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.

The answer is because it is the law. Whether the law is right is another thing.

Also, most of us are too complacent to get involved in politics or dont want our taxes being spent on more prison places, probation, the court system, policing, adequate services for schools, social services, mental health and so forth and so there are not enough places in prison ... so a lot of people who should be kept secure are released.

What is the solution?

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.

She was 10 years 364 days. The distinction is important, because she was of criminal age.

There is nothing in the OP which suggests that the proposal is limited to adults. It specifically refers to "any kind of murder". So you really do have to consider how this principle would apply to children.

She was 10 years 364 days. The distinction is important, because she was of criminal age.

Thanks. I knew it was a day short of a birthday. To be honest it's more the Mary Bell orders I've remembered. Mainly because they are in danger of becoming perpetual (but that's another story ...)

*What doesn't sit well with me is Jon venables getting a new identity every time he fucks up. It's a fact he will be living near a family with children etc. Nobody deserves to not know he's on their street or walking past the park.

Venables is currently in prison and likely to be there for some time. Thompson may well be living near families, and has not reoffended.

Rehabilitation needs to be the focus. I personally know two men who went to prison for murder as young men. They've both served 18 years and are now free and working tirelessly to prevent young people going the same way. They do lots of community work, offer free talks and courses and are really trying to give back to society.

I think that's a perfect example of someone who has done wrong, paid their dues and are trying to make it right.

No it doesn't bring the person they killed back, but at least some good can come from it

There is nothing in the OP which suggests that the proposal is limited to adults. It specifically refers to "any kind of murder". So you really do have to consider how this principle would apply to children.

But "murder" as in the criminal charge, or "murder" as in whatever people want the word to mean for the sake of debate ? There is (as this thread shows) a difference.

Arguably a child cannot be convicted of a crime. By dint of the fact that as society we have elected to view children as unable to form the necessary intent (which is much more that "I want to do that") required to make an action criminal. We have also - as a society - elected to view children as unable to give consent in certain situations.

Rehabilitation needs to be the focus. I personally know two men who went to prison for murder as young men. They've both served 18 years and are now free and working tirelessly to prevent young people going the same way. They do lots of community work, offer free talks and courses and are really trying to give back to society.

By the same token, I know of a gang of absolute scumbags who committed a very violent bank robbery in 1977, got (and served) 14 years for GBH (which tells you something) and then on the day of their release turned up brandishing 4 loaded handguns at a post office in North London. For various reasons the police were prepared and surprised them just as they ram raided the wrong shop (it was next door). At which point our criminal masterminds decided to go out blazing and were all shot dead.

Well, all but one who managed to escape a few hundred yards down a side road and tried to take a woman pushing a pram hostage. The police managed to shoot him before he did, and he died a few hours later in hospital.

No amount of rehabilitation would have got into those thick skulls.

So it's not an easy topic.

Grumpyoldperson We obviously don't know the circumstances of the murder, unless you do know and haven't shared it on here. If for example he had got mixed up with the wrong crowd and killed someone during a robbery, but he was converted in prison and completely turned his life around, then there would be no issue at all with him working with children. (There are quite a few ex cons who are converted in prison and become ministers in the church, because they want to make their lives count in some way.)

A lot of murderers do turn their lives around, so I don't hold with the view that life should mean life. Obviously some crimes are so heinous that the perpetrators shouldn't ever be released. It's the judge who has to make the judgement (though he has guidelines and if he doesn't stick to them then the convicted criminal will appeal.). I wouldn't want their job.

Arguably a child cannot be convicted of a crime. By dint of the fact that as society we have elected to view children as unable to form the necessary intent (which is much more that "I want to do that") required to make an action criminal

Only if you define the term "child" in terms of the ability to form criminal intent, so that anyone with that ability would be an adult - which isn't even how the concept is viewed in criminal law. In England the term is normally defined as someone under the age of 18. Manifestly by that definition children can be found guilty of murder.

@Lockheart

Yes is my response not a response to what is being discussed??? The op is saying about murderers being released. After a few things being said by different people about wrongly accused and reduced sentences etc etc. Rehabilitation. I responded with what I felt were different types of murder and which seemed to me to be more likely to reoffend Vs a lesson learned etc. Then you asked me how I think the current system works. Well obviously they release people who have raped children etc. Also many adults have been murdered and their killers released. I personally don't think some of the people released are safe to be released. People such as I quoted Jon Venables who has been back in prison twice now since he was released for murder. Clearly he shouldn't of been released. He's the sort that should be in prison and stay in prison. Because it's only a matter of time before he gets hold of someone else's child for his own sick satisfaction. That was the point to my post. I am well aware of the justice system and roughly what it does.

*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."

There is no paradox here, it is just the nature of murder. The vast majority o murders are committed without a lot of planning and forethought ( though to be murder there needs to be some of that of course) and are usually crimes of anger or passion where the person has snapped and killed someone in quite specific circumstances . They are often very very unlikely to do so again. Often the perpetrators do suffer from various untreated mental health problems, addictions etc or the circumstances .are very unlikely to be repeated.

Obviously there is also the minority of much more psychopathic, cold type killers who kill for pleasure or financial gain and repeatedly . These types get all the publicity but are in fact by far the rarest type of murderer.

The first type definitely can often be reformed and I don't think they should be locked up forever. Of course the later are a different story but it is simplistic in the extreme to lump all murderers together as if they are all the same. They really are not.

Grumpy thank you for the information about the case

I’ve googled and it’s shocking and thought provoking.

When I think about deterrents, I wonder what kind of deterrent there can be. What should have happened to that man was to be completely socially ostracised. Yes, I realise that means he might have lived and died on the street. Could that be a deterrent? Maybe not, because people will still find someone to step in and help them?

The vast majority of murders are committed without a lot of planning and forethought

Are they murders then ?

When I think about deterrents, I wonder what kind of deterrent there can be.

Deterrents only really apply to people who are rational. I think it's axiomatic that once a person strays into criminality they are no longer really thinking rationally and deterrents are just so much noise.

(If I was feeling less eloquent, I'd use my stock phrase that "most criminals are thick as pigshit" ).

Did anyone catch the CCTV clip on Russell Howard last week ? Pretty much sums up why talking about deterrents is wasted on a vast proportion of criminals ....

What should have happened to that man was to be completely socially ostracised

Why? Do you not believe that people can change? He didn't commit another murder.

What doesn't sit well with me is Jon venables getting a new identity every time he fucks up. It's a fact he will be living near a family with children etc. Nobody deserves to not know he's on their street or walking past the park.
.......
Venables was sexually abused in Young Offenders including a relationship with a woman prison officer. He was not rehabilitated when he could have been considering how young he was at the time he committed the crime. He did something very wrong when he was a child and then, incarcerated, bad things were done to him including by persons who were supposed to care for him. What kind of message did that send? His mind was totally messed up, it was totally shameful. He actually asked to go back inside.

In this country the treatment of young offenders is overall appalling. The Scandinavian model is far better.

In this country the treatment of young offenders is overall appalling. The Scandinavian model is far better.

From bitter experience, I know the best way to nobble any initiatives in England are to point to ways other countries do them better. It's a sure fire way of keeping it off the agenda.

Do you really think so, Prof? Maybe. All I know is 'we' could do better, young offenders are - young - they need help.

What should have happened to that man was to be completely socially ostracised. Yes, I realise that means he might have lived and died on the street.

Why, @AutumnRose1? He never offended again, and it would appear that he did useful work as a Minister - apparently when the press tried to resurrect the case and make a fuss about it, a number of his parishioners wrote in in support. Would it really have been better to leave him on the streets?

Yes, I’m arguing that he deserved nothing, indeed worse than nothing, and should have been ostracised for the crime he committed.

No, he didn’t commit another. I’m saying that seems to me to be a good punishment for the murder he did commit.

This thread is incredible. All this forgiveness- no wonder there’s no deterrent!

@Bluerussian where on earth are you getting that utter bollocks information from?

Terrorists - instant deportation

When I think about deterrents, I wonder what kind of deterrent there can be. What should have happened to that man was to be completely socially ostracised. Yes, I realise that means he might have lived and died on the street. Could that be a deterrent? Maybe not, because people will still find someone to step in and help them?

This is utterly ridiculous for many reasons. First it's a deterrent to other people maybe (probably not) but makes the risk of reoffending much higher. Second, who would help? Me, that's who. Shelters and hostels are full of men coming out of prison. I've housed a shit load of them and helped them not reoffend. You're welcome. Third, what's the reason you don't murder people? Stupid question right? Deterrents aren't in the top 20 reasons people don't murder people. If you aren't broken in some way, you don't WANT to murder people. If you're broken, prison or ostracising won't work.

belay - where to?

Lee Rigby's killers grew up very near me. The shock I felt when I heard their distinct accents - OMD.

Terry "If you're broken, prison or ostracising won't work."

Well, lifetime imprisonment would stop the person endangering them?

Ostracising them - if they were on the streets, known as a killer, chances are some vigilante would get them.

if it's an unsolvable problem we're back to

...capital punishment

name, shame, put on register, ostracise and hope a vigilante gets them.

or maybe complete house arrest, how much does that cost? Food delivery etc to be funded from their own purse. which brings us back to...homeless and hungry. Or let them starve at home. That'll bring costs down. Seems a fair punishment for murder. Easy, even, if they've got enough pills in their home they can just neck the lot.

a different form of prison, or capital punishment, is looking better and better right now.