Life Sentences

johnnyskeleton

Interesting article in the Irish Times:

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/average-life-sentence-up-to-two-decades-from-7-years-in-1980s-1.2181655

There are a lot of myths about life sentences. People will often claim that "life" is really only X years, usually to support an argument that it is inadequate or, in the less well thought out opinion pieces, that Judges are not handing down sufficiently lengthy sentences. So to clarify at the very start:

A life sentence lasts for a person's entire life. If the prison authorities carry out a Judge's order of life imprisonment without any executive interference, that person will remain in prison until they die. It is a function of the Minister for Justice (via the Parole board) to determine whether someone should be released on licence. When they are released, they can be put back in prison for breaching their licence and technically (but not in reality) for no reason at all. A person subject to a life sentence can be kept in prison for their entire lives although I'm not sure how many lifers have actually died in prison (Malcom McArthur served 30 years in prison, being released at the age of 67, John Shaw is still in prison 37 years on).

A controversial issue that arises whenever a life sentence is handed down or is being discussed is the fact that a lifer can apply for release after 7 years have passed. As far as I know the earliest ever granted was c.9 years.

So I suppose the first question is whether the Executive should be allowed to release people on licence when they have been judicially sentenced to a life term of imprisonment. There are situations where there must be exceptional circumstances or where the offender is unlikely to commit any further offences.

But I wonder if it is time for Judges to set minimum tarriffs like they do in the UK? A Judge on hearing the case will be best acquainted with the facts and the significance of the Prosecution's evidence. As time passes, the effect of these may be lost on the parole board as they focus more on the person's rehabilitation etc. It would thus be that a Judge can ensure they serve a minimum period, and the Minister can keep them in prison for even longer should she so wish.

In the alternative, if the Minister was minded to grant release on licence, perhaps it should go back before the Courts for the Judge who sentenced (or, if retired, another sitting Judge) to express a view as to whether the release is or is not justified.

EDIT: Needless to say, this thread is not directed towards any particular case(s) that are ongoing.

DavidRamsay99

If a person commits murder they should never be released. They should die in prison. End of.

Godge

Interesting discussion possible on this.

There are degrees of murder. We only have murder and manslaughter. There should be considerable discretion therefore for judges in making sentences.

So for a parole board to come along less than a decade later and reduce the sentence does raise questions. Yet, at the same time, if a judge does not or cannot exercise discretion in sentencing, then somebody has to. At the same time, this should not just be based on whether someone has reformed.

It is hard to explain without considering real-life cases. You read about Dwyer or Nash and you see pre-meditated cruelty and a likelihood to re-offend based on the type of person they are yet should they spend as long in prison as someone like Lillis who appears to have had a one-off incident?

DavidRamsay99

Godge wrote: »

Interesting discussion possible on this.

There are degrees of murder. We only have murder and manslaughter. There should be considerable discretion therefore for judges in making sentences.

So for a parole board to come along less than a decade later and reduce the sentence does raise questions. Yet, at the same time, if a judge does not or cannot exercise discretion in sentencing, then somebody has to. At the same time, this should not just be based on whether someone has reformed.

It is hard to explain without considering real-life cases. You read about Dwyer or Nash and you see pre-meditated cruelty and a likelihood to re-offend based on the type of person they are yet should they spend as long in prison as someone like Lillis who appears to have had a one-off incident?

If a prisoner is extremely violent and dangerous he/she should be kept away from other prisoners for his/her safety and the good of other prisoners but at the end of the day murder is murder and they should all be banged up together.

Life should mean life. No ifs, buts or maybes.

If a well heeled movie director kills his actress wife with an antique lamp because she was having an affair and he ends up in the same wing as a traveler who torture murdered his wife with a black and decker that's just too bad.

Manach

Life should mean life but ...

Myth - usual originate from a core of fact and are still around as they can still teach (Greek gifts). To many, while divided into 3 branches as power by nature (Federalist Papers) the state is simply the state no matter what mask it wears. Given as well the divisions with law itself and the state itself from kingly times issued executive royal pardons. Now unlike those times, death penalty has been abolished. In these enlightened times (as people now are so very morally superior to that past) and as the ECHR would frown on at Ireland, it is unlikely to make a comeback.

However the promises of the politicians at the time of the change from capital to life, that such fatal punishments would be an equivalence in prison have proved false (stunningly). While welcome that there has been recently some re-balancing by allowing victim statements/impacts in some common law jurisdiction, the other balancing factor of economics comes into play. Keeping prisioners is expensive, in some cases more expensive to incarcerate than to put people through 3rd level eduction. Thus while the redemptive effects of prison are toted by the progressives (which is actually the case for quoting the book Future Crime, prisons now act as the premier means by which a criminal upscales their illegal skills ) in reality the time that the average person speeds will be a function of the cost to keep her and life will never mean life any more.

Thus to rely on the individual judgment of a Justice minister (e.g. Shatter) is a broken read.