Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

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:
Beeyump · 18/02/2014 14:39

Betty, Betty, let's agree to disagree about the being born evil thing? I'm not seeking to defend Jon Venables' actions, but I don't believe in the 'lock him up and throw away the key', or 'hang the bastard' sort of sentiments, which were expressed as comments on that Mirror article.

SaucyJack · 18/02/2014 14:42

rumble

David McGreavy is IMO a "perfect" example of someone whose crimes have crossed the point of no return.

Apparently his rehabilitation is demonstrated by his having taken up art in prison (!) It's almost funny. Except it isn't.

gordyslovesheep · 18/02/2014 14:46

I might well live next door to him, I wouldn't know.

Try googling ray wire and the gracewell institute and look at the sucess they had with sexual offenders

It's just not as cut and dried as true crime weekly would have you believe

gordyslovesheep · 18/02/2014 14:47

Ray wyre sorry

Beeyump · 18/02/2014 14:47

Absolutely, gordy.

BettySwollocksandaCrustyRack · 18/02/2014 14:49

No, it's certainly not a case of one size fits all which is the only reason I don't agree with the death sentence.....however, I do truely believe that some people are beyond help and cannot be rehabilitated and should live the rest of their days locked up for everyone's safety.

Of course watching documentary's does not make you an expert but it gives an interesting insight........I am really interested in what makes people tick so have read a lot of books and watched a lot of stuff on things like this as I find it quite fascinating, not that I am an expert or would ever claim to be one!

neverthebride · 18/02/2014 14:50

'Evil' is at best a nebulous concept.

I have known victims of serious crimes and perpetrators of serious crime. A couple are in my opinion extremely dangerous and absolutely should be imprisoned for public safety and yes, for punishment.

I have never met an 'evil' person though. Horrific deeds that could be considered 'evil', yes but not an 'evil'person.

ilovesooty · 18/02/2014 16:03

I wonder if some people on this thread have considered what our prisons would be like if we deny any possibility of rehabilitation to all life sentenced prisoners?

DreamingofSummer · 18/02/2014 16:09

BettySwallocks

That article refers only to one of the two boys.

"Common knowledge" is not evidence.

No-one is born evil.

MostWicked · 18/02/2014 16:14

I'd much rather re-offending rates were kept down by whole life tariffs

It's a delusional belief. Whole life tariffs do nothing to prevent re-offending rates. Out of all of the prisoners in the UK, who have been given a whole life tariff, several have been reviewed after 25 years. None, not a single one, has EVER been released. The judgement today, merely said, that we will no longer bother reviewing. It closed a door that no-one has ever used and no-one was ever likely to use. It was a PR exercise because people used to get very angry every time the likes of Myra Hindley asked for her sentence to be reviewed, despite the fact that she was always refused.

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

The minute we stop treating anyone, for any reason, as a human being with human rights, then that says more about us than it does them. We become the same as them, and as such, cease to be a civilised society.

Original poster
drnoitall · 18/02/2014 16:25

I certainly wasn't expecting so many replies, I've been out and just had the chance to read them all.

Sooty makes a good point, however I still want whole life sentence to mean just that for the most horrendous crimes.

Wow some people have very tame views of evil abhorant criminals.

OP posts:
AngelaDaviesHair · 18/02/2014 16:31

I see nothing wrong with whole life tariffs in very exceptional cases. How many of us would quibble with giving Hitler a whole life tariff, to use an obvious example?

Equally, I would have real concerns if they started to become too common. What counts as 'too common' is a very hard thing to gauge. I don't envy criminal court judges their job.

neverthebride · 18/02/2014 16:36

I don't think anyone here has really been saying that whole life sentences shouldn't be used in exceptional circumstances - just that they should be subject to scrutiny and review.

AngelaDaviesHair · 18/02/2014 16:37

Not much point in reviewing them: it's a pretty binary whole life or not.

Original poster
drnoitall · 18/02/2014 16:41

I understand completely "most wicked" your point.
But,
When our justice system can at times seem to give too much lenience to criminals it is difficult to have faith in it let alone think beyond what seems fair..... Victims and their families suffer for the rest of their life therefore the perpetrators should too.

IMO that means not wishing to acknowledge that they have "human" rights when they have not acted so themselves.

OP posts:
neverthebride · 18/02/2014 16:52

The point in reviewing them is because any society should review taking someone's liberty for the whole of their life.

Not because they will be released - they won't be!. Ian Brady, Rose West, Peter Sutcliffe etc will NEVER be released but because any civilised society cannot operate a 'throw away the key' attitude.

There are some crimes for which a whole life tariff should apply BUT saying that any judge or government at one point in time decides that and it should never be looked again is not acceptable.

THAT'S why it should be subject to periodic review. Because a decent society does that.

Original poster
drnoitall · 18/02/2014 17:01

Never
So if somebody is given whole of life sentence are you saying the review is merely protocol?

OP posts:
Original poster
drnoitall · 18/02/2014 17:01

And infact a pointless but costly exercise.

OP posts:
joanofarchitrave · 18/02/2014 17:04

About two specific things:

The European Court of Human Rights did not say that whole life terms were unlawful, in fact they said that they WERE justifiable, just that there should be some way of reviewing them.

and

'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.'
Not necessarily. No, I've never had anything bad happen to me. I do know that I'm capable of murder, though perhaps not the aggravated murders we are talking about.
The Forgiveness Project

AngelaDaviesHair · 18/02/2014 17:05

I take that point to a degree, never. It is a bit like saying no Parliament can bind its successors in perpetuity. There is always the possibility of change, however theoretical.

At the same time, I think it is important to avoid having periodical reviews that are not going to change anything. Better to have to right to apply for review based on change of circumstance than periodical reviews of little point. But then the right to apply has now gone. It is odd.

neverthebride · 18/02/2014 17:26

Drnoitall - No, not a pointless exercise. It should happen because circumstances change, the reliability of evidence changes and I don't think anyone should be 'condemned' as it were by any individual judge or any individual government at one point in time. Evidence, Judges, Governments and societal views should always be reviewed periodically in my opinion because they DO change and they are NOT infallible.

Reviewing a severe judgement on any member of society should happen because that's what makes us a civilised society.

gordyslovesheep · 18/02/2014 17:50

spot on Joan

RedHelenB · 18/02/2014 18:20

I totally agree with rehabilitation BUT I think the real punishment for Myra Hindley was the fact that she never was released & she was desperate to be.So maybe in cases such as that life should remain life.

UnderYourCommand · 18/02/2014 18:41

If your really worried about risks of harm and the risks of re-offending, whole life tariffs have NOTHING on the plans underway to privatise the Probation Service.

People who carry a high risk of causing serious harm will be supervised in the community by the cheapest workers private companies can find. No qualifications needed.

This scandal is designed to 'save money' and 'reduce re-offending' though there is no evidence whatsoever this would work.

There is a programme on Radio 4's File on Four slot this evening at 8pm.

None of this appeared anywhere in the ConDems manifesto, and the Justice Sec Chris Grayling ended any trials firm in the 'belief' (And nothing more than that) that he is right. Though he has absolutely no experience of this area of work.

Supercosy · 18/02/2014 18:41

Thinkaboutittomorrow
I disagree with this It is about saying that however bad a crime it is possible to repent and transform into someone who would never repeat the crime.

I don't think it is about that really. I think it's about saying that there are some crimes that are so henious you don't deserve a second chance whether you repent or not. I also think that if the people who committed these truly dreadful crimes honestly did have a true sense of how absolutey appalling their crimes were they wouldn't even ask to be released. Myra Hindley being a case in point.