To wonder why murderers are released?

[malificent7]

I just don't get why any kind of murderer deserves to be freed. Just seen another case where a killer has been released days before the anniversary of the victim's death having refused to disclose the whereabouts of her remains.
Plus why has a terroist recently been released only to reoffend? Aibu to feel that if someone kills a life sentence is appropriate and should mean life.

I suppose because we try to balance the different purposes for imprisonment: punitive, deterrent, rehabilitative etc.

Depends if you believe rehabilitation or remorse is possible, I suppose.

Just seen another case where a killer has been released days before the anniversary of the victim's death having refused to disclose the whereabouts of her remains

I didn't think you got parole if you refused to disclose the whereabouts of remains. Or is that something they've talked about introducing but not actually done?

Because they don't want to spend the money to keep these people in prison.

My understanding is as others have said, eg rehabilitation etc, although the cynic in me says that the prison service, along with other services is underfunded and at the point of collapse and it cannot afford to keep everyone imprisoned for the whole length of their sentences.

I don't think he should have been released without disclosing where her body is. Now that family have 0 chance of closure, and shows his complete lack of remorse.

cross posted with emotion!

No idea, I think the rights of the innocent to not be harmed trump the rights of a murder to have a chance to see if they can refrain from killing again.

On a practical level, I've heard the argument put forward that it is very hard to control someone who knows they will never be released from prison.

There's simply no motivation for them not to attack guards, other prisoners etc. which makes them very difficult to handle.

I do agree they shouldn't be released until they disclose the location of the bodies though, in such cases where this is an issue.

I know someone who when he was a teenager killed someone hes now in his fifties so should he have spent all his life in prison for a mistake he made when he was only barely legally an adult, it was fight that went wrong

I think I read he's served far longer than the minimum sentence.

If all murderers were automatically sentenced with no prospect of release there would be no incentive not to commit multiple murders and managing behaviour in prisons would be even more difficult.

I didn't think you got parole if you refused to disclose the whereabouts of remains. Or is that something they've talked about introducing but not actually done?

It's on it's way but is not law yet so this man was released without disclosing where the body is

Two lads where I'm from kicked a guy to death and were out in under two years.........it's.a complete insult to the.victims families when ridiculous sentences are handed out.

Our justice system is based on rehabilitation. The European Courts ruled that indefinite sentences were illegal and we never upped the sentences. If we did they'd be considered excessive and overruled.

I think he was guilty of killing Helen McCourt. But in the case of an innocent person they wouldn't know were the body was. Likewise it's why we no longer say that the person has to show remorse. Innocent people sat in jail because they wouldn't admit to crimes that they didn't commit.

I don't think life sentences should just be for murder cases, there's some very sick manslaughter and kidnap etc cases.

So our sentencing should be flexible. I think we have got too lenient and less sentencing should run concurrently.

Plus why has a terroist recently been released only to reoffend?
If you mean the most recent incident in Streatham, that person hadn't murdered and did not have a life sentence. Unless properly rehabilitated, serving a longer sentence could've just meant them doing the same thing a couple of years later. Money needs to be invested and there needs to be effective deradicalisation programmes

I don’t think I can accept that everyone who has committed the very terrible crime of killing a person is beyond redemption. That’s barbaric.

A good friend of mine was murdered by a young family member in a violent manner.
As much as I still find what happened deeply traumatic, I still believe in rehabilitation and I think that if that person can show true remorse and has the ability to make their life meaningful and try to atone for what they did, they should have that opportunity.
My knee jerk reaction at the time was that this person deserved to die because of what they had done to my friend. But that is no basis for the kind of society I would want to live in.
I still miss my friend and the way she lost her life will always be painful to me but I feel that she was a compassionate person and me hating her murderer doesn't bring her back or do anything productive.

My opinion and not many will agree, but im all for capital punishment, i have no sympathy for murderers or terriorst or paedophiles, scum of the earth! Notice how 99% of terrorist attacks, the terrorist is know to the security services, the last one was even being followed by security forces

Bloke23

And probably not many people will agree with me, but I think most serious crimes are committed by people with serious mental health problems that could be treated.

The European Courts ruled that indefinite sentences were illegal and we never upped the sentences. If we did they'd be considered excessive and overruled.
That was a European Court of Human Rights btw - not to do with the EU and in fact an entirely separate institution that we helped to create in the 1950s and will remain part of after Brexit.
The ruling was that sentences with no possibility for review were inhuman - if we had very stringent parole requirements that meant almost no-one sentenced to life was released, but with regular reviews, we'd be fine.
Life with no chance of parole sentences don't seem to be cutting the murder rates in the USA much.

One very practical reason is the safety of prison warders and people working there. If you can't get any greater sentence, what incentive is there not to kill again or attack anyone you can get your hands on?

Great point, Oulu. Imagine prisons if all the murderers knew they were never getting out. There would be no option other than max security. People would end up worse than when they went in.

Bloke23, paedophilia wasn't a capital offence when we had capital punishment, and it's hardly likely that that would change if we brought it back.

Just seen another case where a killer has been released days before the anniversary of the victim's death having refused to disclose the whereabouts of her remains

If it's the case I'm thinking if, he claims he's innocent. So he can't say where the body is, he doesn't know.

This thread brings to mind the John Mortimer quote: "I found criminal clients easy and matrimonial clients hard. Matrimonial clients hate each other so much and use their children to hurt each other in beastly ways. Murderers have usually killed the one person in the world that was bugging them and they're usually quite peaceful and agreeable."