In my view, judges should not be able to jail offenders for a "whole life" tariff.
Here's a bit of background:
link to BBC news story.
Anyone sentenced to "Life" will remain under that sentence for the rest of their life - whether they are released on licence in the future or not. The judge sets a tariff which is the minimum term that the offender must serve in prison before his case is permitted to be reviewed by a parole panel. But, in my view, it's important that any offender serving time in prison has that review as a future "goal" to aim towards. It may be extremely unlikely that certain prisoners will ever be released on parole, but they should be given the goal of behaving, improving, serving their punishment and rehabilitation and contributing to society in a meaningful way. To deny them that does not, in my view, serve the ends of justice properly.
No judge sitting today can be completely certain about the political and moral landscape of the future, perhaps forty or fifty years from now. So, in my view a Life Sentence should be served with a minimum tariff of a number of years, as set by a judge and should be reviewed at that time by a parole board, with a judge presiding.
Comments
Who falls under that and who doesn't is a much more complicated matter and each case needs to be dealt with on its own merits.
So why do we let convicted murderers out if there is even the slightest chance that they may kill again? If we act with the same caution, then the fate of innocent members of the public cannot be gambled with - they cannot and should not be released.
When the death penalty was abolished, it was with the tacit agreement that 'life would mean life'. However, this has been steadily eroded and this agreement has been reduced to a mockery - this is why many people feel that our criminal justice system is a joke which humiliates the victim's family and mollycoddles murderers etc.
I for one cannot believe the kind of sentences that are handed out to the human detritus that, for example, 'traffic' women and children for sexual slavery. These are people who sleep at night knowing that others' brutal, terrifying misery is a price worth paying for their financial gain - repeated, brutal rape day after to day. Anyone who does that to another human being shows a lack of empathy so shocking that I believe they are unfit to dwell as free men/women because of their willingness to facilitate the suffering of others. They should be sent to prison and never get out, ever.
I'll be honest, rehabilitation is a great thing and should be the goal for all but the most despicable criminals, but some crimes are so serious I see it as irrelevant. The priority is to protect society from these people and if their 'human rights' are interpreted as being breached in some way by someone with wool for brains then I couldn't care less. As a society, we deserve to be protected, full stop.
Anyone interested in that age old debate please watch this http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p01rw5gk/Hardtalk_Former_Commissioner_of_Corrections_Georgia_USA_Allen_Ault/
It is a truly astounding programme, very powerful and moving.
I am sure the liberal minded, Christian human being would want to see the very best in every individual, but I think soapy and bigstemarra are correct in saying these people have done wrong, been proven guilty and a life sentence is more than justified.
The bit I don't understand is this: how can a Judge, sitting in 2014, passing sentence on a 20 year-old make a decision that the convicted murderer cannot be released when he's in his seventies or eighties or older? What is it that the Judge can know right now which means that the criminal cannot be released, even when he is demonstrably no longer a "threat to society", as he cannot walk, talk, feed, clean or look after himself? How can he *know* that, today?
Surely it's far better to pass judgement by saying: "You will serve a Life Sentence; you will never finish that sentence; however, those people that are in charge of such matters can decide in 50 years' time whether you are then fit to be released, on license". Surely?
To me, a "whole-life" tariff just ties the hands of the legal system and prevents what MIGHT be a good decision some time in the future.
Agreed .. BUT ... It's not so much that murders continue to be committed, more that there would be a lot more if there were not severe deterrent sentences ... even under a death penalty regime, some people will consider that they can beat the odds and not get caught, or a momentary loss of reason/temper can lead to a murder and to hell with the consequences .. I would also add that there is more than one school of thought which advocates the idea that most murders are committed during fits of (temporary ?) insanity and that most 'murderers' should be regarded as mentally ill and not necessarily as criminals .. few murderers commit murder more than once, those that do are more often than not sent to Broadmoor rather than Wakefield or Long Lartin .. 'multiple' murder is surely a sign of serious mental instability
Parole could still be available if warranted so what's the problem?
The case of Anders Breivik highlights this argument perfectly. Norway has an extremely liberal policy when it comes to prison sentences (they also have one of the lowest rates of reoffending, but again, that's a different argument). This policy means that Breivik (who is, by anyone's definition of the term, a fucking lunatic) will be eligible for parole in only a few years - despite murdering dozens of people. Will he still be a fucking lunatic when he's up for parole? Yep. However, the judicial system in Norway (as I understand it) will simply have a discussion about it when he's due up, then nod him back to the cells. I don't see anything wrong with that. I do, however, see something wrong with a judicial system that hamstrings even a discussion about a prisoner. What happens if, for instance, there is a complete change in public opinion about a specific crime, but the perpetrator has already been sentenced to 'full life'?
A difficult question - but I think if people aren't emotive about it, they'll realise that the most sensible way forward is to give people a minimum term, then monitor for future transgressions and haul them back to the clink if they reoffend.
For this sort of thing taken to its extreme, consider the US 'three strikes' policy - where if you do time twice, then commit a third offence, no matter how minor, you are banged up for life. This has led to thousands of inmates in jail in the US for drug possession, theft or driving offences - costing the US taxpayer hundreds of millions to house, clothe and feed them. That's the very definition of insane.
Barry George, Stephen Downing, the Birmingham Six, Guildford Four, Sally Clark...
I like the theory of cutting burglars hands off but the reality is different (lifetime of benefits, constant care, same punishment for bloke who thieves a crate of beer as a mugger)
There is a lot to be said for community service if managed properly and robustly for a host of crimes as opposed to fines and mickey mouse sentences that.
Unfortunately the solution is probably somewhere in between and involves a huge amount of human interaction and interpretation which means a lot of variables which leads us back to where we are. Under resourced and over worked and getting a lot wrong
Just a for instance .. a school friend of mine was a mess at one time .. booze, drugs, fights, burglary .. you name it, he did it .. surprising because he was at base a VERY clever young man .. Eventually he was sent down .. Inside he took plumbing course and qualified .. on release he went into the plumbing business and to my knowledge has never had trouble with minor vices or the law ever since .. he was rehabilitated .. I am sure that this is one example amongst thousands .. remember .. Good News Is NO NEWS .. BAD News overrides good .. a variation of Gresham's Law