Skip to main content
Skip to main navigation
Skip to talk navigation

Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Saved Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

AIBU?

To want life in prison to mean life in prison

203 replies

drnoitall · 18/02/2014 09:33

For horrendously serious crimes.
Watching the news this morning and from What I understand a decision will be made today about whether or not England and Wales will uphold the decision for life in prison to mean whole of life in prison for people who commit the most abhorant crimes or to bow down to Europe who call it unlawful.
I'm astonished that a human rights lawyer used the word "degrading" in reference to prisoners reaching old age in prison during a whole life sentence.
AIBU to absolutely want life to mean life for people who commit vile crimes against people.

OP posts:

Report

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 18/02/2014 09:34

Have a look at the Norwegian prison system. Compare their sentences, their prisons, their reoffending rates with ours.

Goldenhandshake · 18/02/2014 10:10

OP YANBU. I cannot for the life of me see why soemone as depraved as Ian Brady for example, who has shown no remorse whatsoever, should ever be released into society.
In reality we have a very small number of prisoners facing whole life terms, I think it is around 50 people. They have committed what are deemed by a court of law to be the most abhorrent crimes and their sentence should reflect that.

angelos02 · 18/02/2014 10:55

YANBU

All these idiots talking about human rights. I bet they'd soon change their tune if something horrific happened to someone they loved.

StarGazeyPond · 18/02/2014 10:57

^^ What angelos said.

SaucyJack · 18/02/2014 10:59

YANBU.

B*gger Norway. I'd much rather re-offending rates were kept down by whole life tariffs. Some people simply should not be walking the streets.

CoffeeTea103 · 18/02/2014 10:59

Yanbu, they ceased the right to be thought of as human beings once they committed those crimes and should be written off.

DuckworthLewis · 18/02/2014 11:03

You are missing the point.

The point is that these sentences need to be reviewed every so often, not that the prisoner will be necessarily be released at that review.

It's very possible that the worst offenders will spend the rest of their lives in prison, nobody is saying they won't.

It's the absence of any review process that is considered to be contrary to a person's human rights, not the length of sentence in and of itself.

DuckworthLewis · 18/02/2014 11:03

Yanbu, they ceased the right to be thought of as human beings once they committed those crimes and should be written off.

Really? You really think that?

Wow.

ChoudeBruxelles · 18/02/2014 11:05

No one is proposing letting people out who show no remorse and still pose a danger. It's about introducing a mandatory review at points within the sentence

Chummiestwin · 18/02/2014 11:07

Yanbu the punishment should be harsh for these type of offenders, if it's a whole life tariff so be it!

DreamingofSummer · 18/02/2014 11:07

You are Katie Holmes and I claim my £5.

If you are not Katie Holmes,

SauvignonBlanche · 18/02/2014 11:09

YABU,yes keep them prison for life, if deemed necessary but only after regular review.

they ceased the right to be thought of as human beings once they committed those crimes and should be written off
What an appalling attitude.

Chummiestwin · 18/02/2014 11:13

I think what coffee tea meant is that tge crimes that these individuals committed where so abhorrent that it seems subhuman. Remember whole life tariffs are for those who have committed the most heinous of crimes, as a result have to serve their punishment even if it means growing old in prison. remember they most probably cut short a life and changed a family for life, it is right that they are severely punished for it!

Beeyump · 18/02/2014 11:16

CoffeeTea103 I take it you would like the death penalty to be reintroduced?

Beeyump · 18/02/2014 11:17

Katie Holmes?? Hahaha, I think you might mean Katie Hopkins

MrsAMerrick · 18/02/2014 11:18

Our justice system is based on the notion of rehabilitation, If offenders are given a life sentence with no possibility of parole, then that undermines the concept of rehabilitation.

As others have said, if at the reviews it is agreed that the offender is not ready for release into society then s/he will stay in custody. However, the system needs to have the review process built into it.

Imo, the Norweigian system is much better than ours. Yes, I'm sure that if something horrendous happened to my dc I would personally like to see the person responsible suffer as much as possible. However, I don't think that that is a sound basis on which to build a justice system.

CoffeeTea103 · 18/02/2014 11:18

If you know someone who was a victim of a horrific crime then you would see things very very differently. You don't see them as being human. You see them being given rights yet the victim had no right to live. If you've experienced it then maybe you can understand why I feel this.

DuckworthLewis · 18/02/2014 11:18

as a result have to serve their punishment even if it means growing old in prison.

Yes, they most probably still will spend the rest of their lives in prison, nobody is disagreeing with that!

What is being proposed is that there should be periodic reviews, not that they will necessarily be released.

I'm not sure which part of this is so difficult to understand?

Fifyfomum · 18/02/2014 11:20

Getting life does not mean getting life in prison.

Prison is a very expensive thing. Better to have good probation systems that monitor people within the community for life. That's what life means.

SauvignonBlanche · 18/02/2014 11:21

Of course such people should be punished, no one is saying any different, but believing that any person or group of people is "sub-human" is an anathema to me.

littlemslazybones · 18/02/2014 11:24

I think there are only 54 whole-lifers. It's not like we throw the sentence around willy-nilly. I don't think that it so bad to think that in a country of 60+ million people under 60 are beyond rehabilitation.

Chummiestwin · 18/02/2014 11:25

Well yes whole life tarrifs are that, the person is punished severely and should be kept for the most severe of crimes, quite rightly. Not all can be rehabilitated, some people just cannot. I am sure yes some of you would feel differently if it happened to your family! The whole life tarrif reflects this, the need for tge criminal to have a punishment that reflects the severity of their crimes.

angelos02 · 18/02/2014 11:31

Some people commit crimes that are 'sub-human' and they deserve to be 'written off'. A life in prison is a pretty light thing to get considering the crimes some people commit.

WooWooOwl · 18/02/2014 11:33

YANBU.

Prison should be less about rehabilitation and more about punishment and protection for the public IMO.

It is crazy that out reoffending rates are so high, especially for lower level crimes, and that to me suggests that there isn't enough punishment in prison.

A temporary loss of freedom is enough punishment for some crimes, but for some, or for repeated offences, just being in prison with access to education, television, a nice gym etc is not enough in terms of punishment.

MiniSoksMakeHardWork · 18/02/2014 11:34

We already have review points in life sentences once tariff has been reached. I have no idea what is being proposed so will look. But how different is it to what we actually have, or is it a case of people MIT really understanding how sentencing works?

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.