and throwing away the key just because they are arrogant?!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Saint07 - it's all about risk. Ben got a life sentence for murder. The 10 yrs was just the minimum. Ben claims he has done nothing that should indicate that he presents a risk but clearly many others disagree...

    ReplyDelete
  11. I love how someone can have the irony to arrogantly think themselves worthy of judging - judging someone else and declaring them an arrogant little pissant. Mind you, takes one to know one, I guess? Might be perfectly accurate in those terms?

    As I understand it Ben has spent most of his adult life in prison. Can you imagine spending most of your life as an obsequious drone?

    Mind you, the other party to the crime is dead, so they don't even get obsequious. But they can't be brought back, no matter how 'sorted out' Ben gets about mobile phones.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Tallguy, above, the voice of reason and common sense. Refreshing.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.