Why doesn't life mean LIFE?

[eastlondonseagull]

Baby P's killer got life for the rape of that two-year-old girl - a trial which was jeopardised by all the idiotic websites that named him and Connelly before the ban was lifted.

But unless he's bumped off in prison he'll be out a long long time before he dies. Why does life in prison not mean life in prison?

.

 

[Tony Meolas Loan Spell]

Because of all he "hand wringing" do - gooders who actually believe people like that can be "rehabilitated"...

 

[clippedgull]

Life here means a fixed term set by a judge, then if the criminal is ever freed they have to spend 'life on licence'. In essence life reporting to a probation/parole officer.

 

[eastlondonseagull]

Life here means a fixed term set by a judge, then if the criminal is ever freed they have to spend 'life on licence'. In essence life reporting to a probation/parole officer.

But it's clearly not a fixed term if they're eligible for parole after 13 years or whatever!

.

 

[siclean]

id put em on death row for 10 yrs then have em stoned to death, after being casterated...no wonder that woman jailed abroad wanted to spend the rest of her sentance over here...jail here is butlins..with bars...as another poster said, there are too many do gooders in our system...we need to rid of em and start getting tough, the system we got now is a laughing stock of all the crooks that exist!!!

 

[Gwylan]

But it's clearly not a fixed term if they're eligible for parole after 13 years or whatever!

It clearly is. If they're eligible for parole for 13 years then that's the fixed term

Life can mean life if the judge says so.

But I do agree that sentences for violent crime are too light...less emphasis on crimes against property and more on crimes against people

 

[Stoo82]

Because we have created to many criminals for our jails so we have to let them go.

 

[eastlondonseagull]

It clearly is. If they're eligible for parole for 13 years then that's the fixed term

Life can mean life if the judge says so.

But I do agree that sentences for violent crime are too light...less emphasis on crimes against property and more on crimes against people

So how does the judge decide whether 'life imprisonment' means "life (and you'll stay there forever)" or "life (but we'll actually give you an appraisal in ten years and let you go if you've been a good boy)'?

.

 

[Gwylan]

So how does the judge decide whether 'life imprisonment' means "life (and you'll stay there forever)" or "life (but we'll actually give you an appraisal in ten years and let you go if you've been a good boy)'?

.

He/she sets a minimum term when that prisoner is eligible to apply for parole.

As I said, in rare cases, there's none set: I think there are about 20 people in the UK expected to die in prison: Brady, Roberts, Huntley are the obvious ones, but there are more - I don't know the exact number.

 

[eastlondonseagull]

He/she sets a minimum term when that prisoner is eligible to apply for parole.

As I said, in rare cases, there's none set: I think there are about 20 people in the UK expected to die in prison: Brady, Roberts, Huntley are the obvious ones, but there are more - I don't know the exact number.

But what parameters does he/she use to set that limit? Shouldn't 'life' mean 'life'?

.

 

[User removed 4]

i cant be bothered arguing the toss , this case is just so upsetting, lets for fucks sake have something, any f***ing thing set up to overhaul childrens services , root and branch , throughout the whole country, something not aligned to any party, something to ensure this doesnt happen again, i know it goes against the grain , and i'm not looking to argue with anyone , but i think childrens homes need a total overhaul, with more people with life experience, grannies who've actually raised kids running them (obviously stringently vetted) rather than the people who do now, the system as it is now obviously doesnt work.

 

[Gwylan]

But what parameters does he/she use to set that limit? Shouldn't 'life' mean 'life'?

.

One of the problems is that the mandatory sentence for murder is life.

So, if you wanted life to mean life, you would treat someone's who has raped and killed half a dozen kids in exactly the same way as a father who has sought out and killed someone who had raped and killed his kids. That doesn't exactly strike me as very fair sentencing, I think most people would have a great deal of sympathy for a father in that position.

Or to take another example, if a husband killed his wife, by her request, because she had an incurable disease, should he really get a life sentence that means life?

There has to be some flexibility on it.

 

[User removed 4]

One of the problems is that the mandatory sentence for murder is life.

So, if you wanted life to mean life, you would treat someone's who has raped and killed half a dozen kids in exactly the same way as a father who has sought out and killed someone who had raped and killed his kids. That doesn't exactly strike me as very fair sentencing, I think most people would have a great deal of sympathy for a father in that position.

Or to take another example, if a husband killed his wife, by her request, because she had an incurable disease, should he really get a life sentence that means life?

There has to be some flexibility on it.

perhaps like in the states , murder 1 or 2 etc ? that way there could be flexibility without lumping all cases together.

 

[Gwylan]

perhaps like in the states , murder 1 or 2 etc ? that way there could be flexibility without lumping all cases together.

The Law Commission looked at this very point earlier this year. The government rejected splitting murder into categories as it would be perceived as 'being soft on crime'

 

[eastlondonseagull]

The Law Commission looked at this very point earlier this year. The government rejected splitting murder into categories as it would be perceived as 'being soft on crime'

And yet they are already being extremely soft on crime! It's a difficult issue, I know, and those are good examples you raised... God knows what the answer is.

.

 

[Gwylan]

And yet they are already being extremely soft on crime! It's a difficult issue, I know, and those are good examples you raised... God knows what the answer is.

.

We're not really soft on crime though. We have more people in prison than any other country in western Europe. As I said before, I do think there should be a shift in priorities. The number of people in jail for drug offences is ludicrously high and space should be freed up for truly violent and dreadful people.

But the government's right - any move that is perceived as being 'soft on crime' will be exploited by the opposition. That is why murder laws won't change, that's why drug laws won't change.

Amazingly, Bushy speaks some sense - we do need a root and branch overhaul of penal policy and probably care of children and it needs to have the support of all the parties. It ain't going to happen though. Even if the parties could agree, they'd baulk at the cost. The country is already desperately short of social workers, foster carers. adoptive parents, children home spaces, child psychologists.... you name it.

It's desperately sad. one child every week dies at the hands of its parents - that's an awful statistic and yet little is done to change it.

 

[User removed 4]

We're not really soft on crime though. We have more people in prison than any other country in western Europe. As I said before, I do think there should be a shift in priorities. The number of people in jail for drug offences is ludicrously high and space should be freed up for truly violent and dreadful people.

But the government's right - any move that is perceived as being 'soft on crime' will be exploited by the opposition. That is why murder laws won't change, that's why drug laws won't change.

Amazingly, Bushy speaks some sense - we do need a root and branch overhaul of penal policy and probably care of children and it needs to have the support of all the parties. It ain't going to happen though. Even if the parties could agree, they'd baulk at the cost. The country is already desperately short of social workers, foster carers. adoptive parents, children home spaces, child psychologists.... you name it.

It's desperately sad. one child every week dies at the hands of its parents - that's an awful statistic and yet little is done to change it.

i think we are soft on crime to a certain extent, or priorities are certainly wrong, house burglary should be an automatic prison sentence but its not, yet we have people locked up for speeding , absolutely crazy.

 

[eastlondonseagull]

i think we are soft on crime to a certain extent, or priorities are certainly wrong, house burglary should be an automatic prison sentence but its not, yet we have people locked up for speeding , absolutely crazy.

...or getting just three years for racing up a street, killing a pedestrian and then fleeing the scene. Beggars belief, really.

.

 

[Monsieur Le Plonk]

Can someone please explain why this bloke Barker can get sentenced for having a 'major role' in Baby Ps' death and then be convicted again for raping a 2 year old girl..........and yet his sentences run CONCURRENTLY?
It drives me mad.......this means he is effectively being let off any punishment for one of the crimes.
Why

 

[User removed 4]

...or getting just three years for racing up a street, killing a pedestrian and then fleeing the scene. Beggars belief, really.

.

, i see your point, i should have used another analogy .