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.

Also, for what it's worth: Some people should never be released. I'm talking about people who refuse to allow their victims the dignity of a proper burial and their families some peace- or repeat or very serious offenders. Throw away the key.

I think life should mean life really

It does. It's a LIFE SENTENCE not a LIFE IMPRISONMENT. When released, lifers are still supervised and can be recalled.

There is so much ignorance on this thread, which is why members of the general public should never be involved in sentencing. Some of the many many reasons you don't want full life terms:

Prisoners have nothing to lose and are therefore very difficult to control
It eye-wateringly expensive and the recidivism rate is tiny so it's a terrible return on investment
You'd clog up the system with expensive and hard to manage old men. Who would be victimised in prison and their healthcare would be a nightmare.
It makes juries less likely to convict so you end up with guilty men walking free

It's a stupid idea floated by people who don't understand offending. I've worked with older men on life licence. They're just old men.

but Margaret Thatcher opposed it as she felt the British people would be unhappy about this .

Politicians should have zero say in individual criminal cases. Only tinpot countries that we rightly shun do that. Luckily the rest of the civilised world agrees generally, and we've fallen in line.

The political route to influencing sentencing, is through the mechanisms of justice. Parliament legislates, the government implements and the judiciary judge. People tamper with that at their peril, as once it's lost, it usually takes heads on spikes to reclaim it.

Capital punishment isn't really worthy of a civilised and apparently advanced country as England.

Quite aside from the irritation of hanging the wrong person, as happened to Timothy Evans, is the fact that a justice system which hangs people is a justice system which cannot act as if it has any faults. And those that can should think for a second what the implications of that are for the rest of society ....

Because hang the wrong man, and you've now got a murderer free to carry on killing safe in the knowledge that even if someone were to realise what had happened, it's very unlikely to lead to capture. The entire mechanism of the state would swing into action to defend the wrongful execution and thus hamper another investigation. Once again, we can thank the giant social lab of the Americas, the US, for stories about this.

John Christie was able to kill 3 more women, once Timothy Evans was hanged in his place.

People are released because redemption and remorse is possible. If you're worried about people re-offending you should be looking at how to lobby for more funding for proper rehabiliation, addiction and education programmes in prisons.

Many who kill do so in circumstances which change.

Drugs/alcohol/abusive situation/mental health problems/gang or terrorism related grooming/culture/ideology etc etc
We have to recognise that people can and do change. Often with huge input from experts and assessment by the parole board acting on reports on the prisoner.

I think there are vanishingly few who kill who are simply ‘evil’ and incapable of rehabilitation/change/reduced risk to society etc.

Have represented clients who have killed others - death by dangerous driving, murder and manslaughter. And those who have been alleged to have done so but have been found not guilty. Have seen some clients start the process of change and others who seem a million miles from rehabilitation yet.

Very little of anything about sentencing principles in these circs will ever make sense for anyone connected with a victim of such tragedies.

Support to all and those who’ve been touched by this.

There some people who should never be released.
People like Ian Huntley
Jon Venables
Robert Thompson.
Beverly allit

Famous cases but that's because they are extremely evil and harmed children. I certainly feel that child murderers should never be released. It was a long time ago and all the rest but Jon venebales has been back inside at least twice for looking at filth and things. He's clearly a huge threat to society. They talk all this crap about rehabilitation etc. I don't think they deserve any sort of life after what they did to that toddler. 10 years old or not. But I think they got away with it due to the age they were. If someone is capable of inflicting that much cruelty and pain on a toddler then I find it hard to agree they should be allowed freedom at all.

I don't think Beverly allit will get out.

Obviously there are murderers such a gang culture murderers. What they do is also absolutely vile and evil. I kind of can grasp if they have been bullied into doing a crime with intimidation from other violent thugs and they are sick with guilt and hated that life, that they could potentially be able to lead a decent respectable life with the right support and training. Sadly there are situations like this.

People who rape and kill women etc. Again I don't think they should come out. It seems crazy to think they can change and control themselves in this situation.

Did anyone see the crazy mother in Sheffield last year who tried to kill all her kids? She killed two teenage boys? She should never be released either. She's far too evil.

It's definitely a grey area isn't it. I personally think child murderers should be given the death penality. It seems so wrong that Beverly allitt etc get food and kept safe! She's a waste of oxygen and serves no good on this planet!

I’m not the least bit interested in punishment for murderers, because I don’t think there’s any punishment great enough for the crime of removing another humans one and only life and causing a lifetime of grief and heartache for the people left behind. There just isn’t.
What I do want is that threat to be permanently removed. No second chances. No early release. Locked up for the rest of their worthless lives.

They are not worth taking the chance that they have changed and giving them the chance to cause harm all over again.

I personally think child murderers should be given the death penality.

and then you read about Stefan Kiszko TW

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Lesley_Molseed#Prime_suspect_%E2%80%93_Kiszko

@ProfessorSlocombe that is horrendous.

Hill agree

Curiouschlo at what point do you declare the victim a child? So life imprisonment for someone who kills a child the day before their 18th before.

but not for the person who kills on the day of or the day after?

why is the life of a child more valuable than that of an adult?

why is the life of a child more valuable than that of an adult?

Sells more papers.

It isnt at all! I have said that people who go out and murder and rape are also not fit to be released.

I think personally some people in hangs etc might be able to change and become better people. I think people who target innocent people like children etc are not to be trusted.

I think anyone who has gone out and got a child to murder should not be allowed to live any longer. As long as it's absolutely proven. People like Beverly allit or the man who harmed Sarah Payne. They are extremely dangerous and there really isn't any hope for them!

I also think with enough proof then there's also other cases where they deserve to die. It's just children are often harmed by the worst of the worst.

If an angry man strangled his wife in a rage. He deserves prison 100% but for example the man who walked in Aldi and stabbed his ex's daughter two years ago. He is absolutely screwed up in the head and was plotting that murder for weeks. He did it in broad daylight. It's 100% him that did that. He also deserves the death penality in my eyes.
.it's definitely a case by case basis and I certainly do not think adults are less important than children.

Gangs not hangs!

As long as it's absolutely proven.

Like Stephan Kiszko. Or Timothy Evans. Or the Guildford 4. Or Birmingham 6. Or Sally Challen (since mentioned previously).

Oh, hang on ...

You will never have perfect justice. There will be mistakes, and as a result innocent people will be convicted. We've already decided that people who are innocently convicted don't deserve any compensation. I think killing them would be a step too far.

Anyone who can advocate the death penalty whilst we still have an appeals system is someone with a serious problem in their heads and who needs treatment, as they haven't really thought things through.

@Curiouschlo if the incident in Sheffield is the one I think you're referring to, it was rather more complicated and tragic than "crazy mother tries to kill her children".

The woman in question had been horribly abused by her family as a child and teenager. She was presented by the media as being in an "incestuous relationship" with her older half-brother, who was also abused as a child and in all probability was one of her abusers too. Personally I doubt this "relationship" was consensual but that is speculation on my part.

Given her history, it is unsurprising that she had severe mental health difficulties. In court it emerged she was terrified of her children (which were possibly her half-brothers) being taken away from her.

She was failed awfully by the state when she was a child herself. Who knows what crimes the surviving children will go on to commit? Hopefully none, but sadly, cycles of abuse are extremely difficult to break and trauma begets trauma.

It is a strange contradiction that the same children who are abused and who elicit nothing but sympathy will then grow up and become "evil" and deserving of not one iota of compassion.

I'm not excusing what she did, but you need to read and engage your thought processes past the headlines in the newspapers.

Curious "I certainly feel that child murderers should never be released"

that was what made me think you thought adult murderers might be okay for release.

Professor true. The younger they are, the more papers it sells.

MrsTerry I think a lot of people here do know the difference between life sentence and life imprisonment. I think your "old man" comment is a bit strange as "just as an old man" might well kill, why not?

I'm grateful when anyone explains factors which Jane Public might not know. Re medical care, how does that work in prison? I'm aware that an ageing population is a problem in prisons, but do they do regular tests and see if people need statins etc, or do they attend to health on an as-needed basis?

As others have said, there would be no motivation on the prisoner to demonstrate that they have reformed and they would be impossible to manage. Also, our prisons are already overcrowded, so we simply wouldn't have the capacity.

The judge does have the discretion to impose a whole life term for the most heinous murderers, though it's in very rare cases.

Mittens I don't favour capital punishment

but the more I hear about costs, the more I think it's worthy of consideration perhaps.

But I think releasing someone who has properly intentionally killed someone is just insane. I'd only ever agree that was a sensible thing to do if the parole board could make a scientific case that the prisoner's risk of reoffending was no higher than the population base rate. Which they can never do. Not even close.

Even for a mercy killing? That's still murder in law, and you can't seriously claim that the individual concerned is likely to reoffend unless they are left with someone else who may ask for help with euthanasia. And steps could easily be taken to avert that risk.

Look at the case of Mary Bell. Had an abusive childhood, killed two children at the age of around 10 in 1968, released from custody in 1980, led a blameless life for the last 40 years. Should she really have been locked up for all that time?

Because the justice system we all live under says if you do X, you are imprisoned for Y period. Your imprisonment (or other sentence) is your punishment.

We can't just go round arbitrarily locking people up for as long as we feel like. That's what banana republics and military states do.
I wouldn't want to live in such a place.

Our system isn't perfect but its a lot better than the alternatives.

But I think releasing someone who has properly intentionally killed someone is just insane. I'd only ever agree that was a sensible thing to do if the parole board could make a scientific case that the prisoner's risk of reoffending was no higher than the population base rate. Which they can never do. Not even close.

Even for a mercy killing? That's still murder in law, and you can't seriously claim that the individual concerned is likely to reoffend unless they are left with someone else who may ask for help with euthanasia. And steps could easily be taken to avert that risk.

And what about a woman who snaps after years of domestic abuse and stabs her violent partner when he's asleep?

Look at the case of Mary Bell.

Who was a child aged 9 years 364 days when she committed the crime. So really has no place in a discussion about adults of criminal age and their punishments.

The danger with going down the "let's make things up on the spur of the moment" route of justice is it inevitable and invariably ends up delivering nothing of the sort. Instead you get contradictory rulings, cases and situations where even the weather might get the blame.

Part of what makes justice justice, as opposed to a very expensive fancy dress party in old buildings, is the fact that the law is clear, known in advance, and applied regardless of the sentiments of the moment.

By all means, abolish the age of criminal responsibility if you like. We're closer than ever. But then don't whine when you get 6 year olds locked up for life or worse. Pity the hangperson who has to calculate the drop for a 4 stone 9 year old.

And what about a woman who snaps after years of domestic abuse and stabs her violent partner when he's asleep?

What of it ?

Rightly or wrongly (and you are free to campaign for now) the law views violence - of any stripe - the last resort. If a person can escape a situation, then they lose the defence in law of self-defence. And self-defence generally has to be in the face of clear and immediate risk, not a vague possibility somewhere in the future.

Find reasons to excuse murder isn't really the best way to prevent more murders in future. No matter how well intentioned in the moment.

That's not to say there isn't a terrible asymmetry in domestic violence between the sexes. But trying to redefine murder isn't the answer.