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 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.

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.

and what do you feel is wrong with life imprisonment for murder, not manslaughter, please? Murder covers a whole spectrum from offences where many people would feel sympathy (elderly man's "mercy killing" of his terminally ill wife" to the unforgivable (killing the man next door because he snores). It has a mandatory life sentence, but some flexibility in how much of that time is served in prison to take account of this. Manslaughter has flexibility in sentencing too, up to life imprisonment.

If you're going to have life imprisonment it'd be cheaper, and safer for prison officers and other inmates, to go back to the death penalty - but there are too many wrongful convictions for me to feel comfortable about that.

Is there any suggestion that the killers of Lee Rigby will be released?

and what do you feel is wrong with life imprisonment for murder, not manslaughter, please? Murder covers a whole spectrum from offences where many people would feel sympathy (elderly man's "mercy killing" of his terminally ill wife" to the unforgivable (killing the man next door because he snores). It has a mandatory life sentence, but some flexibility in how much of that time is served in prison to take account of this. Manslaughter has flexibility in sentencing too, up to life imprisonment.

If you're going to have life imprisonment it'd be cheaper, and safer for prison officers and other inmates, to go back to the death penalty - but there are too many wrongful convictions for me to feel comfortable about that.

Is there any suggestion that the killers of Lee Rigby will be released?

Having trouble posting
Re the Lee Rigby killers, I think we’re heading to the point that their whole life in prison terms will be meaningless. Wiki page mentions chance of release at 67.

@AutumnRose1 @MereDintofPandiculation

The probation and prison service do have a way of calculating the likelihood of reoffending, it's based on a variety of factors and compares against the data of those who committed a similar offence at a similar age, etc. and produces a percentage. In my experience it's been scarily accurate, though I don't work with murderers so I can't vouch for how accurate it is in those instances.

But that said, it's only based on known information, anything under youth offending doesn't contribute to it (as far as I'm aware) and at what point do you say it is an acceptable level of risk to release a murderer/terrorist/whatever from prison? I don't think you can just look at the likelihood of reoffending, you need to look at that person, their circumstances, support network, remorse and so any other factors to make that call.

I really do believe in rehabilitation, in the majority of cases. I'm not saying it works for everyone.

It costs a lot of money to keep someone in prison. If they’re not a threat to the general public (so obviously we’re not talking serial killers or terrorists here but more someone who has killed one person known to them with a clear motive) I suppose it makes sense to let them go.

One of lee Rigbys murderers has a whole life sentence. Why do you think he is any more special than all the other whole-life tariff prisoners who will never be released?

The other one is in Broadmoor, i suspect that he will probably be released one day in the VERY distant future.

Funny “ Why do you think he is any more special than all the other whole-life tariff prisoners who will never be released?“

Because that seems to be the direction we’re heading in. Wanting to deradicalise etc. The idea of personal responsibility seems to have vanished from the thoughts of those in charge.

It’s all well and good saying, in 2020, that he’ll never be released but I give it twenty years before someone high up the chain suggests it.

As I say, if the problem with whole life prison is cost, let’s look at that and see what can be done to mitigate it.

otterses yes I’m sure there’s a method of calculation. I just don’t care what it is frankly. Could the same great minds work on reallocation funds to keep them in longer? They won’t - because it’s really about people wanting to believe in forgiveness.

You cannot make release from jail contingent solely on someone revealing the whereabouts of the body / stolen goods / whatever pertinent information you can think of. Imagine if you were wrongly convicted and you were told you would never be released from jail unless you revealed a piece of information impossible for you to know?

Only recently there have been a couple of high profile cases in the US where men have been in prison for over 30 years and found to be wrongly convicted. You cannot say it would never happen.

You can't imprison someone indefinitely for information that you cannot prove they have. You might believe they have it, you might indeed have strong evidence that they have it, but you can't prove that they have it. If you could, chances are you'd already know where the body is yourself.

In the case of Helen McCourt, the man in question has never admitted guilt and always maintained his innocence. Whether we think he's guilty as sin or not is irrelevant; he's served the sentence passed at the time and he is now entitled to be released.

FWIW my personal opinion (based on nothing more than media reporting of the case) is that he is likely guilty, and I think the decent thing to do would be for him to tell the police what happened to Helen. But I'm not so short-sighted as to think this should be written into law and he should be held indefinitely until he does.

I think life should mean life really .Some crimes stand out among them as being particularly horrific and sickening .The Moors Murderers were supposed to be released after 30 years ,but Margaret Thatcher opposed it as she felt the British people would be unhappy about this .Too damn right! No fan of Mrs T, but I think she was right about that. More recently
the father of the young man stabbed to death on London Bridge ,said his son would not want longer sentences for terrorists ,While my heart goes out to him .This is about keeping the public safe .As seen last weekend just "lucky" no one was killed ! We need to re visit prison sentencing as its clearly not working very well !

When someone is murdered, they don’t get a second chance at life. So I don’t think it’s fair that someone can do something so cruel and then be released.

Lockheart Fan of the Affair, by any chance? Or is it just my TV obsession!

“ You can't imprison someone indefinitely for information that you cannot prove they have”

Agree. Just can’t understand the squeamishness around life sentences.

@AutumnRose1 no I haven't seen it I'm afraid! I will have to keep an eye out.

I have no problem with whole-life sentences where appropriate.

I do have a problem with, once someone is eligible for a parole, making that parole solely conditional on information which they might not have.

Helen's Law will be an interesting one to watch as I suspect in most cases it won't make a great deal of difference. It will not, as I would guess some people on this thread think, mean that people like Ian Simms will be unable to ever be released. Almost all human rights legislation prevents arbitrary detention and Helen's Law cannot fly in the face of that.

What Helen's Law will do is to make it a legal obligation for parole boards to take into account the fact that a prisoner is refusing to provide information regarding their victims.

This is already done in the vast majority of cases - in effect, Helen's Law is making long-established practice "official" - and I don't doubt that Simms' parole board have already considered this in full, particularly given the high profile nature of the case. The decision may be unpopular, but at the end of the day the application of justice is not a popularity contest.

I have no problem with whole-life sentences where appropriate. That's something most of us could agree with. "Where appropriate" is the key. I don't believe it is appropriate to extend it to all cases of murder on the basis of the few particularly horrible cases that are being discussed here.

Not in all cases but in certain ones, I reckon capital punishment needs to be considered. I don't care what anyone says.

Lockheart ironically it seems Helen’s Law couldn’t be applied here as he pleaded not guilty.

mere it’s hard to differentiate between some murders though. I murder next door for snoring. The guy opposite murders someone for looking at him funny on the Tube. Why do either of us deserve early release?

I would like to see harsher sentences for violent and sexual violence crimes

And I don’t believe sex offenders or very very few can be rehabilitated

But I do believe in rehabilitation (work within this area) but some people can never live in the community they can’t manage and some shouldn’t

I don’t agree with capital punishment but for some locking them up for life is the only answer and the right thing to do. Though trying to manage a prison full of prisoners sentenced for whole life order/sentence is very very difficult

I saw that today on news too. Helen's law never got passed as parliament was dissolved for election. I agree if murderer refuses to say where victim is hidden then they should not be allowed out early because they are not showing remorse or empathy for victims family. That poor Mum on TV today can't even give her child a funeral.

caring but if he says he didn’t do it - I know! - then he can’t say where the body is.

@issywith4vampire cats. He did not hide body so family can't have funeral though. Not the same thing.

I think a person should serve their sentence and be released unless assessed as still posing genuine danger to public. I don't think sentences should be shortened though for good behaviour. I am inclined to think extra year for bad behaviour. I honestly believe if corporal punishment was put to referendum for multiple murderers and terrorist who murder the general public would vote to have a death sentence. That is why politicians would not put to referendum.

@sometimesmaybe if a person was awarded 40 years (which is very unlikely) they would get out in 20 as sentences halved for good behaviour.

The cost to keep a murderer in prison for a year is closer to £150k than £40k.

Not in all cases but in certain ones, I reckon capital punishment needs to be considered. I don't care what anyone says

I know you don't care but for what it's worth, I don't agree, for three main reasons:

1. It doesn't act as a deterrent- see America.
2. No state should be allowed to kill it's citizens. Way too open to abuse (even if just in wildly unlikely scenarios in my own head)
3. There have been cases where people have been found to be innocent, years later.