Iorworth Hoare

[ono no komachi]

Tessa Jowell thinks that the Government should ensure that convicted rapist Hoare does not benefit from his £7m Lotto win.

Apparently Boris Johnson thinks it would not be Christian to deny him the money. While I think that's a slightly odd way of putting it, I have to come down (though it goes against my natural instincts) on the side of the blond mop-headed Tory.

If the Government is going to allow convicts to buy lottery tickets, it can't then deny them any winnings. The lottery is not based on merit, the whole point of it is that anyone can win. People can't demand that someone should have their winnings taken away because, in their opinion, they don't deserve them. Where would the line be drawn?

Of course I think that what Hoare has done in the past is vile, but for me that's in no way connected with whether he should be allowed to win money or not. He paid for his ticket like anyone else, and the money should be his.

[John Self]

I agree - sort of. Certainly the first time I had any thoughts other than negative ones toward Hoare was when Tessa 'Thickie' Jowell jumped in with both feet - her speciality, remember Brass Eye? - and said they were going to stop him getting the money. Er, retrospective legislation, Tessa? Wouldn't that be rather ... novel?

There is a piece on the Guardian website (http://society.guardian.co.uk/crimeandpunishment/comment/0,8146,1281884,00.html)which says he should get his winnings, on the basis that just because he did something bad in the past, it doesn't make him forever a baddie and once he has been released from prison then he is deemed to have paid his debt to society. This is fair enough in theory but I think it overlooks the extraordinary background to Hoare's crime. He has spent almost all of the last 32 years in prison for sexual offences.


June 1973: jailed for three years at Leeds Crown Court for attempted rape
November 1975: jailed for four years at Exeter Crown Court for attempted rape.
September 1978: jailed for four years at Leeds Crown Court for indecent assault and assault.
June 1983: sentenced to seven years at Leeds Crown Court for rape and indecent assault.
1989: jailed for life for attempted rape.

And these are, of course, only the offences for which he was reported, charged and successfully prosecuted. It's worth noting that under the normal remission scheme, in all but one of these cases, he was out and had offended again before the expiry of his full jail term. In the last case he was released on 13 November 1987 (four years of a seven year sentence) - just three months before his attack on a retired teacher in Roundhay Park in Leeds, which happened on 22 February 1988 and which led to his current life sentence.

This leads to the question: why, on the second, third and fourth occasions, was he considered for early release? Much as it goes against my liberal grain to say it, the overwhelming weight of the evidence is that this man will not stop sexually assaulting women while he is at liberty and that suggests that he should not be released on licence when his review comes up. This way, of course, if he does stay in prison for the rest of his life, he won't get the money anyway.

[pandop]

I agree - he should never have been out and therefore able to buy the ticket (one of his judges is on record as saying words to the effect of 'if you are out, women are in danger'), but now he has bought the ticket then he has won fair and square.

However, the restrictions on suing in civil court could (should - I don't think a 3 year statute of limitations is appropriate as it can take longer than that for someone to recover enough to get angry) be lifted, enabling his victims to sue, especially as he is apparently not being punished severely enough by the criminal justice system - if he was he would not have been out to buy the tickets, or out to reoffend (as he did before). There has been suggestions that if any of his victims did try to sue, they could probably find a judge that would let them.

Also, offenders on day/early release are not allowed to gamble in other ways (what were the normal ways before the lottery - casinos and availing themselves of the services of a bookies) so yes expand the law to include the lottery - it makes sense, as it is gambling (even if it does have a lower age limit than other forms)

Hazel (who does not want this guy coming 'home')

[gil]

I agree... if he bought the ticket legally, he's entitled to the winnings.

BUT Another point:

Wasn't there a story about people who'd been freed from jail on appeal who were then CHARGED for bed and board while they were banged up? (Or at any rate assessed for money saved on rent in civvy street)

On this basis, Hoare, and any other criminal of means, should be paying for their accommodation, easing the cost to the public purse.

And why, after a record like that, hasn't he been humanely destroyed already?

[pandop]

In some areas of the US they are charging prisoners and their families - I would think that could catch on here, prisons without having to pay for them with public money - this government will love it!

Hazel

[Wavid]

I think they are charged - isn't it £60 a day? I think it is deducted from any compensation that is awarded...

[John Self]

To be flippant about it, Alexei Sayle said: "It costs £20,000 a year to keep someone in prison. No wonder they steal!"

[skanky]

I think they are charged - isn't it £60 a day? I think it is deducted from any compensation that is awarded...

£60 a day for eating glassed or messed with food, sharing with criminals and having to slop out. After being found to be innocent. The last kick to the insult, really.