If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Should prison ever be 'For life'?
**helen**
Deactivated Posts: 9,235 Supreme Poster
Have been following this story a bit, and just wondered if you guys have any thoughts on it?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/wholelife-jail-terms-with-no-review-breach-human-rights-european-court-rules-8697317.html
And just generally - where do you stand on the 'prison for life' concept?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/wholelife-jail-terms-with-no-review-breach-human-rights-european-court-rules-8697317.html
And just generally - where do you stand on the 'prison for life' concept?
0
Comments
I think everyone should be entitled to a review of their life term, as I'm sure there are many people who spends years in prison and "change their ways" so to speak, but there are definitely some people who deserve a whole life term.
There is also criteria (which I will find if anyone's interested) for judges to follow when deciding whether life should be life.
I totally agree that in most cases prison should be for rehabilitation, directing people away from crime, giving them the skills they need to get a proper job etc etc. but there are some people who will never be freed and never should be. For example, Ian Brady. Yes he is in a maximum security hospital, but he is still a prisoner, he committed crimes to put him there. He will never be rehabilitated, and I doubt anyone made much of an effort to try, he will never be set free- even now he is an elderly man.
I guess there are two questions - should sentences have the option of turning into whole life sentences; and should there be the option of whole life sentences from the outset.
I'm pretty decided on the first one - there should definitely be the option to have full life sentences for serious crimes where further down the line there is no evidence of rehabilitation.
On the latter question I'm slightly torn. There are some people, e.g. Ian Brady or Levi Bellfield, whom I really struggle to see how could ever be rehabilitated - and thus making the clear decision up front seems to make sense. Is that right however? I'm not so sure.
From a psychological point of view there are some (not many, but a few) people with extreme personality disorders, or psychopathic tendencies who are not safe to live in normal society. The general public would not be safe, but also the person themselves would not be safe. For example if Ian Brady was ever released I think there would be more danger for him than there would be for the public. He would undoubtedly not be welcomed back into society, and would definitely come to harm. I think this is also a consideration that should come into play when giving a life sentence, what is the safest place for the criminal long term?
I've always been suspicious of the efficacy of prison as a deterrent, but am happy to follow the evidence on that one.
Where it does get murky for me is how much should be punitive and how much should be restorative. Foremost in my mind are the victims of crime. I see part of the sentencing of a criminal (certainly in cases where there are direct victims) as society showing the victim that it understands they were wronged.
The restorative element seems to me to be both pragmatic and humane. We want to minimise reoffending as a society and maximise wellbeing among criminals who have paid their debt.
[/pedant]
It would be interesting to see stats (if any do exist) on how many people commit a crime once leaving prison.
I think people can change, and if it was a life sentence for manslaughter (which I believe is possible, but correct me if I'm wrong), then I think 25 years is plenty enough punishment and I think they would have been able to be rehabilitated, but that what parole boards are there for - deciding if that's the case of not.
Some people, with the right attitude and help can turn their lives around, they are genuinely remorseful and willing to put back what they have taken from society.
Some people, in the words of Alfred from The Dark Knight "Want to see the world burn". A large number of people, are quite simply scumbags who should never see the light of day, where prison shouldn't be a deterrent, it is simply a holding pen that is there to keep those scumbags away from the rest of us.
Think murderers, rapists, the "Mr Bigs" in the organised crime world e.t.c.
There are category A, B and C prisons. And category D which is an open prison. Where you go depends on your crime, the severity of it and how dangerous you are.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner_security_categories_in_the_United_Kingdom
Obviously rehabilitation attempts are made in higher security prisons, and the most trusted prisoners are given jobs inside (for example in the kitchen, or doing laundry). But there are definitely different prisons for different offences depending on the severity and the chance the criminal has to go back and be successful living crime free in the community, and if you are a prolific offender you will end up in a Category A prison, where the main aim is quite often to keep the public safe.
Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk 2
Retribution is something that the victim or victims family is going to feel very strongly about. Obviously when people suffer through somebody's criminal act they want to see that the criminal suffers in return, but this should have limitations. For instance I don't believe the death penalty is a morally acceptable punishment for a rapist imo, though I'm sure many victims of rape would sentence their rapists to death if it were in the power.
If you were a victim of some horrible crime no punishment would seem reasonable. That's why we have courts and judges to makes decisions on convictions, so they can give out fair and proper judgements that arn't clouded by personal grief, and that is how it should be.
Sentences should also be about making sure we can dissuade any would be criminal from committing a crime if we can. The best way to do this is to set a precedent and an example. Make members of society know that if they commit a crime, your are both unlikely to get away with it, and also likely to be punished appropriately for it. However the effectiveness of this is debatable - the death penalty hasn't stop murders in the US. Making examples of people isn't going to stop all crime eg so called 'crimes of passion' or those crimes committed by the mentally ill.
Thirdly sentences should be about rehabilitating the criminal which ties in with public safety. This is important and very tricky. What is the point in locking somebody up if they're going to come out as bad if not worse? At the same time what is the point in locking people away without any hope or effort in them ever becoming a valuable member of society. I believe people can change, but not that everybody can change. Some people can be helped and some can't, but surely we have to try. Rather than no chance of parole I'd rather see people evaluated by experts far better at making these judgements than you or I.
For what it's worth, every experience I've ever had has shown to me that the judges and the "experts" are completely hopeless. How many times does a serial burglar need to be released from prison before we admit defeat and lock them up indefinitely?
How many times do we need to see a passionless judge lock up a violent rapist for 6 years because that is what the sentencing guidelines say, when it is clear to everyone else they need a much more severe punishment.
I'm going to go out on a limb, but sometimes I find myself in total agreement with how people in the middle east do things. Letting the victim, who is the person whos opinion should count most, decide on a punishment is often, imo the best way of doing things.
You think serial burglars should be locked up indefinitely?
No the best way of doing thing is giving out sentances that are proportionate to the crime commited. If we have people like yourself handing out sentances, we'd have a system more akin to the US, where locking people away is a business. Life for burglary? Fuck that.
This is generally the case and there are other factors that have to be considered when deciding whether life should mean life.
What do we do with people who can't be helped? We can't let them roam the streets. His name escapes me for now; but there was someone over here years ago killed someone, was released, killed another person and his sentence is life.
I can't believe we even need to have this conversation.
Despite the mutterings of the Tory Filth, this doesn't mean Ian Brady will be out next week. It means he should have the chance to prove himself worthy of being released.
As for jailing burglars for life, I'd much rather start by jailing any copper who's ever accepted a bribe, impregnated women whilst pretending to be James Bond, or murdered a newspaper seller. Don't see that happening soon. All coppers are bastards.
No. In those circumstances, life must mean life.
I agree that life for burglary without the option for parole is wrong.
Mary Bell, for instance, has led a reasonably straight life since being released from prison in 1980.
The decision from the European Court of Human Rights doesn't give anyone the right to be released, it merely gives them the right to be assessed for release. That is entirely right and proper. Indeed, the law provided for this review up until 2003, when David Blunkett removed it for political capital. The ECHR have recommended a review after 25 years; by pure coincidence, this was the period in place before Blunkett changed the law to distract attention from his philandering.
Ironically the man who brought the case- Bamber- won't ever be released because he's adamant he did not commit the crime.
Funny you say this.
In a study in Tasmania, more than half the jurors involved in criminal law trials recommended a sentence which was more lenient than that provided by the trial judge. For property cases, 68% of jurors recommended a more lenient sentence.
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/tandi/401-420/tandi407.html
Sex crimes are another - with theft, murder, fraud etc there is at least a possibility that human nature can change, to learn the error of their ways. But sexual urges are natural (at least to the individual) and carnal. If someone is attracted to children enough to act on their sexual urge then I cannot see how that could be suppressed therefore I would be against any sentence being reduced.
I agree completely with this view.
I struggle to see any rational counter argument beyond punitive retribution.
It just doesn't sit well with me that this man can ever get released.