Three youths laughed as they were sentenced to life for kicking a man to death.

topper

I never said treason was considerecd worse than murder - I said the authorities considered it so - but I'm sorry I misunderstood your point - again - I thought you were agreeing with the death penalty for treason but not for terrorism


As for life meaning life - Joe Public hears Life given and then reads/hears that in fact the bastard concerned could be free in 8/10 years which naturally irritates him. So shouldn't the Authorities advise the Judiciary to sentence in terms Joe understands

Why cannot our lords and masters advise the Judiciary to be more specific in their sentencing

Clueless

You're spot on though.

Plechazunga

No worries. Have we had some sort of run-in in the past? Your tone seems to be assuming some base antipathy, which I don't remember. Like in another thread when i said your posts were normally intelligent and you assumed I was being sarcastic.

Yeah, I suppose it does sort of add insult to injury for those who think people should be banged up for their whole lives, when they're not, and then it's called a life sentence. That's what you get when you have immoderate view though!

Frosty

There seems to be a huge amount of confusion here as to what a life sentence actually means.

I hope to clear this up.

In English law, there is one, and only one sentence that an individual can receive if they are found guilty of the offence of murder - mandatory life imprisonment.

The judge has absolutely no discretion when awarding this sentence.

However, special rules apply to this sentence.

Judges are allowed to set a minimum 'tariff' period that the defendant must serve. This period is the amount of time that the defendant 'deserves' to be locked up for the purposes of retribution.

After the tariff period has been served, the defendant can be released on licence if, and only if they are judged, by the parole board, not to be a threat to society.

The starting 'tariff' is set at fifteen years. There are a range of mitigating circumstances that can raise or lower the minimum tariff.

Sentencing guidelines dictate that a judge can set a 'life means life' sentence where:

• The defendant kills two or more people with premeditation
• Or he kills a child, either sexually or sadistically

Most cases will have a tariff of fifteen years.

Release on licence

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=D...PQiYYJvo&hl=en

Above is a good summary from the Law Commission.

When a convicted murderer is released from prison, they are 'released on licence'.

This means that their conviction will never become 'spent', like, for example, a burglary conviction. They are therefore on licence for the rest of their lives. As such their behaviour is closely scrutinised, and they are, in effect, on perpetual probation.

Any violation of the licence's terms, such as committing another criminal offence, will result in their licence being revoked, and them serving the rest of their sentence (life imprisonment).

Also, for a lawyer's view from the seventies, thsi may be of interest to some of you. His arguments, though dated, are still relevant today:

http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/13/2/188.pdf

kuanteen

I get upset about the terminology because I don't know the background or the history of it. Nor do I see a point in calling it a life sentence if it isn't. Hey, if you want to imprison them for 30 years then say that. But the semantics is only a minor component of the rage, anyway.

I would gladly have the British criminal justice system over the Thai one any day. If the British system is bad, I shudder to think about the rest of the world as I would say Britain's is one of the best already.

noodlehair

This same thread seems to happen at least once a month in here

snootyjim

It's interesting though, because no-one actually knows what 'life' actually means.

I find the way that people get off with crime so lightly pretty spectacular to be honest

noodlehair

20 odd years is hardly "lightly" though.

I mean, I've been alive for fecking ages, yet that's practically as old as I am. I can't even fathom being locked away for aything close to that. It means your life is effectively wiped out, and you have to start over...once you've spent 20 years pondering the thought.

That's not a light punishment by any standards

snootyjim

Nah I agree that in this case it's pretty severe.

I just think some punishments are too light, I know a few people who've got away with stuff they certainly shouldn't have done. It's things where people get caught for the third time doing something and get cautioned or given 72 hours community service that get on my nerves.

Nick 0208 Ldn

Think of it this way, if the man invovled in this case was someone related to you, or Sophie Lancaster ahd been your girlfriend or Garry Newlove your father, you would still be of the belief that 20 years is justice?

I don't think that i would.

You speak of somebody losing some of the prime years of their life through prison, well let's not forget in all this that the victim has had all of their remaining years taken from them, and in the most callous and terrible of circumstances.

snootyjim

If it was my choice then I would have murder as being life without any exception, meaning your entire life, until death. The only exception would be as it is currently, where the charge is dropped to manslaughter, perhaps due to extreme circumstances, extreme provocation, or the lack of premeditation in any regard.

However, I don't see it changing any time soon. The emphasis seems to be on bringing people back to society and rehabilitation - I just don't believe in it personally.

Plechazunga

But that's a terrible way of thinking of it, because it clouds rational judgement with personal grief. The fact that people whose relatives have just been murdered are not likely to dispense justice/vengeance rationally or responsibly is the exact reason why almost all human civilisations have taken justice out of their hands and to some degree centralised and systematised it. If punishments were generally wholly satisfying to victims or their relatives, that would be a good sign that the justice system was fucked.

I've no doubt that if someone murdered a close relative or friend of mine I'd like to set about them with a pickaxe, but that's not how it works, and a good thing too as I'd only end up embedding it in my own leg or something.

noodlehair

Yes, well that's exactly why we have a system, and a bloke in a silly wig; to stop people who are unable to make a rational decision from being able to do so.

An eye for an eye...

We go over this every month

Gazza

But imagining how you would feel if someone you know got murdered doesn't really help the argument, it just takes away your objectivity. "Justice" is a pretty sketchy subject, being able to look at the situation without resorting to "How would you feel if blah blah blah..." is necessary.

Nick 0208 Ldn

Look, i am not suggesting we have a victim's family determine sentence,

But we are all emotionally detached from these cases, people discussing policy and issues on a forum, and some as a result i think have little to no sympathy or understanding for the justice they seek and need.

As it is the judicial system will have its way and people are left feeling cheated, of both justice and closure. Whereas the guilty can smirk at their punishment, know no suffering for what they have done, and carry the hope of walking the same streets as those they left grieving in time to start a family of their own.

If anything here is fucked, then it is madness such as that and not the reasonable wish for murders like we have discussed to receive due recognition.

Chris H

Sorry for the confusion, but I was referring to the American system. I'm a Yank, and I was responding to someone's post that had referenced our longer sentences for the most violent offenders.

Gazza

Sorry Nick, that's utter rubbish.

To discuss an issue as oblique as "justice" you have to be emotionally detached. If you want to talk sympathy, that's another issue entirely. It is obviously possible to have sympathy for the victim, contempt for the criminal, and still look at the situation with objectivity. My response to this story is "That must be fucking awful." But it doesn't mean my next thought should be "Whoever is responsible must die".

Someone's lost a family member, of course they're going to feel cheated! But can you define your sense of the word "justice"? A straight-thinking person's idea of justice is obviously not going to be the same as someone who's gone through the trauma of losing a dad or son. 10 different people will have ten different ideas on what an aceptable punishment is, do we go with the one that best fits the victim's wishes? No, of course not.

Not sure what you're trying to say here.

Plechazunga

Exactly Gaz. Being emotionally detached is exactly what's required. Obviously I wouldn't be so glib if I was chatting to the victim's family, I'd express my disgust at the crime... but on a forum, discussing what's adequate punishment, you can be both conscious of what murder means and emotionally detached.

As for the killers smirking, that's clearly a reflection on them being nutjobs, not on the sentence being light. 20 years in prison, whether you think it should be longer or not, is clearly nothing to be smirked at. It's twenty years!

Frosty

The justice system is currently not based around the principle of rehabilitation. Rather, it has been run on a retributive basis for the last 15 years, hence the huge increase in prison population over this time.

topper

Where is your evidence for this ?

surely the first step in the process is retribution AND in the process rehabilitation.

If rehab is working then no prisoner should complain if he has to serve his/her full sentence as he/she is acknowledging in full the wrongdoing done and the need to be punished

Perhaps the increase in the prison population reflects societies less admirable qualities and that rehab is not a chosen path for lots of people who reoffend

noodlehair

Aye, that's far better than I could ever put it.

and I don't think the offenders smirking at their punishment tells you anything, aside from them being lunatics. 20 years is a long time to keep a smirk on your face.

The first step in any sane justice system should never be retribution. First off, punishment and retribution arn't quite the same thing, and secondly, there shouldn't be a first step as such. It's about getting the right balance, with the main purpose being to protect people from each other

Frosty

The criminal justice legislation over the past 15 years, nearly twenty now, has been geared towards retributive justice first and foremost.

Rehabilitation was deemed not to be successful, and was unpopular as basing a system on rehabilitative principles led to sentencing disparity.

'Just deserts' theory was re-introduced by the Criminal Justice Act 1991 after being supported by eminent legal academics such as George Fletcher in 'Rethinking Criminal Law'. This has been reflected in subsequent sentencing guidelines for both the Crown Court and the Magistrates Court.

The Criminal Sentences Act 1997 introduced mandatory sentences, which is a hallmark of a deterrent based system.

The Criminal Justice Act 2003, specifically section 142 sets out the purposes of punishment, leading with the notion of 'punishing offenders'.

Alternatively, many if not all of the leading textbooks on the subject will talk of this shift.

Plechazunga

noodle's taken to going round repeating my posts without acknowledgement

noodlehair

Yes, you'd already said what I was going to say, but then I went and said it an