To want life in prison to mean life in prison

[drnoitall]

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.

Duckworth........why is that so wrong? If they've committed a heinous crime surely they don't deserve any rights as human beings. Not so long ago they would have been hung. In my opinion they don't deserve any rights whatsoever. It amazes me that anyone should think different.

Erm...because they are still human beings, that doesn't stop does it? We've stopped legally killing people about 50 years ago. For good reasons.
songlark - you'll have to continue to being amazed at people who don't think like you.

Removing someone's rights as a human being because they have abused or removed the rights of another, doesn't make it right. It is important that we show we are better than those that remove those rights in order for rehabilitation to have some hope of working. If you have committed a heinous crime, surely you have as much chance of rehabilition as somebody who has committed a lesser crime. The sign of a humane and decent society is one that looks after it's children, it's disabled and actually, it's criminals.

It amazes me that anyone should think different, it must be exhausting to be 'amazed' all the time.

And Oh my goodness, I am sorry about all those fucking apostrophes! I am shattered, my only excuse!

Terrible apostrophe abuse Dawndonna but you made perfect sense. I agree entirely.

Thank you Sauvignon

Hands off.
How do know "they would be no risk to any body"?
Dawn.
Your point is easy to understand from an intellectual pov but what about from a human pov? I have been affected by serious crime, the bastard reoffended, is a useless menace to society so being "better than those who offend" is actually useless, if they either
A) cannot / will not be rehabilitated and the justice system is of no deterrent
B) the crimes the commit are vile and hideously abhorant

I'm sorry if offending anyone but I'm actually finding it difficult to accept the bullshit...
Hate the crime not the person attitude.

I'm not sure it does remove someone's human rights if they are locked up forever.

Human rights in my mind are things like food, shelter, protection from abuse, pain relief. I don't think that forcing someone to live a comfortable life, albeit restricted, takes away a humans fundamental rights.

If we are going to worry about people's human rights in the UK, we need to reconsider how we deal with people that live on the streets or who can't get medical treatment or care that they need. Then we can properly asses how we uphold human rights in this country for all the humans in it.

It is not worth risking there being dangerous criminals in society in the name of human rights if we don't give non criminals the basics.

Fair point WooWooOwl.

I believe that murderers or any other criminal are human beings and deserve full human rights. However with rights come responsiblities. Having human rights does not mean that someone escapes a punishment like a life time in jail. Human rights means a fair trial and sentencing. In rare circumstances life should mean life and there should be no hope of parole.

I certainly don't want all murderers put in prison with life meaning life. I feel that a life tariff should only be reserved for the most brutal and sadistic murders. I feel the present system where a judge decides the tariff is fair.

A man who finds his wife having sex with another man and strangles his wife in a fit of anger is in a different category to Ian Brady. I think that an 18 year old who commits murder in anger as a result of extreme provocation may well be fit for release under licence in twenty years time.

At the moment there are different recommended minimum tariffs for different circumstances. I see no reason to change the system.

Wasn't this first brought up by Gary Vinter - who served 10 yrs for murder and then when released within a couple of years had murdered someone else...
Sure his second victim's family were pleased that his first life sentence wasn't a whole of life sentence...although from the little I know of the case I don't think the first murder was due a whole of life sentence, seems it was not premeditated etc...but wonder how he got passed as fit to be released, especially because he had been back in prison for another violent assault prior to the second murder.

There has to be an argument for whole of life sentences - premeditated, serial killers who have confessed or face insurmountable amount of evidence against them. With no hope of release, not just from a likely to re-offend point of view but also from a punishment point of view. What kind of society would we live in if we absolved and effectively tolerated some of these offenses?
And what a waste of resources to perform a box ticking exercise - 'review' of these cases even every ten years...

I get so angry when people go on about some brutal sadistic murderer's " human rights" we'r talking about complete psychopaths here (brady, tobin to name a few) their human rights? What about their victims human rights. .their utter terror and pain in their last moments, then the families and loved ones pain for the rest of their lives. Those murderers do not have any rights and to say they should have a chance of rehabilitation? Thats bollocks. I would like to see the death penalty for such crimes..prison is too good for them.

Fairenuff people can offend in prisons - your argument is wrong

No, offences committed inside prison are not considered 're-offending' are they.

Re-offending is only recorded if it occurs outside of prison, after the offender has been released back into the community.

"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."

And I guess that is why family and friends of victims are not asked to make decisions about sentencing. ?It isn't about revenge - or even about punishment, really. It is about protecting the public and rehabilitation. Or at least it should be.

Although, in fact, there are not enough resources in prison to really rehabilitate effectively. So actually you are just sticking people into a melting pot of other criminals, and then looking all surprised when they come out and reoffend...

It isn't about revenge - or even about punishment, really. It is about protecting the public and rehabilitation. Or at least it should be.

Should it be though? Rather than punishment or revenge should it not be that in some cases someone has chosen to behave in a manner that takes them so totally outside what is acceptable for society they should no longer be allowed to remain within or return to society.
Is that not what law and justice is about? Maintaining a society with boundaries that we feel comfortable within.

I'm don't disagree with you in general Dawndonnaagain but I do with some particuarly vile crimes. I consider myself extremely liberal but I wouldn't agree with the release of someone such as Myra Hindley (obviously not applicable now). This is mainly because I believe that there are a very few cases where people comit such vile acts that they do not deserve the chance to be released whether they repent or not. Do you really believe that even these people should be considered for release?

WooWooOwl, your post reminded me of this. As a kindly prison officer told me when someone close to me was in prison for several months (not for a violent offence) "it's not that bad in here, she gets 3 meals a day, a telly and there's even a swimming pool".

As ReallyTired says, even cases of murder are relative in their seriousness. There are some criminals I never want to see released: Brady/Sutcliffe/West/Tobin etc. I don't want to see absolutely everyone who's ever killed locked up with the key thrown away though. I want to see the public kept safe from psychopaths and serial killers whose crimes indicate no hope of rehabilitation and who deserve the ultimate punishment.

I feel like I've left the 21st century and gone back to less enlightened times reading some of the comments on here... sub-human, born evil... it's like something from the old testament.

I don't think we need to change the way we do things at the moment. I think it works just fine and I certainly don't want us to go the way of the USA.

Yes, that is basically it ilovesooty!

A psychiatrist who assessed Roy Whiting after his 1st conviction said that he was likely to re-offend once he was released. He was charged with abducting and sexually assaulting an 8 year old girl. He was also forced to serve an extra 5 months in prison for refusing to go on to a sex offenders rehabilitation course.

If only this was listened to Sarah Payne would of been alive today.

Those who plan then murder someone should never be released. To me loss of freedom is that all I could wish for. It's not like I want them to be brutally attacked or tortured for their crimes, just the public safe from them.

I would say someone who was convicted of causing death by dangerous driving should never be able to have a driving licence.

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

Are you really that naive?

Have you heard the name Charles Bronson?

Being in prison does not stop you planning murder, attacking people and hostage taking.

I agree, life imprisonment should mean what is says on the tin.
I have never understood why they use such wording, when quite clearly life isn't what is served.

Yes, why do they use that phrase?