This discussion is closed.
Bailey14
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#21
Report 1 month ago
#21
I do not see any reasons why we should change the current definition of sentencing.

I believe rehabilitation is an essential part of the prison service and believe that prisoners with life sentences should have the right to apply for parole after 15-25 years if they genuinely believe that the rehabilitation services offered to them genuinely changed them and that they would be ready to be released back into society.

Whole life orders exist where people convicted of major crimes can, if deemed necessary, be sentenced with no right to parole - meaning they spend the rest of their life in prison. As a result, the judiciary has the right to impose these life orders if they have justification for why a criminal should not have the right to parole and should spend the rest of their lives in prison.

This bill in my opinion will lead to unnecessary overcrowding where we have many convicted criminals imprisoned who have been rehabilitated but are denied any right to parole as a consequence of the proposed legislation.

Therefore, I see no reason to change the current system and will oppose this bill should the house divide on it.
0
Glaz
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#22
Report 1 month ago
#22
(Original post by Joleee)
the problem is the words of sentencing are misleading. if someone is given a life sentence, then surely their sentence should be for life so as not to confuse the public, ammi right?

we need better clarity. in practice, you get a sentence and your sentence is actually spent half the time out of jail (which nobody knows about, which is truth i am afraid).

disappointed your other bill is withdrawn but i also understand. Glaz i totally agree with you.
Yeah I agree with that :yes: and such would you think Whole Life Orders need to be used more to allow for this implementation of this Bill?

Cheers


(Original post by Saracen's Fez)
Will copy my remarks over verbatim from the government sub:

Life should generally be intended to mean life, I agree.

But there are two things to bear in mind here that mean that I don't think it's this simple:

First of all, there's the ECHR ruling that requires life sentences to be reviewed and the prisoner considered for release after a certain amount of time, I don't remember whether the court specified the length of time, but I suspect not, because some jurisdictions work around it by using very long but time-limited sentences, e.g. 200 years.

Second, if life is to mean life then it's an excessive sentence in my opinion for some crimes that currently carry a life sentence. A review needs to take place of this first.

I think the removal of early release on compassionate grounds, which seems to disappear almost by accident here, is also problematic.
Yes, however that point of this Bill is to get rid of this - if the crime is big enough that it warrants a life sentence (in the first place that is) then imo that persons should never be considered for release.
Yeah, I do agree with that


(Original post by CatusStarbright)
If you were to want the tariff to match the sentence 'as advertised' if you will (life meaning life, to use that term), then I do agree with Fez in that you'd then want to review which offences carry a life sentence and it is quite possible that some of them would need moving out of that category.
Yeah, as above, I do agree with that


(Original post by Aph)
Another problem with the wording of this bill, it doesn't allow for new evidence to find a person innocent by my reading.

Once you are given a life sentence it must be "fully carried out" and the wording suggests there isn't now any appeal for life sentences.
Of course, if new evidence is found then obviously, but that should happen regardless of sentence. This is assuming however that the criminal is guilty and no new evidence is found (because there is none, because they are guilty)


(Original post by SoggyCabbages)
I support this bill 100%. Prison is for punishment and there should be no chance whatsoever for parole when it comes to serious crime and life sentences in general.
(Original post by Connor27)
I fully support this.
Thanks for the support :yy:
Spoiler:
Show

also since when did us three ever agree on anything :eyeball: :rofl:


(Original post by Bailey14)
I do not see any reasons why we should change the current definition of sentencing.

I believe rehabilitation is an essential part of the prison service and believe that prisoners with life sentences should have the right to apply for parole after 15-25 years if they genuinely believe that the rehabilitation services offered to them genuinely changed them and that they would be ready to be released back into society.
As I have said before, my understanding of life sentences is that there is no possibility for rehab, hence why they are (theoretically at least) supposed to be in jail their whole life

(Original post by Bailey14)
Whole life orders exist where people convicted of major crimes can, if deemed necessary, be sentenced with no right to parole - meaning they spend the rest of their life in prison. As a result, the judiciary has the right to impose these life orders if they have justification for why a criminal should not have the right to parole and should spend the rest of their lives in prison.

This bill in my opinion will lead to unnecessary overcrowding where we have many convicted criminals imprisoned who have been rehabilitated but are denied any right to parole as a consequence of the proposed legislation.

Therefore, I see no reason to change the current system and will oppose this bill should the house divide on it.
As above, I would authorise their increased use for the implementation of this Bill :yy:
0
Glaz
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#23
Report 1 month ago
#23
(Original post by 04MR17)
Problem with the commencement date is that would require more prison cells immediately. Those cells need to be built and that requires money, which this bill does not provide. Unless we are planning to employ the use of outdoor prisons (something I don't currently like the idea of), then it simply has to be a no.
Yeah, this is an issue which I forgot to consider :ninja:
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#24
Report 1 month ago
#24
(Original post by Glaz)
As above, I would authorise their increased use for the implementation of this Bill :yy:
I'm on the app so can't reduce the quote but to the point about what I said, it's all well and good telling me what you want it to be but the point is that that isn't what the bill says.
0
Glaz
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#25
Report 1 month ago
#25
(Original post by Aph)
I'm on the app so can't reduce the quote but to the point about what I said, it's all well and good telling me what you want it to be but the point is that that isn't what the bill says.
Didn't think that needed specifying - new evidence finding the prisoner innocent of course demands for their release, it's not really something that needs to be specified
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#26
Report 1 month ago
#26
(Original post by Glaz)
Didn't think that needed specifying - new evidence finding the prisoner innocent of course demands for their release, it's not really something that needs to be specified
I assume you are aware of implicit repeal? The concept where an act can repeal a previous one by simply contradicting it? Well that's what you have done here.
Because:
"All life sentences must be fully carried out."
""fully carried out" means that the criminal may not be released from jail until they die."
And:
"There shall be no exemptions to this Act."

It is quite obvious to see that once a life sentence is applied there is no way to commute it. What this bill actually would do is make it so that no judge gives out life sentences because it could falsely imprison innocent people. So well done(!) you're trying to help murderers and rapists get off with lighter sentences!
0
Glaz
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#27
Report 1 month ago
#27
(Original post by Aph)
I assume you are aware of implicit repeal? The concept where an act can repeal a previous one by simply contradicting it? Well that's what you have done here.
Because:
"All life sentences must be fully carried out."
""fully carried out" means that the criminal may not be released from jail until they die."
And:
"There shall be no exemptions to this Act."

It is quite obvious to see that once a life sentence is applied there is no way to commute it. What this bill actually would do is make it so that no judge gives out life sentences because it could falsely imprison innocent people. So well done(!) you're trying to help murderers and rapists get off with lighter sentences!
Okay well that's my mistake, thank you for pointing it out. If I changed the exemptions to account for new evidence, would you have any other issues with it?
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#28
Report 1 month ago
#28
(Original post by Glaz)
Okay well that's my mistake, thank you for pointing it out. If I changed the exemptions to account for new evidence, would you have any other issues with it?
As has been pointed out by others you need to do a review of what crimes currently carry the life tariff.

I also fundamentally disagree with the bill. We already have whole life tariffs and what you seem to want is for them to be more common. The point of jail is to rehabilitate. It's a waste of resources to lock someone up and throw away the key whilst continuing to clothe, feed, house etc. them. You prevent someone ever being given the chance to be a better person and make them a perpetual drain on society.
0
Glaz
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#29
Report 1 month ago
#29
(Original post by Aph)
As has been pointed out by others you need to do a review of what crimes currently carry the life tariff.

I also fundamentally disagree with the bill. We already have whole life tariffs and what you seem to want is for them to be more common. The point of jail is to rehabilitate. It's a waste of resources to lock someone up and throw away the key whilst continuing to clothe, feed, house etc. them. You prevent someone ever being given the chance to be a better person and make them a perpetual drain on society.
As I have said multiple times, from what I understand, the point of a life sentence is the lack of possibility of rehabilitation, otherwise they wouldn't be (theoretically) given life
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#30
Report 1 month ago
#30
(Original post by Glaz)
Yeah, this is an issue which I forgot to consider :ninja:
So in the second reading you can change the commencement date to 2024 and add a clause in the main body with something like "The government shall allocate appropriate funding for the expansion of prisons required to fulfill this act."
0
Glaz
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#31
Report 1 month ago
#31
(Original post by 04MR17)
So in the second reading you can change the commencement date to 2024 and add a clause in the main body with something like "The government shall allocate appropriate funding for the expansion of prisons required to fulfill this act."
Thank you 04. In the second reading I will also add an exemption, to account for the major issue Aph put forward
0
barnetlad
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#32
Report 1 month ago
#32
I understand that giving life sentences which may only be 10 years in reality for some makes a mockery of the justice system, or having offences with a maximum life term which is rarely given. I don't agree with this Bill though, not just for the question of rehabilitation or miscarriages of justice, but because sometimes release can be not for the offender but for the consideration of their family, especially in the case of a terminal illness.
0
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#33
Report 1 month ago
#33
(Original post by Aph)
I assume you are aware of implicit repeal? The concept where an act can repeal a previous one by simply contradicting it? Well that's what you have done here.
Because:
"All life sentences must be fully carried out."
""fully carried out" means that the criminal may not be released from jail until they die."
And:
"There shall be no exemptions to this Act."

It is quite obvious to see that once a life sentence is applied there is no way to commute it. What this bill actually would do is make it so that no judge gives out life sentences because it could falsely imprison innocent people. So well done(!) you're trying to help murderers and rapists get off with lighter sentences!
The sentence would be overturned, it's not an issue.
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#34
Report 1 month ago
#34
(Original post by CatusStarbright)
The sentence would be overturned, it's not an issue.
Surely the way this is read means that because the sentence must be completely ignoring served negates the ability to overturn it?
0
SoggyCabbages
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#35
Report 1 month ago
#35
(Original post by Mainline421)
Prison is for rehabilitation and as I understand it there is already a "Whole life order" mecanism for preventing criminals from ever getting parole in extreme cases. Plus the UK's prisons are already overcowded, as such I can't support this bill atm but I do admit this isn't a subject I have any expertise in.
No I think you’ll find prisons are for punishment, hence the separation from wider society in a box, that’s sounds a bit like a punishment to me.
0
shadowdweller
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#36
Report 1 month ago
#36
(Original post by The RAR)
I think in the exemption they may be released if their plea is successful, some criminals do change so I really don't see the point in keeping them locked up forever.
Seconded :yep:
1
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#37
Report 1 month ago
#37
(Original post by Glaz)
If the crime was that bad that it deserved a life sentence though...
If someone got sentenced to x amount of years (i.e. not life) then they have a chance for rehabilitation, but if someone's (theoretically) supposed to be in jail for their whole life, that means that the crime was so heinous that they don't have the capacity for rehabilitation.

That's how I understand life sentences at least.
Life sentences haven't really been intended to be life for a long time, for a long time it has essentially been a maximum of life and not necessarily intended as life in practice, whole life orders exist for those individuals for whom life should mean life and there are separate to you standard "life with a minimum of x". Life sentences as we know them weren't actually ever intended to be life routinely, it was a compromise for when Parliament went soft and abolished the death penalty

Interestingly the rate of whole life orders has increased since the ability to dish them out was reserved to the high court, between 1983 and 2002, when it was the government that issued them, only 23 were issued, the High Court in the last 20 years has issued 63
1
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#38
Report 1 month ago
#38
(Original post by Mainline421)
Prison is for rehabilitation and as I understand it there is already a "Whole life order" mecanism for preventing criminals from ever getting parole in extreme cases. Plus the UK's prisons are already overcowded, as such I can't support this bill atm but I do admit this isn't a subject I have any expertise in.
It really isn't...
1
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#39
Report 1 month ago
#39
(Original post by Aph)
Surely the way this is read means that because the sentence must be completely ignoring served negates the ability to overturn it?
No it says that the sentence must be fully carried out. If the sentence no longer exists then it need not (and cannot) be carried out - see?
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
It really isn't...
Seconded.
0
Lord Vitiate
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#40
Report 1 month ago
#40
I’ve never seen a more poorly thought-out Bill on here than this one.
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

People at uni: do initiations (like heavy drinking) put you off joining sports societies?

Yes (479)
66.44%
No (242)
33.56%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed