You would only soend your life in jail if you were to commit multiple serious offences but they say you get a life sentence for mutder for example but that usually isn't your full life span (which I think is really stupid)
Is Google not working today?
It's important to separate a life sentence and a whole life prison sentence. The former applies to a multitude of offences and relates to licensing, i.e. one will be on licence for life); whereas the second relates obviously to prison sentences which last a lifetime.
For the latter, you need according to Sch.21 of CJA 2003:
(a) the murder of two or more persons, where each murder involves any of the following—
(i) a substantial degree of premeditation or planning,
(ii) the abduction of the victim, or
(iii) sexual or sadistic conduct,
(c) a murder done for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause, or
(d) a murder by an offender previously convicted of murder.
And CJCA s.27 adds the murder of a police officer or a prison officer as a mandatory life sentence.
List of people who are currently serving a whole-life order is here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prisoners_with_whole-life_tariffs
For the latter, you need according to Sch.21 of CJA 2003:
(a) the murder of two or more persons, where each murder involves any of the following—
(i) a substantial degree of premeditation or planning,
(ii) the abduction of the victim, or
(iii) sexual or sadistic conduct,
(c) a murder done for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause, or
(d) a murder by an offender previously convicted of murder.
And CJCA s.27 adds the murder of a police officer or a prison officer as a mandatory life sentence.
List of people who are currently serving a whole-life order is here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prisoners_with_whole-life_tariffs
Original post by Duncan2012
Is Google not working today?
Wikipedia, the 'best' website you can use for research.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Blondie987
You would only soend your life in jail if you were to commit multiple serious offences but they say you get a life sentence for mutder for example but that usually isn't your full life span (which I think is really stupid)
I don't see the point in keeping someone in jail indefinitely until they die though, it doesn't benefit anyone. The taxpayer has to pay for them and the criminal has no reason to reform, so that money isn't even going into making a productive member of society. It's effectively a really drawn out death sentence, because their life is more or less over.
Spoiler
Original post by Impressive
As a starting point - absolutely. You missed the fact I suggested the use of Google (Scholar or normal).
I never claimed Wikipedia is perfect, so if you think there's something incorrect in the link I posted please point it out. If not - let's leave the OP to do their research.
Original post by Zargabaath
I don't see the point in keeping someone in jail indefinitely until they die though, it doesn't benefit anyone. The taxpayer has to pay for them and the criminal has no reason to reform, so that money isn't even going into making a productive member of society. It's effectively a really drawn out death sentence, because their life is more or less over.
Spoiler
Why did I spend 500 pounds on a phone that messes up spellcheck??!! Lol, I don't think it should necessarily be indefinitely but I don't understand the leniency of some cases, I don't agree with the death penalty but whose right is it to take a life and yet be able to go on living theirs?
Original post by Zargabaath
I don't see the point in keeping someone in jail indefinitely until they die though, it doesn't benefit anyone. The taxpayer has to pay for them and the criminal has no reason to reform, so that money isn't even going into making a productive member of society. It's effectively a really drawn out death sentence, because their life is more or less over.
Spoiler
The idea is to only give a whole-life order where the criminal is so morally corrupt that they can never be returned to society. This (1) concerns recidivism (how could you ever be certain that the person would not reoffend) and (2) relates to the effect releasing would have on the conscience of society, family members of victims and so forth. Further, I don't accept your point that life imprisonment means your life is over: a lot of people have quite successful lives in prison, can form friendships and bonds, have family members/children visit, and can earn degrees and broaden their intellects. A lot of things can be achieved within the confines of a prison's walls.
Original post by Duncan2012
As a starting point - absolutely. You missed the fact I suggested the use of Google (Scholar or normal).
I never claimed Wikipedia is perfect, so if you think there's something incorrect in the link I posted please point it out. If not - let's leave the OP to do their research.
I never claimed Wikipedia is perfect, so if you think there's something incorrect in the link I posted please point it out. If not - let's leave the OP to do their research.
Hmm, did I say something wrong?
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Impressive
It really is, that article looks concise and well referenced.
Original post by Blondie987
Why did I spend 500 pounds on a phone that messes up spellcheck??!! Lol, I don't think it should necessarily be indefinitely but I don't understand the leniency of some cases, I don't agree with the death penalty but whose right is it to take a life and yet be able to go on living theirs?
But then for me, the problem is what is gained by giving out a harsher sentence simply to appease the victim's emotions? In my opinion it's just petty. Personally I think protection then reform should be the goals of the justice system, not revenge. 2 wrongs and all that.
Original post by Nameless Ghoul
The idea is to only give a whole-life order where the criminal is so morally corrupt that they can never be returned to society. This (1) concerns recidivism (how could you ever be certain that the person would not reoffend) and (2) relates to the effect releasing would have on the conscience of society, family members of victims and so forth. Further, I don't accept your point that life imprisonment means your life is over: a lot of people have quite successful lives in prison, can form friendships and bonds, have family members/children visit, and can earn degrees and broaden their intellects. A lot of things can be achieved within the confines of a prison's walls.
Hmm, I think I agree with that. Apart from the second point, unless they're living in fear of another attack with good reason, I don't think it really matters what society thinks. The issue is between the state and the offender, for breaking the law. As much as a victim and their "associates" may want revenge in the form of a harsh sentence I don't think we should dish out punishments with peoples emotions in mind.
I suppose everyone has their own ideas of what successful is as well, so I can't really speak for other people in that regard.
Original post by Zargabaath
Hmm, I think I agree with that. Apart from the second point, unless they're living in fear of another attack with good reason, I don't think it really matters what society thinks. The issue is between the state and the offender, for breaking the law. As much as a victim and their "associates" may want revenge in the form of a harsh sentence I don't think we should dish out punishments with peoples emotions in mind.
I suppose everyone has their own ideas of what successful is as well, so I can't really speak for other people in that regard.
I suppose everyone has their own ideas of what successful is as well, so I can't really speak for other people in that regard.
Our entire system of criminal law is based on what society thinks. The law deals with acts which offend the State. Naturally, the State is not capable of taking offence, but the State represents the citizenry and our emotional reactions to particular acts. Murder, rape, fraud, assault and battery. If you abandon what society thinks, then there really isn't much basis for criminal law at all.
Original post by Nameless Ghoul
Our entire system of criminal law is based on what society thinks. The law deals with acts which offend the State. Naturally, the State is not capable of taking offence, but the State represents the citizenry and our emotional reactions to particular acts. Murder, rape, fraud, assault and battery. If you abandon what society thinks, then there really isn't much basis for criminal law at all.
No, the law deals with acts that hinders the running of society. A murder isn't illegal because of the emotional response, it's illegal because society would crumble if it was permitted. Same with fraud, no emotional response there, however it would damage society.
Rape is the only one I can think of, that at the moment, is there mostly because of emotional trauma, but that wasn't even introduced for that reason. It was because women were seen as devalued if they weren't virgins when they married. It was a way of ensuring the dynamic of social power through marriage wasn't corroded by too many women losing their "value" and becoming unmarriable.
Original post by Zargabaath
No, the law deals with acts that hinders the running of society. A murder isn't illegal because of the emotional response, it's illegal because society would crumble if it was permitted. Same with fraud, no emotional response there, however it would damage society.
Rape is the only one I can think of, that at the moment, is there mostly because of emotional trauma, but that wasn't even introduced for that reason. It was because women were seen as devalued if they weren't virgins when they married. It was a way of ensuring the dynamic of social power through marriage wasn't corroded by too many women losing their "value" and becoming unmarriable.
Rape is the only one I can think of, that at the moment, is there mostly because of emotional trauma, but that wasn't even introduced for that reason. It was because women were seen as devalued if they weren't virgins when they married. It was a way of ensuring the dynamic of social power through marriage wasn't corroded by too many women losing their "value" and becoming unmarriable.
It is true that some laws deal with acts which are purely efficacious to social organisation. For example, a lot of traffic offences are not morally meaningful and neither are most strict liability offences. Almost all of the rest are morally meaningful, however. For example, we have murder and manslaughter distinguished, and interrogate mens rea, because we want to punish people proportionate to the wrongness of acts, even though both acts are equally inefficacious to social organisation.
Additionally, the law of rape operates chiefly under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 section 1. Are we to assume that when, 10 years ago, Parliament intervened statutorily with the law of rape they did so only to preserve the virtue of brides-to-be? The intent of courts a thousand years ago is divorced from the intent under which modern rape law operates today.
Spoiler
Original post by Livvyxo
And are there any cases that particularly stand out in terms of life sentences/?
serial killers on whole life tariffs such as
Ian Brady(50 years)
Myra hindley (died 2002 after 36 years)
Donald neilson(died 2011 after 35 years)
Dennis nilsen(36 years)
Jeremy bamber (30 years)
Robert black(died 2016 after 22 years)
rose west (21 years)
Harold shipman(died 2004 after 4 years)
Steve Wright (8 years)
Levi bellfield(8 years)
peter Tobin (7 years)
peter sutcliffe(6 years)
mark bridger(3 years)
dale cregan(3 years)
Michael adebolajo(2 years)
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- LNAT Essay
- Capital Punishment Survey
- Sentencing Council to make changes for pregnant women / new mothers
- Is it time to rethink our criminal justice system and 'do things differently'?
- is my lnat essay bad?
- Forced marriage
- Brianna Ghey killed in quiet village
- LNAT Essay
- What can I do once I am 16?
- Why was the treatment of the Tolpuddle Martyrs similar to the conscious objectors?
- Why dont women do it??
- Controlling and overbearing parents
- Help with History Nea Coursework
- Rishi Sunak relaunches plans to send asylum seekers to Rwanda
- I'm moving cities - thoughts on London vs Bristol vs Kent?
- anyway to find out where news sites like The Guardian get their sources from?
- Transferring PGCE course
- sister never supports me
- Equality Act 2010 does not protect disabled students enough
- Unconscious bias - is it time to rethink how we address VAWG?
