"Whole life" prison term

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Is the legal wording of this terminology something that is similar to the use of the word "life" that is used as stated in a life sentence. What is the legal definition of the word "life" when used in sentencing, as it surely cannot relate to the life expectancy of the person who receives this sentence.

It is surely time to cease the use of this anachronistic terminology and substitute this with a set number of years when sentencing is passed down.

 

[flymo]

Any person who receives a life sentence (used to be about 25 years I think) is never truly freed should they have served their 'life' sentence. Any of these 'lifers' can be recalled to prison at any time with or sometimes without reason, as is my understanding.

I also understand that a 'whole life' prison term means that the prisoner will never be freed under normal circumstances.

(willing to be corrected of course).

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I note that in 1952, John Straffen was reprieved from the death sentence on account of his learning difficulties and remained in prison serving the whole life sentence handed down in lieu until his death in prison in November 2007, having served 56 years of this sentence.

 

[yorksrob]

Is the legal wording of this terminology something that is similar to the use of the word "life" that is used as stated in a life sentence. What is the legal definition of the word "life" when used in sentencing, as it surely cannot relate to the life expectancy of the person who receives this sentence.

It is surely time to cease the use of this anachronistic terminology and substitute this with a set number of years when sentencing is passed down.

The terminology of a "whole life" sentence is extremely clear in that it means detainment for the rest of the prisoners natural life.

If any terminology needs modification it is the term "life" sentence which usually means release at some stage albeit on license, and therefore seems unclear/dishonest to the public.

Unless the OP is arguing that the whole life tariff itself is anachronistic, which seems to be a different debate.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It is surely time to cease the use of this anachronistic terminology and substitute this with a set number of years when sentencing is passed down.

A whole life tariff isn't an accident of terminology, it is a specific and distinct sentence as laid down under British law.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

If any terminology needs modification it is the term "life" sentence which usually means release at some stage albeit on license, and therefore seems unclear/dishonest to the public.

I think I was attempting to use the uncertainty of the legal terminology of "life" as used, where this bears no relation whatsoever to the expected life expectancy of the accused, by then trying to attempt to draw a connotation to the same word "life" when used in the legal terminology of "whole life", where the word "life" seems to have a different time factor when used in this context.

 

[yorksrob]

I think the word "whole" draws the necessary distinction between a whole life tariff and other types of sentence.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Did the European Court of Human Rights use comparisons to other member states of the EC and their maximum sentencing terms in formulating their decision on the matter of whole life sentences?

The matter of the more commonly used "life" sentence terminology is meaningless as it has no connotation to the life of the accused when viewed by the general public who do not fully understand the strictures that this implies and that is why a stated figure of years should replace this anachronistic terminology.

 

[yorksrob]

I have no idea what posessed the ECHR to deliver such a judgement.

As for wording, I agree entirely that the legal system should be explicit in terms of the sentence to be served and not hide behind misleading terminology.

 

[Bevan Price]

Did the European Court of Human Rights use comparisons to other member states of the EC and their maximum sentencing terms in formulating their decision on the matter of whole life sentences?

The matter of the more commonly used "life" sentence terminology is meaningless as it has no connotation to the life of the accused when viewed by the general public who do not fully understand the strictures that this implies and that is why a stated figure of years should replace this anachronistic terminology.

The European shower neglect the deprivation of human rights of those people murdered by scumbags.

I think that the sentence for a murder (with no extenuating circumstances) should be 100 years in prison with no chance of parole, multiplied by the number of murder victims.

 

[Bungle73]

I think that the sentence for a murder (with no extenuating circumstances) should be 100 years in prison with no chance of parole, multiplied by the number of murder victims.

Ridiculous. You do realise that all murders are NOT the same? Obviously not.

 

[yorksrob]

Ridiculous. You do realise that all murders are NOT the same? Obviously not.

Up until this disgusting ruling, the reservation of the whole life tariff for murder in only the most depraved of circumstances served to strengthen the distinction between murders in different circumstances. What a pity the ECtHR has ignored this distinction and chosen to enforce its own opinions over this country instead.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Up until this disgusting ruling, the reservation of the whole life tariff for murder in only the most depraved of circumstances served to strengthen the distinction between murders in different circumstances. What a pity the ECtHR has ignored this distinction and chosen to enforce its own opinions over this country instead.

The ruling is in relation to the lack of a review of the sentence after 25 years served, which existed until 2003. They haven't ruled whole life sentences illegal.

 

[yorksrob]

The ruling is in relation to the lack of a review of the sentence after 25 years served, which existed until 2003. They haven't ruled whole life sentences illegal.

These are meaningless semantics. The whole point of the whole life tariff is that a judge has ruled the crime to be so heinous as to be deserving of imprisonment for the rest of the offenders natural life, not for other reasons such as public safety.

How on earth can the Court say that it has not suspended whole life tariffs and atthe same time insist that prisoners cannot be incarcerated with no prospect of release ? The very fact that a review must take place can only undermine the whole life nature of the original sentence in all but the most extreme cases of compassionate exceptions (which are already allowed for under present arrangements).

The court is lying through its teeth to obscure a wholly unjustified intrusion into national penal policy.

 

[Oswyntail]

These are meaningless semantics. .... The very fact that a review must take place can only undermine the whole life nature of the original sentence .....

They semantics are not meaningless, though you may disagree with the distinction. IMHO, there are two little made points

• Forgiveness is, in my opinion, one of the characteristics that makes us human. Even for the most heinous crimes, I would not like to see that possibility ruled out.
• The other side of the coin is that the hope of possible release eventually can increase the intensity of the punishment. Take away all hope and you can simply accept your situation

But, there again, my liberalism is already well despised here

 

[yorksrob]

They semantics are not meaningless, though you may disagree with the distinction. IMHO, there are two little made points

• Forgiveness is, in my opinion, one of the characteristics that makes us human. Even for the most heinous crimes, I would not like to see that possibility ruled out.
• The other side of the coin is that the hope of possible release eventually can increase the intensity of the punishment. Take away all hope and you can simply accept your situation

But, there again, my liberalism is already well despised here

Oswyntail,

Although I profoundly disagree with your liberalism (in this instance )

I do not despise it. I merely believe that such decisions should be decided through public discourse and not imposed through judicial activism.

I also strongly object to a public court trying to hide the profound nature of its decision behind the language of technicality.

 

[Flamingo]

Oswyntail,

Although I profoundly disagree with your liberalism (in this instance )

I do not despise it. I merely believe that such decisions should be decided through public discourse and not imposed through judicial activism.

I also strongly object to a public court trying to hide the profound nature of its decision behind the language of technicality.

Of course the disadvantage with "public discourse" is that the Great British Public are thick... http://railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=86481

 

[yorksrob]

Yet the public instinctively seem to know that there is something fundamentally corrupt and rotten about a body over which they have no influence or power of redress making up the law under which they must live according to the personal prejudices of its members.

 

[SS4]

At the risk of invoking Godwin's Law other regimes have locked people up indefinitely and have been rightly condemned. Perhaps most obvious is the Soviet Gulag and prison system and whilst some of people were never guilty of anything there were some criminals as evidenced by their release to fight in the War (political prisoners were generally not released).

Of course this is likely reductio ad absurdum but that sort of thing is what the ECHR tries to protect when domestic courts have proved incompetent. A 16-1 outcome makes it pretty clear what the true position is

I'm quite surprised to see Article 3 come in for some flak though I shan't be surprised if the UK government (and their buddies in a rabidly anti-EU press) have blown it out of proportion in order to turn the population further against the EU.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Yet the public instinctively seem to know that there is something fundamentally corrupt and rotten about a body over which they have no influence or power of redress making up the law under which they must live according to the personal prejudices of its members.

You know, that could easily refer to Whitehall (think Workfare)

 

[yorksrob]

The treatment meated out in the gulag neither followed due process nor was it proprtionate to the imagined "crimes" committed. I would find it astonishing if anyone considered that situation to be remotely comparable to the WLT.

As for Whitehall, I'm well aware of its shortcomings, but it is , however tenuously , answerable to elected members.

 

[cmjcf]

The treatment meated out in the gulag neither followed due process nor was it proprtionate to the imagined "crimes" committed. I would find it astonishing if anyone considered that situation to be remotely comparable to the WLT.

As already established, the general public are thick, and have no idea what's best for themselves, let alone anyone else. Hence the cognitive dissonance in suggesting that the North Koreans are oppressive but it's OK when we do the same thing.

As for Whitehall, I'm well aware of its shortcomings, but it is , however tenuously , answerable to elected members.

Nonsense. Elected members don't run the country. Which is a good thing, given they're just as thick ad the rest of us.

 

[yorksrob]

If you're incapable of discerning the difference between society that decides upon a proportionate punishment for a given offence through its elected representitives and administers that punishment through an independent judiciary, and one which can throw you in the gulag on the whim of the "dear " leader, then I would suggest that you are in no fit position to be casting aspertions on the intelligence or otherwise of the British public.

I'm curious to know how you come by your assertion that the British public are "thick". Have you conducted some peer reviewed research that we all should know about or is it just something that you've read on the internet ?

And since the general public have "no idea what's best for them", I wonder what form of Government would suit your world view. Theocracy ? Absolute monarchy perhaps.

 

[Flamingo]

Benign dictatorship every time

 

[cmjcf]

If you're incapable of discerning the difference between society that decides upon a proportionate punishment for a given offence through its elected representitives and administers that punishment through an independent judiciary,

Again with the cognitive dissonance. "It's alright when we do it."

and one which can throw you in the gulag on the whim of the "dear " leader,

Control orders? 28 days? "Special Tribunals"? Nope, my mistake, must have been thinking about some other United Kingdom.

I'm curious to know how you come by your assertion that the British public are "thick".

Mostly through the evidence that's staring us all in the face.

And since the general public have "no idea what's best for them", I wonder what form of Government would suit your world view. Theocracy ? Absolute monarchy perhaps.

Technocracy. Government by the competent, rather than the popular.

 

[ainsworth74]

Government by the competent, rather than the popular.

Define 'competent'.

 

[yorksrob]

Again with the cognitive dissonance. "It's alright when we do it."


Control orders? 28 days? "Special Tribunals"? Nope, my mistake, must have been thinking about some other United Kingdom.


Mostly through the evidence that's staring us all in the face.


Technocracy. Government by the competent, rather than the popular.

Well, if you‘re worried about 28 days and special tribunals, complain about them, not WLT‘s.

BTW, who was it who ditched 28days detention? Oh yes, it was boring old accountable parliament, full of all those home grown thickies you decry so much.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
As for cognitive dissonance - yes, it is alright when we lock someone upwhen they‘ve been convicted for a crime that carries that sentence. Are you suggesting that you disagree with this concept ?

 

[cmjcf]

BTW, who was it who ditched 28days detention? Oh yes, it was boring old accountable parliament, full of all those home grown thickies you decry so much.

Broken clocks, and all that.

As for cognitive dissonance - yes, it is alright when we lock someone upwhen they‘ve been convicted for a crime that carries that sentence.

That's all right, then. The Russians and the Chinese can't hand down inhuman sentences for offences that carry them, but it's different when we hand down inhuman sentences for offences that carry them.

 

[yorksrob]

Broken clocks, and all that.

Well, I must admit, that is the phrase that springs to mind on the occasions when the ECtHR does churn out a decision that seems to make sense.

That's all right, then. The Russians and the Chinese can't hand down inhuman sentences for offences that carry them, but it's different when we hand down inhuman sentences for offences that carry them.

I don't really see your point.

Surely if we as a country decided that a WLT wasn't an inhuman punishment and China or Russia democratically decided that a WLT wasn't an inhumane punishment then, presupposing the following the circumstances were met:

• We were satisfied that the democratic process by which the punishment was instituted was robust

• Russia and China used the punishment in similar circumstances as us - i.e. we felt that they used that proportionately

• We were satisfied that they had a robust judicial system

Then there would be no issue. We as countries would agree that a WLT wasn't an inhumane punishment and we wouldn't try to stop them using it, we wouldn't want to stop them using it and we wouldn't raise it as an issue. It would be fine.

Of course, we might disagree if all these circumstances weren't met, but if that were the case, we would raise their democratic record, their judicial record or the proportionality of their sentences (compared to ours).

The WLT itself would have nothing to do with it.

 

[cmjcf]

Surely if we as a country decided that a WLT wasn't an inhuman punishment

Then we as a country would be wrong.

Let's be clear so there's no understanding here. A life sentence is for life. The judge places a tariff, which normally a convict must serve in prison. After this, they can apply to be released, where they serve out the rest of their sentence at home. If they misbehave, they can be "transferred" back to prison. There's no need for a special category above this. If people are still a danger to society, then by and large we don't let them out.

 

[yorksrob]

Then we as a country would be wrong.

Let's be clear so there's no understanding here. A life sentence is for life. The judge places a tariff, which normally a convict must serve in prison. After this, they can apply to be released, where they serve out the rest of their sentence at home. If they misbehave, they can be "transferred" back to prison. There's no need for a special category above this. If people are still a danger to society, then by and large we don't let them out.

With respect, that's your opinion.

The WLT is absolutely no different from a traditional "life" tariff except that by the standards set out by society, the crime or crimes committed are deemed to be so serious that the punitive section of the sentence, i.e. the tariff must last the rest of the prisoners natural life.

It's not for you to decide whether we need a special category or not (not that a WLT is a special category for the reason explained above). Your opinion is as valid as everyone else's but only as part of the settled opinion of the country, which includes my opinion and the rest of the population.

 

[cmjcf]

With respect, that's your opinion.

However, unlike yours, it appears to be supported by the facts.

The WLT is absolutely no different from a traditional "life" tariff except that by the standards set out by society, the crime or crimes committed are deemed to be so serious that the punitive section of the sentence, i.e. the tariff must last the rest of the prisoners natural life.

That's a rather important difference. As mentioned, it means that uniquely they do not have the right to challenge their detention, something that is regarded as a fundamental right of the imprisoned. We as a society are not entitled to decide that they don't deserve that right. That's why we call them "rights".

It's not for you to decide whether we need a special category or not (not that a WLT is a special category for the reason explained above). Your opinion is as valid as everyone else's but only as part of the settled opinion of the country, which includes my opinion and the rest of the population.

On matters of the law, if offered the choice between 17 legal professionals of long standing and experience, who have examined the facts in some considerable detail, and a nation of mouth-breathers who seemingly believe everything they read in the papers, I know whose opinion I'm going to trust. To ape the old saying, this many people can be wrong.