The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Should children ever be given life without parole as a sentence?

What do you think?

In many countries, children who commit crimes such as murder are given life without parole and their life is pretty much definitely over as they have no chance to ever come back from the prison.

Many of the children that do commit these crimes have had unspeakable childhoods having been abused sexually and mentally, isolated etc, but is this an excuse for them committing the crimes?

This also begs another question, should children be charged as adults?

Note, by children I mean people under the ages of 18 as they are legally charged as minors in most/all countries.

Scroll to see replies

I think it depends on the age of the child, as from about 12 or 13 years old most children can fully comprehend what they're doing, but for younger children I'm not so sure. It does seem though if someone is willing to commit murder at such as young age, there must be something inherently evil, and the question is if there is change of them offending again is it safe or fair to society to release them?
that's one of the biggest legal/political/philosophical dilemmas for me; it's a question of "where does the age of criminal responsibility logically begin?" and it's really not clear, and the age for a life sentence is even more of a blur beyond that. I would say that life sentences should probably start at 16; I can only work with the fact that 16 year olds have legal responsibilities at that age, bar following the rule of law, so that;s my only link...
depends on how dangerous they are to the public . or if they can be rehabilitated or not
Reply 4
Avatar for Oldcon1953
Oldcon1953
9
I don't know about life without parole. After 20yrs. of incarceration it's pretty easy to look at a prisoners record and see anti-social behavior even in prison so sentences of 25 to life might be more appropriate especially with youth in the 12-15yr. old range.
Reply 5
Avatar for Spetznaaz
Spetznaaz
12
I heard that in the U.K, a judge is not allowed to give life without parole (apart from when someone is detained under the mental health act i think) because giving a prisoner no possibility of freedom is apparently against human rights.

The point is, the average sentence for murder in the U.K is ten years, and that's for adults. We should be putting adult murderers away for life before we even start thinking about child offenders..
I don''t think so tbh. i honestly think 30-40 years should be the maximum sentence, while 20-30 seems reasonable if it's a standard murder.
WHat I don't get is why killing the police is an automatic death sentence. The police in America are known to be trigger happy to, and they think they are untouchable because of their statusThere's two sides to it though. If a child can do that at a young age, what kind of things will he do when he's bigger, stronger and more powerful.

On the flip side, a child doesn't always fully understand the extent of the crime he has committed. That doesn't excuse him from the crime, but the child should at least be given some opportunity to redeem himself and prove that he can integrate within society. People do silly and inconsiderate things as children. In secondary school. you'll find that there are a lot of dickheads but these dickheads learn about morals as they become adults.

We all know the American prison system is a business anyway
Reply 7
Avatar for ESPORTIVA
ESPORTIVA
2
Yes

Posted from TSR Mobile
Reply 8
Avatar for Blackacre
Blackacre
12
Original post by Spetznaaz
I heard that in the U.K, a judge is not allowed to give life without parole (apart from when someone is detained under the mental health act i think) because giving a prisoner no possibility of freedom is apparently against human rights.

The point is, the average sentence for murder in the U.K is ten years, and that's for adults. We should be putting adult murderers away for life before we even start thinking about child offenders..


It's likely that we're both saying the same thing, but I think it's more because there's no mechanism for reviewing a life sentence, rather than because there's "no possibility of freedom" (in the sense of "chance he'll get out" - a particularly violent murderer who hasn't shown remorse won't get out even there is review).

This is interesting:

...a ruling of the European court of human rights delivered last July in a case called Vinter. The court's grand chamber had found that "there must be both a prospect of release and a possibility of review" for a life sentence to be compatible with article 3 of the human rights convention, which bans "inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment". Because the English whole-life sentence did not provide any review mechanism, it breached the human rights of the three lifers who had taken their cases to Strasbourg: Douglas Vinter, Jeremy Bamber and Peter Moore. However, the judges stressed that their ruling gave the three prisoners no prospect of imminent release.

The UK government could comply with the ruling by reviewing whole-life orders after prisoners have served, say, 25 years and regularly thereafter.


From here.
Reply 9
Avatar for Spetznaaz
Spetznaaz
12
Original post by Blackacre
It's likely that we're both saying the same thing, but I think it's more because there's no mechanism for reviewing a life sentence, rather than because there's "no possibility of freedom" (in the sense of "chance he'll get out" - a particularly violent murderer who hasn't shown remorse won't get out even there is review).

This is interesting:



From here.


It is true though, that violent murderers are let out. A few were recently i read in the paper (not that i particularly trust newspapers). One guy commited a rape then killed the woman, then was let out after 11 years or whatever, then raped and killed again, then let out again..

As far as i'm concerned, if you take a life away, and there are no mitigating circumstances, your freedom should be taken away, permanently.

If i went out right now and stabbed a 18 year old to death, i'd probably be a free man by the time i'm 38 (i'm 26 now). I would of taken away a likely/potential 62 years of living away from someone.. Is that justice?

Edit - was off about a few details but here's the article: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2596712/Murderer-46-years-jail-one-Britains-longest-terms.html

Apologies for daily mail link.

Also interesting to note, the second woman would not have been attacked by him, if he wasn't freed for the original murder.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by matthewduncan
depends on how dangerous they are to the public . or if they can be rehabilitated or not


Surely all children can be rehabilitated if done in the right way. A sentence of around 15/20 years is probably enough.
If you're talking about like children under the age of ten - if they've gone through abuse and all they aren't going to be able to comprehend what's right and wrong, they are going by what an adult has did to them and given it's an adult, a person who is supposed to be right - well then ye should be rehabilitated. I think maybe anything over the age of 10 but even then it depends on the circumstances of the situation?
Original post by tsr_username01
I think it depends on the age of the child, as from about 12 or 13 years old most children can fully comprehend what they're doing, but for younger children I'm not so sure. It does seem though if someone is willing to commit murder at such as young age, there must be something inherently evil, and the question is if there is change of them offending again is it safe or fair to society to release them?


There could be many factors which affect the way a person thinks and their reasons to commit murder. That is the point though, if someone at the age of 16/17 gets done for murder then surely the main purpose of their sentence should be rehabilitation and to get them to repent for what they did etc.

Some adult murderers don't even get life without parole so I don't see the reason for children to get such a harsh sentence.
Original post by moment of truth
Surely all children can be rehabilitated if done in the right way. A sentence of around 15/20 years is probably enough.


I agree for the most part yes but imo there will be occasions where the child is too much of a devil to be rehabilitated
Reply 14
Avatar for james22
james22
16
No, I don't think that anybody should. It is pointless to refuse to review cases because at worst you can just leave them locked up, but some of them may be safe for release saving us money on prisons.
Reply 15
Avatar for mmmpie
mmmpie
12
No. We have to accept that rehabilitation will be more successful in some cases and less in others, and we should be able to respond to that as it becomes apparent. Setting out to lock somebody up for life, whatever age they were when they commit their crimes, ignores all that.
Original post by matthewduncan
I agree for the most part yes but imo there will be occasions where the child is too much of a devil to be rehabilitated


Even then it is still unacceptable to lock them up for life imo.

Posted from TSR Mobile
No they should never be given life without parole - Mary Bell and Robert Thompson have shown that rehabilitation is possible. I believe that no child is inherently evil and there is always a reason why children commit terrible crimes, particularly murder. They should be taken out of society for a period of time, they should be held responsible for their actions and they should be given treatment to get to the root of their problem, then they should be released. Very few children who commit murder reoffend anyway.
If it's truly horrific yeah. Kids know what is right and wrong from an early age, they'd know that doing things like killing and raping (once heard that two 12 years old tried to sexually assault a 9 year old, so yes they do know what it means) is wrong.
Original post by The_Dragonborn
If it's truly horrific yeah. Kids know what is right and wrong from an early age, they'd know that doing things like killing and raping (once heard that two 12 years old tried to sexually assault a 9 year old, so yes they do know what it means) is wrong.


Just because they know it is wrong, does that mean they should be given life without parole? Surely that is still a very harsh punishment.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you