Should 'life imprisonment' really mean 'imprisonment for life'?

Question

The two killers of a London lawyer have been sent down for 'life' meaning they will serve minimum terms of 17 and 21 years respectively so they could be only 35 and 40 when released. But nomal life expectancy is at least 70 - so should they not be held at least until then - or, in my view, until they die of old age? The prospect of remaining behind bars for the rest of their natural lives should cause such thugs to think about the consequences before they attack innocent people.

Surely punishment should fit the crime- and most victims and their families are surely entitled to exact revenge. Knowing that criminals will forfeit their own lives by rotting and suffering in prison for their remaining years is perhaps a better revenge than execution - which is over in a second.

Answer 1

life should mean life, they took a life, and they should have to sacrifice their own for it (kill them i say), they are a waste of space, time, money and oxygen

Answer 2

Depends on what your goal is in incarcerating someone. If the aim is pure punishment, then maybe. If the aim is public protection, then maybe yes, if they continue to pose a danger. If the goal is to change people, then anyone working in a prison will tell you that there is a limit to what can be achieved in this regard while the person is in custody. At the end of the day there are only so many courses you can put someone one, and very few prisons are able to offer the kind of intensive therapy which is sometimes needed.

Regarding your comment about thinking about the consequences: study after study shows that longer sentences don't work as a deterrant. It's a lot more compex than that. People don't usually make neat cost benefit analyses when they're about to commit a serious violent offence, or they underestimate their chances of being apprehended, or they didn't know the law in the first place, or they weren't making a rational decision anyway due to emotional distress, mental health problems, drugs/alcohol, etc.

Answer 3

I don't know that it would make them think any more about it than they do already. For these people, the most serious matter, death, means nothing to them already so spending their life in prison will mean nothing either. They would become institutionalised and have access to more drugs inside prison than they would outside. They would possibly even be revered inside.

I appreciate that life should mean life for some crimes but even the prospect of actually spending your whole life in prison as in many states in US doesn't dissuade such people from their actions.

There is also an argument that if you offer a criminal no opportunity to be released earlier, then he will never have the chance to regret his actions and atone for them. If they are to spend the rest of their lives in prison anyway, these sorts of people may consider they might as well go on a crazy bender which will obviously be worse.

I'm not really sure what the answer is. Rehabilitation might be one but there are some that can't be or aren't worth rehabilitating. They could also feign rehabilitation, get released and start all over again.

Maybe some form of restorative justice would be better where they were made to face the relatives of their victims would be better and may make them remorseful.

Answer 4

Life should mean life, but there is a problem with sex crimes meaning life, if for example a person had committed several rapes the chances are if the sentencing was made harsher the chances are that the person committing them will think that it make no difference to sentencing if I get caught if I kill the person or not.

Murder, Rape and other serious offences should carry the maximum sentence .

As for the great train robbers no one was killed but the train driver had a serious head injury when one of the robbers clubbed him and also back then sentencing was harsher.

I think that in some cases fraud and technically complex cases that jury system should be professionals only, as the members of the public as a whole did not understand the complexities involved
in these sorts of cases. I would include myself in this category before anyone complains about that.

A lot of the problems of overcrowding etc is the government's own fault, after all giving local authorities powers to put people in prison for non payment of council tax. If you default on a debt to a private company that does not happen.

Additionally ALL prisoners who have been in for "life" (otherwise known as about 7 years including any remand they may have already done) are out on license for the remainders of their life.

Answer 5

To play Devil's Advocate, can't you say that after (at least) 17 years in jail a person has paid his debt to society? Don't forget, a person will only be released if the parole board are sure they are not a threat to society, they will not release even after 17 years if the person in jail is perceived to be a threat. You only need to look at the Myra Hindley and Ian Brady as prime examples of when people will not (or in the case of Hindley [after serving 30 years], did not) ever be released from jail.
Whether there is any point in keeping 60 year old people locked up behind bars for a crime they committed in their youth is highly debatable.
People should be punished, life should mean a significant portion of their life...but people rotting in jail for 40 years, makes no sense.
Bruver

Answer 6

Yes definitely. The fiance and family of the lawyer killed in London will not be seeing him in 17 odd years. The 2 guys that killed him took away a life and should be punished accordingly. Anything less is an insult to the victims family.

Answer 7

I believe 'life' should mean the life of the prisoner. If a more 'lenient' sentence is passed it should be 20 - 30 - 40 years (or what's seen as appropriate). If they are going to do 17 and 21 years why isn't that their sentence?

Answer 8

I think that when someone gets "life" in prison, it should be regarded the same as the "death penalty", because if they are sentenced to "life", should'nt they die in prison?? Well, I think that once a dirtbag, is given "life" or "death", they should be escorted out of the court room after sentencing, and taken to another room, for execution. I think this way dirtbags get more of a message, than sitting in prisons, earning degrees, watching cable, and pumping iron so when they get out they can cause more forceful harm. I don't think its fair for death penalty dirtbags to live life for 10+ years before they are put to death. Think of the tax money that would be saved. And the peace of mind for the victims.

Answer 9

Prison is (in theory) a place to keep criminals. In this place they should think about their crimes and regret for what they did.
So I think it is fair to release criminals from prison, as long as they know that what they did was wrong.
Unfortunately, nowadays, prison is nothing more than a place where you learn how to improve your criminal skills. And once they are released from jail, they will land in the middle of a society that keeps pointing the finger to them for their crimes.
Bottom line, I don't think we should judge for the rest of its life, a person that made a mistake (no matter how bad it was). As long as there is life, there is hope for change.

Answer 10

I totally agree. This whole business when people commit murder and then only serve 'a few years' makes a mockery of the sentence. I think life should mean life. The justice system in the UK is a joke..

Answer 11

I agree with you. It seems that prisoners can get out early for good behaviour. I would argue that if they had shown good behaviour in the first place, they wouldn't be in prison.

Yes, life should mean life. For lesser sentences, if prisoners do not show good behaviour, they should be kept in for longer than the original sentence.

As for prisons being full, why not build a big one on Gruinard Island, off Scotland. A British equivalent of Alcatraz.