Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

should life sentence mean life

the uk's system means of life sentences seem to be getting shorter and shorter, a problem to which I believe criminals reoffend. should life mean till you die or should it stay the same

Reply 1

the bear

it is the name which annoys me. why call it a "Life" sentence when it is only that in a handful of cases ?

at least with the Death Sentence it did what it said on the tin.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 2

Tiger Rag

For some, it does mean life. But you've got to be pretty dangerous for that.

Reply 3

lascelles101

i dont think many people get 'life' unless either their already old or indefinite stay in a phyiactric unit

Reply 4

Tempest II

Life should mean life, full stop. It's one thing the US justice system does well even if it's flawed in other ways.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 5

Blackstarr

What's his name.....

I think its Ian Bradley or something like that

His life sentence definitely means "life" as he is obviously an inhumane person that needs to be kept out of society.

Reply 6

JoePFR

If it actually meant life then what would be the point? They would be costing the state money while putting absolutely nothing back in. At that point you might as well just reintroduce the death penalty. It makes far more sense to try to rehabilitate people and turn them into productive members of society. While re-offending is a big issue, this is not a problem that would be solved by harsher sentences. At least, not unless you produce extreme, severe and permanent punishments in which case it just evolves into a fascist state.

Currently, a person will only ACTUALLY be imprisoned for life if they are considered a serious threat to the public with no chance of redemption. And really, that's the way it should be.

Custodial sentences don't stop re-offending, mainly because they don't solve the external issues that caused the person to offend in the first place (necessity due to poverty, disruptive upbringing...). Introducing more custodial sentences and more permanent sentences doesn't tackle those issues and are both very unethical. You have to also consider that it's real human lives we're talking about with rights, families and loved ones. Just shoving them in an institute until they die is utterly unethical, even if they've committed something like murder which carries a mandatory life sentence.

It's very rare that a murderer has killed because they just woke up and decided to take a life. There are crimes of passion that don't fall under voluntary manslaughter, mercy killings, mental disorders that don't fall under insanity, and all sorts that yield at least some sympathy for the offender.

Taking issue with the fact that it's called "life" is just arguing semantics. Regardless of what each sentence is called, the same lengths of time would be used by judges either way. Therefore, it's mostly irrelevant and the justice system has more important problems to focus on.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 7

M14B

Original post by lascelles101

the uk's system means of life sentences seem to be getting shorter and shorter, a problem to which I believe criminals reoffend. should life mean till you die or should it stay the same

Of course

Reply 8

the bear

in the US and A you can get sentences of hundreds of years. they don't mess around over there, no sirree bob.

Reply 9

username1204031

No. The only time someone should be locked up for the rest of their life is if they're completely incapable of being rehabilitated, in which case they should be on a high-security psych ward, not prison.

Reply 10

L i b

Probably not, no - although it is really a semantic issue rather than anything else. Sure, we could impose a sentence "at Her Majesty's pleasure with a minimum portion of _____ in prison" or something and save "life sentences" for only those we would impose a whole life tariff on now, but what would that really achieve?

In any case, I would not want to see all but the tiny number of the most serious and problematic cases imprisoned with no possibility of release. I fundamentally believe in reform: that a prisoner can show contrition, no longer be a danger to the public and that - in these conditions - we can say that a certain level of punishment has been sufficient.

Let's not forget that a murder, no matter the mitigation or circumstances, leads to an automatic life sentence in this country. If we were to keep every murderer in prison for the rest of their natural lives, it would be a major step. For my part, I think it would be a backward one.

Original post by the bear

it is the name which annoys me. why call it a "Life" sentence when it is only that in a handful of cases ?

at least with the Death Sentence it did what it said on the tin.

The answer to this is fairly straightforward: you are under a sentence for life. When someone is released after their minimum term it is on "life licence". You are released if you have served the minimum term, a known as a punitive or punishment part and met various other conditions.

When on life licence, you have numerous conditions imposed on you. You can be pulled back into prison if you breach them, or indeed for other reasons. You are under sentence - that just doesn't necessarily mean in prison.