Life should mean life

[STEED]

Huntley at heart of ‘geriatric lifers’ row

The Lord Chancellor has reignited the debate over sentencing by declaring that some killers, including the Soham murderer Ian Huntley, should die in prison.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton said that Huntley, who is serving a minimum 40-year term, belonged to a class of killers who should never be released because of the “heinousness” of their crimes.


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle1533694.ece

This kind of killer should rot in prison for what he did that scumbag.

[ASWnut101]

Removing Captial Punishment? That's a mistake waiting to happen.

[fatty]

Originally Posted by ASWnut101

Removing Captial Punishment? That's a mistake waiting to happen.

The UK hasn't had capital punishment since 1965; this article is about jail term length/permanency.

[jumpy]

Originally Posted by ASWnut101

Removing Captial Punishment? That's a mistake waiting to happen.

I'm sure Ruth Ellis, were she alive today, would completely agree with that sentiment.

On a slightly different note:
I'm also damn sure that I'd rather be wrongly convicted and imprisoned, than wrongly convicted and hanged, our legal process being the stout and ever infallible form that it is.
Besides which, spending the 'rest of your natural life' in incarceration is an infinitely more awful punishment than being killed by the state; as you are reminded of exactly why you are there every single day. My only concern regarding this is that prisoners who have committed the most terrible crimes should not have access to things like 'creature comforts' (not the plasticine animations) or hot water (for example) or satellite TV. A desperately Spartan and cloistered existence should be theirs, with minimal contact with other human beings. Near close enough to solitary as is deemed acceptable under the circumstances. People like Myra Hindly & Ian Brady, Rose & Fred West, Peter Sutclife, who inflicted such terrible curtailment of their victims lives deserve, no less.

I think for many it matters not if they are 'insane' or mentally ill or whatever, just that these people are kept away from society at large, regardless of their 'progress', remorse or re-education behind bars. Some acts simply set an individual outside of the realms of normal behaviour and morality and as such they should remain so, isolated and impotent to continue their aberration of body and soul.

For those who commit murder as something not connected to a violent sadistic or sexual intent, then the law should consider the circumstances and sentence accordingly under existing guidelines for terms of imprisonment.

As for the common yobbo youth criminal, most of them would benefit from a stint of 1940's military discipline to teach them some bloody manners and respect for when they get out of prison.

A sentence of 'life' should really mean life... otherwise you might just as well say 14 years with good behaviour.

[kiwi_2005]

Originally Posted by fatty

The UK hasn't had capital punishment since 1965; this article is about jail term length/permanency.

Our last hanging was in 1954, before capital punishment was outlawed. These ppl that commit really vicous murders/rapes should be sentence for the rest of their lives, not 15yrs and getout in 10.

[Letum]

It really isn't as simple as the popular motto's "life should mean ife" etc.

Part of the reason the "life should mean life" motto came about was because of confusion over the difference between a "life sentence" and a "life tariff" in the UK.
In the UK a "life sentence" refers to any single sentence over 15 years. If all "life sentences" lasted until death than people who only received medium length sentences would stay in for far too long.
A life tariff, on the other hand, means life.

Perhaps the best solution would be to rename the sentences in the UK to avoid confusion.

The second problem with long sentences is that recherche suggests that sentences over 30 years have almost as much effect deterrent effect as those over 30 years. In the UK sentences are imposed to A) keep the public safe and B) act as a deterrent. i.e they are never used for revenge. As a result it is normally the case that convicts that are considered safe will be released before they die after they have served an appropriate deterrent sentence.

[CptSimFreak]

Russia had it right; I say send them to gulags; make them work.

[Letum]

Originally Posted by CptSimFreak

Russia had it right; I say send them to gulags; make them work.

These days there isn't much call for mass unskilled hard labor in the UK. We do set criminals to work with individual "community service" tho and it appears to work well.

[SUBMAN1]

Wow. I'm tempted to get sucked into this conversation, but I am doing good about staying out of it. I have a bit more conservative view on the subject.

-S

[Letum]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Wow. I'm tempted to get sucked into this conversation, but I am doing good about staying out of it. I have a bit more conservative view on the subject.

-S

Burn "them" at the stake if they look a bit fishy?

Nha, seriously, come jump in the thread! The water is lovely!

[STEED]

The thing that gets my goat is when they sentence someone to life all this means 10 years minimum stop farting around and making look like justice works here, it dose not. Just say they got 10 years and stop pulling the wool over everyones eyes.

[TteFAboB]

If they deserve to rot in prison, they should rot in prison. If they deserve to be realeased at the age of 70 or 80 they should be released.

You should be carefull with:

1. Masterminds & gang-bangers. They may not become less dangerous with age if they can still use their brains. Revenge might be served cold.

2. If you inprison an "intellectual" for life, do not give him a pencil and a paper. A man who has nothing to loose and has only his intellect to rely upon is even more dangerous in prison. If a "writer" is arrested, take the writing away from him, do not let him write anything. If he does write anything, burn it. The only permissible material should be anti-criminal romances or a sincere mea-culpa.

How about installing public floggings for Yobs? They're all about "respect" and creating an image aren't they? Unless there is a more humiliating punishment. Sew them tight inside a Teletubby costume or something.



Hello, I threw snowballs at STEED and now I have to wear this for 2 months or face 6 in the brig, having my ass raped three times a day because I have to call for more saying "Again! Again!".

[Captain Nemo]

Originally Posted by Letum

The second problem with long sentences is that recherche suggests that sentences over 30 years have almost as much effect deterrent effect as those over 30 years. In the UK sentences are imposed to A) keep the public safe and B) act as a deterrent. i.e they are never used for revenge. As a result it is normally the case that convicts that are considered safe will be released before they die after they have served an appropriate deterrent sentence.

What happened to justice in all this?

Nemo

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Letum

Burn "them" at the stake if they look a bit fishy?

Nha, seriously, come jump in the thread! The water is lovely!

AAAaahhh!! I will resist! I will resissst!!

-S

[Letum]

Originally Posted by Captain Nemo

What happened to justice in all this?

Nemo

"Justice" could be called the moral dimension to crime and punishment. As a moral entity it is subjective at best. It means different things to different people.

For many people justice come from a conflicting mix of desire for revenge and empathy. I do not thing anything good can ever come from the, base, reaction of revenge.

For me, personally, justice does not mean revenge and I don't think justice should be some kind of tit-for-tat, state enforced karma. I view justice as a utilitarian tool that should be used to do what ever is best for every ones welfare. I believe the most just action is the action that is likely to be best for every ones welfare.