Life

[Platypus]

If you really want to see unfair sentences have a look at ....

my Latin O-Level paper. It was a bitch !

[Troll]

"If we are to abolish the death penalty, I should like to see the first step taken by my friends the murderers."
.. Alphonse Karr (1808-1890)

[rhubarb]

Unfortunately it would.

It's difficult to think of a pair who should have hung more than the Moors Murderers.

Who missed the rope by a matter of months.

I could be wrong, but weren't more bodies found long after they'd been locked up, due to letting them back out onto the moors ?

[VectraMan]

I can't see a downside to periodically reviewing a situation, in fact it seems wrong that one decision made on one day should stand forever no matter what.

[d000hg]

Unfortunately it would.

Not allowed under the EU either.

Not to mention that our lilly livered MPs would never vote for it to be restored.

It's difficult to think of a pair who should have hung more than the Moors Murderers.

Who missed the rope by a matter of months.

The death penalty works just great in the US... years on death row, only a handful of people ever actually killed and nearly all black. It seems to cost more to kill someone than imprison them for life!

[OwlHoot]

Back when they were debating the abolition of capital punishment, the abolitionists' constant whining mantra was that "Life would mean life". So much for that

[doodab]

If you can't do the time don't do the crime.

Periodic review should probably be allowed.

[SimonMac]

Would sticking a rope around their neck be a human rights breach?

Could we get one big enough for all your chins?

Whole Life Terms are a political tool to get the public to see them as being tough on crime, some people should never be released from prison, but there will be very few cases where this is known at sentencing so some periodic review has to be allowed.

If you really want to see unfair sentences have a look at Indeterminate sentences or IPP's

[vetran]

depends whether you believe in rehabilitation, in these people's place I doubt many believe its possible.

Its the difference between punishment for crimes and an opportunity to reform. Frankly I would prefer the money had been spent on reforming less extreme prisoners.

It sort of makes sense to review the sentence but In my opinion it should have a higher level of review than just a couple of social workers. Maybe a judge can rule on release for more serious sentences?

[MarillionFan]

Would sticking a rope around their neck be a human rights breach?

[Halo Jones]

I think reform should always be considered a possibility, maybe a shorter minimum sentence such as 25 years (for extreme cases) with reviews held 2 yearly after that?

[d000hg]

I didn't see a thread on this yet: BBC News - Killers' life terms 'breach their human rights'

What do we think? Emotive individual cases aside, is it right to send someone away with the guarantee they will never be allowed out? Or is that going to far and the possibility of reform and release should never be ruled out?

I reckon the latter - such offenders should not be automatically granted the possibility of release but should not have it ruled out either, saying someone won't be fit to be released in 50 years from their sentencing is impossible in my view.