Cameron Backs 'Life Means Life' Sentences

Which is no different to having longer sentences.

Which is no different to having longer sentences.

No it shouldn't. We give people mercy in this country. We accept that human beings make mistakes, just that some make them on a grand scale. The maximum length of a prison sentence for any first offence should be 30 years. If you do it again, then perhaps you'd say double it.

Unfortunately our public seem to have a lust for punishment. Over 50% support Capital Punishment let alone longer sentences. #dailymail. Punishing someone brutally can never reverse the crime.

To be honest I don't believe in prisons. I believe in rehabilitation centres and prisoners having full rights (including to vote) and doing something useful. I'm about as raging libertarian on the issue as can be.

i just find it annoying that they use the phrase "life sentence" when they really mean "a longish sentence".

Also, people should NEVER be let out early for good behaviour.

That's just a lack of understanding of the terminology though.

Sentence is both the period of imprisonment and the period spent on parole. Any person given a life sentence can be returned to prison at any time without the need for a further trial.

What you're referring to is the term, which is the period actually spent in prison.

Yoy can't get good behaviour for murder (the crime most being discussed here it seems), the judge is legally obligated to suspend that for a murder sentencing, so you serve the full 15, 25 or 30 years (obviously you can't halve a full life term anyway).

Good behaviour is essentially a cost saving measure combined with the rule you cannot be punished for the same crime twice (same idea as double jeopardy). Prisoners are on the whole violent people, with no incentive to behave well it becomes more expensive in terms of man power to control them. The double punishment aspect is that for the law to be just everyone should be able to know what they risk in terms of punishment for doing a certain thing (whether that's breaching a contract or killing someone), with a bad behaviour rule that is lost as the prison service can indefinitely extend your sentence without the need for a further public hearing, making punishment opaque and potentially arbitrary.

Joe Public does not want to ferret through a warren of semantics. If someone is "sentenced to life imprisonment" it does ]not mean they are sentenced to life in prison.

No it shouldn't. We give people mercy in this country. We accept that human beings make mistakes, just that some make them on a grand scale. The maximum length of a prison sentence for any first offence should be 30 years. If you do it again, then perhaps you'd say double it.

Unfortunately our public seem to have a lust for punishment. Over 50% support Capital Punishment let alone longer sentences. #dailymail. Punishing someone brutally can never reverse the crime.

To be honest I don't believe in prisons. I believe in rehabilitation centres and prisoners having full rights (including to vote) and doing something useful. I'm about as raging libertarian on the issue as can be.

If you murder some and take away their right to vote, why should you retain yours?

This is not an argument, you haven't actually given any reasons against letting prisoners vote. I often see arguments of this form (you took away a persons x, why should you have x), and they aren't really saying anything. You could equally say "you took away someones human rights, and so should have yours taken away".

This is not an argument, you haven't actually given any reasons against letting prisoners vote. I often see arguments of this form (you took away a persons x, why should you have x), and they aren't really saying anything. You could equally say "you took away someones human rights, and so should have yours taken away".

It is an argument.

Why should those who brake the law be in any position to make it? That is a legitimate argument.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Of course they're saying something, you said it yourself: if you rob someone of their rights then you forfeit your own.

It's not making any points though. If you say prisoners should not vote you need to back this up with the dissadvantages that come from prisoners voting cs teh advantages.



Are you really saying that if you are found guilty of murder, you should lose all your human rights?

For mass murder i.e terrorist attacks - Yes

Normal sentences of 30 years should be more harsh and not a trip to butlins.

It's not making any points though. If you say prisoners should not vote you need to back this up with the dissadvantages that come from prisoners voting cs teh advantages.



Are you really saying that if you are found guilty of murder, you should lose all your human rights?

Who said you'd lose ALL your human rights? All I said was they don't deserve to vote.

No it is not a political debate, it is a ethical debate of ideaology. You dont need evidence. Besides, if you want me to use evidence I could just say they dont pay tax, so it would be a cost to the treasury since they would have to spend money senting up polling stations for voters who dont pay tax. Moreover, you must provide evidence first to change the status quo. Im all ears.

Posted from TSR Mobile

I know, but you didn't back that up with anything. You said that if you kill someone, you take their right to vote, so you should lose yours. But this also applies to every single human right, since by killing someone you take all their rights.



I'm not arguing for or against prisoners voting, just that the logic that they shouldn't have it because they took their victims right to vote don't make sense.

Makes sense to me.

Posted from TSR Mobile