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.

We were told at university about a case where a man was verbally attacked based on his race, and so physically snapped and a fight ensued. The racial abuser ended up in hospital and died because he refused life saving treatment from a black doctor in duty in A&E. Guy gets done for murder.

If the intent to commit GBH was proven, then it becomes murder.

I find it really frustrating the system is geared to letting people out with any excuse. I presume this is all about cost.

And I thought I was cynical !

England and Wales legal system has evolved - without break - since 1066, and has roots much further back. It wasn't knocked up in between Brexit votes. So sentencing has evolved alongside it and is - and has always been - expected to reflect a degree of rehabilitation along with the retribution and public safety. That comes from viewing society as a Christian one, with Christian mores.

Nothing in history has ever shown that the severity of punishment has any direct bearing on criminal behaviour. If it did we'd still be hanging drawing and quartering, or roasting or boiling to death.

There is a paradox in the fact that of all the offences people are imprisoned for, the one least subject to recidivism is murder. Whereas property and acquisitive crimes (theft and fraud) may as well be punished with a revolving door between court and prison.

We were told at university about a case where a man was verbally attacked based on his race, and so physically snapped and a fight ensued. The racial abuser ended up in hospital and died because he refused life saving treatment from a black doctor in duty in A&E. Guy gets done for murder. Should they be locked away forever?

You were probably told about that case as an example of why the definition of murder is not just an intention to kill but intention to kill or commit GBH.

You were probably told about that case as an example of why the definition of murder is not just an intention to kill but intention to kill or commit GBH.

There's also the added fun of causation in that case

Lack of space in prisons must be a factor?

Lack of space in prisons must be a factor?

I would hope not. Judges sentence and it's up to the Ministry of Justice (for now) to oversee the implementation of the sentence according to law as part of the executive.

We really, really, really, really, really don't ever want to mix the judiciary and executive. We just don't.

I definitely agree that parole should be denied if murderers withhold information etc, because it shows a lack of remorse for the crime but that does give problems for those wrongfully convicted ( and there are enough of those) because they can't give information that they don't have.

But I think releasing someone who has properly intentionally killed someone is just insane Elderly person killing their terminally ill partner at their partner's request? Woman killing abusive husband?

Mere those last two examples are manslaughter surely?

Elderly person killing their terminally ill partner at their partner's request? Woman killing abusive husband?

those last two examples are manslaughter surely?

No. The first case is murder plain and simple - you cannot consent to your own murder (we'll leave the hypocrisy to make boxing work for another thread ...). The circumstances might have some bearing on the sentencing - within the judges discretion. (But remember in other threads people are clamouring for judicial discretion to be curtailed if not removed. In which case it's really a case of bad luck).

The second case is more nuanced. However English common law does not recognise the state of mind the French call crime passionnel and it's much harder to characterise such incidents as anything other than murder when they are preplanned. You can't just go around killing people even if they are abusive. Of course if the death occurred as a result of a woman defending herself against an attack fearing for her life then it could be self defence and not a crime at all.

Argh
I typed a reply,y and my iPad ate it

Sally Challoner is precedent for the second one now I think?

Because people can change and I am grateful to live in a country that still allows space for that, regardless of the shortfalls of the system.

Woolly "Because people can change and I am grateful to live in a country that still allows space for that,"

I feel the opposite. I'm quite sure that the killers of Lee Rigby will be let out and inflict another horrendous attack on people.

as a society, I think one our biggest problems is being far too forgiving. Even if someone changes in prison - so what?

the "shortfalls" of the current system are appalling. David McGreavy released - why? It can only be about money.

this might be another precedent re the request to kill

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-stoke-staffordshire-49743727

Ok, how much more in taxes are you prepared to pay to keep the 'killers' in prison, OP? I hope it's a lot. It's not as simple as just chucking the key away.

We unfortunately still have miscarriages of justice so a innocent person could be jailed for life for a crime they didnt commit. A high percentage of people in prison have mental health issues and their needs are not always met ( cuts to mental health services) Also I personally believe in rehabilitation so obviously support the person having a chance to change and hopefully after serving their time lead a productive life.

I'm quite sure that the killers of Lee Rigby will be let out and inflict another horrendous attack on people. Yes, but we shouldn't be making laws on the basis of exceptional cases. "Hard cases make bad law".

There's very little if any evidence to suggest that severe sentences deter crime. As a country we'd be a lot safer if our treatment of offenders was determined solely on the likelihood of future offending, but it's politically not acceptable to remove retribution/revenge from the equation.

I'm quite sure that the killers of Lee Rigby will be let out and inflict another horrendous attack on people. Yes, but we shouldn't be making laws on the basis of exceptional cases. "Hard cases make bad law".

There's very little if any evidence to suggest that severe sentences deter crime. As a country we'd be a lot safer if our treatment of offenders was determined solely on the likelihood of future offending, but it's politically not acceptable to remove retribution/revenge from the equation.

Life sentences don’t deter people from killing- look at the US. I’m thankful we don’t have a system like that, I believe in reforming people and believe there are shades of grey when it comes to any crime. However the automatic half your sentence bullshit needs to be scrapped!

Listen to Ear Hustle (the podcast series) for an insight into the American Prison system which gives absurdly long sentences and is based on the lock them up forever model. And Wrongful Conviction with Jason Flom for an insight into how easy it is to get sent to prison for something you didn’t do (particularly as a poor black man). Of course there are people who are too dangerous to be let out, but in my view they are a minuscule minority

Listen to Ear Hustle (the podcast series) for an insight into the American Prison system which gives absurdly long sentences and is based on the lock them up forever model. And Wrongly Accused with Jason Flom for an insight into how easy it is to get sent to prison for something you didn’t do (particularly as a poor black man). Of course there are people who are too dangerous to be let out, but in my view they are a minuscule minority

Mere " As a country we'd be a lot safer if our treatment of offenders was determined solely on the likelihood of future offending,"

but how on earth would you work out the likelihood of future offending?

and what do you feel is wrong with life imprisonment for murder, not manslaughter, please?

I wasn't raising the issue of the killers of Lee Rigby as a typical case. I just meant it's an example of how far wrong we have gone, that it's something that could happen.

let's say I kill the man next door because he snores. Why should I NOT be in prison for life? if it's the cost of it, I wish they'd just say so.

my friend worked as a prison officer and retired early, so in total spent about 20 years on the job. She did feel strongly that money was not spent on staffing but mostly on prisoner care. I admit that's the only knowledge I have though and obviously it's second hand.

There's very little if any evidence to suggest that severe sentences deter crime. As a country we'd be a lot safer if our treatment of offenders was determined solely on the likelihood of future offending, but it's politically not acceptable to remove retribution/revenge from the equation.

Retribution is the price society demands from the transgressor - it's an acceptable part of the judicial punishment with a long provenance.

Revenge is simply the unsanctioned imposition of a penalty without due process. As such it has no place in a civilised society. Even our Anglo Saxon forebears (who we have to thank for common law) recognised that.

There's very little if any evidence to suggest that severe sentences deter crime. As a country we'd be a lot safer if our treatment of offenders was determined solely on the likelihood of future offending, but it's politically not acceptable to remove retribution/revenge from the equation.

Retribution is the price society demands from the transgressor - it's an acceptable part of the judicial punishment with a long provenance.

Revenge is simply the unsanctioned imposition of a penalty without due process. As such it has no place in a civilised society. Even our Anglo Saxon forebears (who we have to thank for common law) recognised that.

Mere " As a country we'd be a lot safer if our treatment of offenders was determined solely on the likelihood of future offending,"

but how on earth would you work out the likelihood of future offending?

and what do you feel is wrong with life imprisonment for murder, not manslaughter, please?

I wasn't raising the issue of the killers of Lee Rigby as a typical case. I just meant it's an example of how far wrong we have gone, that it's something that could happen.

let's say I kill the man next door because he snores. Why should I NOT be in prison for life? if it's the cost of it, I wish they'd just say so.

my friend worked as a prison officer and retired early, so in total spent about 20 years on the job. She did feel strongly that money was not spent on staffing but mostly on prisoner care. I admit that's the only knowledge I have though and obviously it's second hand.

I heard this first case you mention today on the radio and I have to say I was horrified. The murderer refused to disclose where he had hidden the remains of the girl he murdered. He served his sentence and was released a few days before the anniversary of her disappearance. I think it’s an absolute disgrace. How on earth is that fair on the family of the victim?? They don’t even get to bury their child. I’m amazed that law does not already dictate that any murderer must disclose and have proved the place he hides a body before even sentencing. They should impose life meaning life for any murderer who will not co operate. I really felt for the mother of this girl today it was heartbreaking. Knowing that the man who murdered her child is free and she just has to put up wi the fact that he knows where he left her child