Prison Sentences

[dummkopf]

This was in my local news- "Two men convicted of kicking and stamping a man to death for just �1.30 have been jailed for life. Wells, of Oxton, Wirral, must serve at least 13 years and McGarry, of Kensington, 11 years, a judge at Liverpool Crown Court ruled. They are both 18. Why do the judges say "life" when it doesn't mean that at all !

[Dizzieblonde]

Cases like these and you can see why normally placid, liberal people start asking for the return of the death penalty.

[jenstar]

Because (1) they can indeed be detained for life, and (2) unless their convictions are overturned, they will be only be released on license, if at all.

[JudgeJ]

There is much debate currently concerning �Life� sentences. It is true what jenstar says that those sentenced to Life can be detained indefinitely. It is also true that those released can be recalled. In practice it is exceptional for the former to happen (unless they are sentenced to �whole life� upon conviction) and rare for them to be recalled to serve their original sentence even if they are convicted of further serious crime.

When the Death penalty for murder was abolished in 1965 it was replaced by a mandatory sentence of Life imprisonment. People were led to believe that the term �Life� meant just that.

Since then it has been clearly seen that the term means nothing of the sort. Sentencing judges have to make a recommendation on the proposed length of the �Life� sentence and in many cases parole is considered and granted long before this term has expired.

Human Rights legislation has also poked its nose in. Previously the Home Secretary had a say in the release of Lifers. HR principles preclude politicians from interfering in judicial decisions so this had to be changed. There is also a widely held view that �indeterminate� sentences fall foul of the HR legislation. There is a view that those convicted should have a clear understanding upon being sentenced of precisely what term they are expected to serve

All in all the issue of �Life� imprisonment is a mess and is rightly held in disrepute. The answer is simple. The term should be abolished (for it is meaningless) and sentences should be handed down in absolutely clear terms. I would also advocate that the principle of allowing prisoners to serve only half their sentence before being released should be abandoned. I believe in the principle that only courts should hand down sentences. But likewise only courts should be allowed to rescind all or part of any sentence properly passed.

[sp1814]

JudgeJ

I have a question...why are some prisoners released after completing half their sentences?

Is it supposed to be an incentive towards good behaviour? I've never fully understand that one.

[jake-the-peg]

There are a number of problems with mandatory "true-life" sentences.

One of which is further offences. Does the expression "you might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb" ring any bells.

If somebody has already committed a violent rape and murder why would he not then commit a second?

Why would he not resist arrest with lethal force.

and as you point out you'll take away a major control from prison officers.

Anybody fancy trying to manage a prison full of "true-lifers"

Of course similar arguments apply to the death penalty.

But I'd have to agree with JudgeJ that the term needs to be abolished - I'm not convinced though that the judicery should replace parole boards in making decisions about releases after all their area of expertise is in the law not in risk assessment which is probably what is needed.

[dot.hawkes]

i don't think you are actually aware that the vistim you mention in your thread was a good friend of a fellow ABer Redbel (previously *Bez* )
Bez is still quite upset over the loss and was on MSN with me last night and she is bewildered by the sentences.

http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/Body-and-Soul/Q uestion283435.html

[capper1985]

any idea where this happened?

i live in oxton and have never heard of this...it's not a big place!!