I think I have every right to question the moral compass of someone who thinks 30 years for committing an armed robbery which resulted in someone's death was "way over".
Are you aware of just how many crimes (and many of them murders and rapes) are committed by people who have been given ridiculously lenient sentences or been let out half way through their sentences? Had they been given a proper punishment (and I couldn't give two hoots about rehabilitation - it doesn't work with hardened criminals) many of those crimes would not have been committed. And that is not something you can argue with. (And that applies to the Great Train Robbers - had they been given proper sentences for their previous crimes they would not have been free to go and commit that particular crime - argue against that if you can).
"For justice to prevail, we must have a sliding tariff in sentencing".
Why? Why can we not just punish ciminals, and punish them severely? Let them know that what they did was wrong and will not be tolerated. I never suggested we should hang a thief. But hang a rapist? Who on earth would disagree with that?
I don't have any problem with different sentences for different crimes, depending on the level of their seriousness. Had this lot received the death penalty for this offence, which they jolly well should have, we wouldn't have had the subsequent charade of Biggs in hiding on the other side of the world for 40 odd years.
Oh, and "Did I make it clear the coshing of Mills was terrible? YES!" - well, not really, no, you did not.
Who would disagree with hanging a rapist? Me for one-and most Britons. And you do seem in favour of hanging thieves.
Are you implying that the "Great Train Robbers" were just "thieves"? That puts them on a par with shoplifters, which would be a ridiculous assertion. What they did went way beyond mere thievery (I know, I know, it's a made-up word!), and fully warranted the 30 year sentences.