53 lifers out since 2000, latest lowlife minimum 6yrs etc.....

[Loosehead]

So is that daily mail hysteria? Is it time to force the judges to use their powers? Is it time for life to mean life?

[Big Al1st]

Hi Loosehead, Problem how I see it is to do with the Governments Sentecing Guidelines Chaired by the Lord Chief Justice and who findings Judges are advised to take.

Life = 18 years

Eligble for parole after serving half time = 9 years

Cut a third for guilty plea = 6 years

Then reduce for time already served.

The guilty plea is a farce because even if someone is caught red handed with no real defence he can enter a guilty plea and get a third reduction. Alot of these guidlines were bought in by dear old David Blunkett.

However when one sees the ages of some of the Judges it does make you wonder if they are all there.

Rgds

[jake-the-peg]

Eligable for parole does not mean should be released.

It's not a case of they are released unless there's overriding considerations to stop it.

The question is for the parole boards as to why they were released.

Life does mean life - just not life in prison as Mail readers seem to think.

You're never free of a life sentence, if released you can be recalled indefinately for any minor infringement.

And incidently there has been an increase of over 38% between 97 and 02 of prisoners serving life sentences.

There may be a case for introducing an American style "life without the possibility of parole".

This might be a more interesting angle of discussion - maybe it'd help the Mail get it's head around the concepts too!

[fat rascal]

for some offences i feel life should be life...

[Loosehead]

I should have mentioned that the 53 where actually jailed in 2000. 53 where still let out jake, it seems quite common to get parole at the earliest opportunity.

[Oneeyedvic]

The problem with life meaning life is that (as an example) if you raped someone, you may as well then kill them. It will be much harder for them to identify you if they are dead! And there will be no difference in sentancing. Same with paedophiles, muggers, armed robbers etc.

Try to remember that there were less that 400 murders last year. (i know that that is 400 to many, but most people think that there are thousands annually). Think how many rapes and other crimes there were. If life meant life, I suspect that the number of murders would actually increase.

[jake-the-peg]

You'd have to look at the specific cases and the reasons behind the parole boards decisions.

Remember there is a mandatory life sentence for murder. Whilst not condoning murder it's important to remember that not all murderers (and I'm thinking especially about "crimes of passion" here) represent a danger to society. Moreover heavy sentences do not deter non-premeditated crimes of this sort.

The increase of prisoners getting life sentences makes it hard to distinguish who's a real risk and who isn't without examining the case details.

We probably need to remove the mandatory life sentence for murder, introduce a "without parole" sentence reservered for the most heinous cases and give more visibility into the guidelines and decisions of the parole board.

Perhaps parole boards ought to accept evidence from the public that parole of a particular prisoner would constitute an unacceptable risk to the public.

[ianess]

If life is really meant to mean life then why on earth are sentences not handed out in number of years imprisonment? This would remove any ambiguity, and prisoners would know exactly when they would be eligible to apply for parole [not necessarily be granted parole].
For example 60years for murder means 20 years before parole can be applied for, and still no guarantee that release on license would be granted.
Surely almost anything would be better than the mockery that we have at the moment.

[jno]

as other users have pointed out, the problem isn't necessarily with the judges. They hand out life sentences; these are then reduced, by law, for various reasons (such as pleading guilty). John Reid could change the law but seems to find it easier to point the finger at the courts; that's because he's a politician.

I think there are cases where life should mean life, but that's already possible (Myra Hindley, for instance). The risk is that pretty soon the Mail would be demanding that everyone be given life, whereas I'd prefer to see it held in reserve for violent paedophiles, professional hitmen and the like.

Bear in mind, too, that it's expensive to build the jails and hold people in them for ever. We would have to pay.

[youngmafbog]

Many good points here, the best one I think is Life without parole. There are certain cases where this should happen to protect the public, effectivley where hanging would have occurred. The law needs changing to accomadate this and to change the other rediculous reductions available.

Rather alot of Mail bashing here, not read it myself but surely without papers banging on things would get worse and worse. (softer)

Building jails may be expensive but what is a life worth ?. Personally I would rather pay to lock the scum away for proper and adequate periods. Better than paying for the bucket load of useless co-ordinators as advertised in the Guardian.

[Supernick]

Nothing is a deterrent to a certain brand of criminals. The death penaltly certainly isn't, as demonstrated in the US, so we shouldn't lay too much importance to the idea of deterring people in that way. Prison in the majority of cases should be to rehabilitate and punish at the same time, and in the minority of horrific examples should be used to keep certain criminals away from society for good. jake-the-peg has given a couple of excellent, concise answers for this, and I'm firmly with him on this one.

[El D]

Heard a debate about this on the radio today - apparently 'lifers' have the lowest reoffender rate out of all sentences. The other point made is that there 4 or 5 (can't remember exactly) types of life sentence each with its own guidelines on parole.

There is a fine line between punishing the guilty and trying to reform them into responsible members of society. I think that we would have to reserve judgement until the exact circumstances of each case were revealed, however as already pointed out by many it does ask the question of whether the 'life' sentence is now redundant in British justice.

[Loosehead]

Thanks for all your responses.

[jno]

Just read in the Times Big Al that most of the 53 were actually released under rules brought in by Michael Howard.