Offenders convicted of historic crimes should serve the modern tariff for the crime & not the historic tariff.

[Splonker]

I am angry that perpetrators of historic crimes who are found guilty, get the luxury of a much diminished prison sentence, rather than the modern harsher sentences for crimes committed today. It is the law that they serve the prison sentences that were applicable at the time the crimes were committed. If this is something that happened in the 70s for instance, it can mean the difference between a (modern) whole-life sentence or as little as 3-6yrs. I don't think this is fair. Aibu?

I agree, it feels like a reward for evading justice for so long, victims/ families being left in limbo for years etc.

That makes no sense the sentences have got longer not shorter.

A life sentence now often means around 6 years. I think that a bigger problem is only serving half your sentence and then time off for good behaviour and overcrowding etc.

Not sure what doesn't make sense, that was my point. If you evade justice for years you shouldn't get the benefit of older, shorter sentences IMO.

Historic sentence could mean the death penalty. I don't think anyone is arguing for that.

So YANBU.

Not sure exactly which crimes in particular you mean. But suppose that there was a crime X that, if in the 1970s say, carried a maximum sentence of 2 years this would not be a huge deterrent to committing crime X and because of the relatively light sentence it might not be perceived as a major crime.

However, if crime X is now taken much more seriously and is punished by, say, a maximum of 6 years then someone may realise that this is now considered a major crime and might be more adverse to committing said crime because of the possibly more serious consequences.

If someone who committed crime X in the 1970s was belatedly convicted of this crime today I can see how it could be argued that he/she might not have committed that crime today because of the more serious way it is perceived and the more punitive sentencing. Hence, this would be a reason for punishing with the sentence applicable at the time.

And following on from my comment above I think it is fait to punish with historic sentences therefore YABU.

It could work the other way too

An offence which carried a custodial sentence of 6 month, a year etc back in the 70's may now be a case if the offender just being out on a tag or community service

I was under the impression that if you are convicted of a historic crime you are given the sentence that you would have been given at the time of the offence.

You are but OP is saying that shouldn’t be the case. That they should get the sentence we’d give someone now.

Tbh I agree.

Nobody in England or Wales gets out for “good behaviour”. That’s totally untrue.

No, I think it would be contrary to basic principles of justice to apply current laws to historic actions.

What makes you eligible for early release, or a move to a lower category of prison?

What crime carried a 3 year sentence and now a whole life?

Considering how vanishingly rare whole life tariffs are, I think that's really unlikely.

Well indeed. What a terrifying thread!

More stupid than terrifying.

I don't think it works though, for the reasons someone has already explained about how someone might not have committed a crime if the sentence was different

By the same token if you start to punish historic crimes using todays sentencing does that open the door to punishing things that weren't a crime historically with todays sentences?

So say today it legal to do something, say homeschool your kids. So you homeschool them.

Now in three years time, your kids are in uni but a law is passed to make it illegal to homeschool them. Now if you were to be sentenced for historic crimes based on the sentencing at the time it wouldn't be an issue because there was no sentence.

But if you were to be sentenced under the new sentencing could you end up in trouble?

It's a stupid example I know but it's 2am and insomnia is kicking my butt. But when people propose new/changes to laws I always wonder what door it might unintentionally be opening. So whilst my example might be stupid there is always the risk that if the law isn't carefully worded this could be a potential issue

Google IPP sentences OP and the mess around that

YABU, it is an important aspect of a fair justice system that new laws can't be applied retrospectively. It is an important protection we each have against the state.

You can only commit a crime under the legal system that existed at the time, that is proper.

Ponoka7 · 01/01/2023 12:49

A life sentence now often means around 6 years.

Not for murder, it doesn't. Life sentences have a minimum tariff, which is the earliest point at which parole may be applied for. Say you get life with a minimum of six years for arson, you can apply for parole after six years, but aren't guaranteed to get it on the first attempt.

Even after release, there are a lot of conditions and breaching them can mean a recall to prison and with a life sentence, that carries on until the convict dies.

No, your idea is appalling and you would have loved living in a dictatorship. Stop it.

@Ponoka7 there is HDC release, licence release (standard determinate), licence release (parole) as the main forms of exiting custody (albeit all under Probation supervision). Behaviour plays a part in a recategorisation and parole, but nobody leaves early due to “good behaviour”. This is such a common misconception. If you have a minimum time to serve, you could be the best behaved prisoner in world, but you still are not coming out. Same as a parole hearing - behaviour could be impeccable, but if it’s a no, it’s a no.

I disagree. They should serve the sentence they were given in court. You cant just be adding to peoples sentences later on. Thats not ok.

Ok, so if we look at countries where women have only been allowed to drive in recent years, for example.

Should you be imprisoned if it was found out that you borrowed your husband's car to go to a hospital appt in 2002?

What about countries where abortion used to be illegal or a woman couldn't do something without her husband's permission?

You'd have to retroactively apply it to people who are currently in prison, imagine sending someone to prison for 5 years and then telling them 4.5 years in that actually it's been revised to 10 because we feel differently now, and then at 9.5 years you say "look sorry mate, but we've had a look at this through today's lens and we've upped it to 20 you depraved sicko"

If they make drugs legal should they clear everyone's convictions along with it? Or are those convictions indicative of someone who is prepared to break the laws that society currently deemed fit?