Originally Posted by jaysay (Post 1013970)

Former Premier League Footballer Andrew Hall, 18 has been jailed for the murder of his 15 year old girlfriend the judge said it was because he was jealous of her other friends. He knifed her around 60 times in her own home, yet the Judge sentenced him to life in prison, with a requirement that he serves at least 10 years:eek::eek::eek:Ten flaming years, if that had been my daughter I'd have been pulling my hair out at that sentence, knifing anybody 60 times tells me and most right minded people that this chap is a very dangerous person, and the thought that he could be back on the streets in 10 years is, to say the least frightening

Originally Posted by Mancie (Post 1014044)

It's not right and everyone knows it..the sentence of "life" terms for murder has been a not so funny joke for many years..and everyone knows it's about time this government make good on the promise to sort it out.

Originally Posted by Mancie (Post 1014044)

It's not right and everyone knows it..the sentence of "life" terms for murder has been a not so funny joke for many years..and everyone knows it's about time this government make good on the promise to sort it out.

Originally Posted by cashman (Post 1014064)

Well said Mancie, but wrong to blame this lot, yeh they should make good the promise, but the fact is Labour were even worse.:eek:

Originally Posted by Mancie (Post 1014072)

I'm not saying this lot are to blame but they did make a big play on making "life" mean life, but nothing has been done and to say any past government Tory or Labour have been even worse is not true.. I don't blame this government for any murders but to make a life sentence mean life has been law since the 50's.. if this government truly wanted to enforce a life sentence they could.

Originally Posted by Mancie (Post 1014072)

I'm not saying this lot are to blame but they did make a big play on making "life" mean life, but nothing has been done and to say any past government Tory or Labour have been even worse is not true.. I don't blame this government for any murders but to make a life sentence mean life has been law since the 50's.. if this government truly wanted to enforce a life sentence they could but it maybe one of the other things they put on the back burner... or nicely shoved it under the carpet ..Eh?

Originally Posted by annesingleton (Post 1014032)

Depends on the sentence Jaysay - if it was an indeterminate sentence that means that he would have to wait ten years before parole could be considered. He would not be able to apply for parole but the board would decide whether he could apply. It would have to be determined that he had completed a number of courses, had been of good behaviour and was not assessed as still being dangerous. It would be very unlikely that he would be released at that point and it is possible that he may never be released.
A different sentence would mean that he could apply for parole himself but that doesn't mean it would be granted - he would have to meet the same criteria. Most people aren't paroled at their first application.

Originally Posted by cashman (Post 1014076)

We will have to disagree on that point, Too many see good in everyone have infested the Labour party in my view,

Originally Posted by Mancie (Post 1014078)

Not sure what you are on about.. this bloke was sentenced yesterday.. what has is got to do with do gooding Labour?

Originally Posted by cashman (Post 1014080)

Nothing at all, I'm referring to how the do-gooders have ruined a party i always supported.;) i'm near sure Labour could have won the last election if the ordinary people believed they still actually stood up fer em.

Originally Posted by Mancie (Post 1014087)

I'm near sure "do gooders" had nowt to do with the last election...like I say nothing much has changed regarding sentencing for murder since the 50's..there is still a "life means life" sentence for murder on the books..it applied to the Krays, Bradey and such..I was saying and will repeat that this government made the promise they would enforce that sentence but they have not.

Originally Posted by Mancie (Post 1014087)

I'm near sure "do gooders" had nowt to do with the last election...like I say nothing much has changed regarding sentencing for murder since the 50's..there is still a "life means life" sentence for murder on the books..it applied to the Krays, Bradey and such..I was saying and will repeat that this government made the promise they would enforce that sentence but they have not.

Originally Posted by susie123 (Post 1014104)

He's under 21, can't be sentenced to "life means life":

In England and Wales, life imprisonment is a sentence which lasts until the death of the prisoner, although in most cases the prisoner will be eligible for parole (officially termed "early release") after a fixed period set by the judge. This period is known as the "minimum term" (previously known as the "tariff"). In some exceptionally grave cases however, a judge may order that a life sentence should mean life by making a "whole life order."

Life imprisonment is only applicable to defendants aged 21 or over. Those aged between 18 and 20 are sentenced to custody for life. Those aged under 18 are sentenced to detention during Her Majesty's pleasure for murder, or detention for life for other crimes where life imprisonment is the sentence for adults. However people under 21 may not be sentenced to a whole life order, and so must become eligible for parole.

Life imprisonment in England and Wales - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by Restless (Post 1014109)

Its a hard one to agree on.

What serves as a good deterrent for a person not to commit a heinous act?

Is it 'life' in prison? Is it the death penalty? Some say bring back hanging.. blah blah blah. When I hear that I think of 10 Rillington place.

Well. What I mean is this. Look to America and the crazies they have there. In some places they have the death penalty and it doesn't stop them from committing the crimes such as this. So does either deterrent work?

Is this really Human Nature? and no matter what cannot be stopped? If so it is a shame.

Originally Posted by annesingleton (Post 1014120)

I have experience of this and I can confirm that a person under the age of eighteen who is convicted of murder will receive a life sentence with a minimum tariff set.

Originally Posted by annesingleton (Post 1014124)

It was the correct result for the case I'm talking about, but tragic for all concerned.

Originally Posted by annesingleton (Post 1014075)

Please refer to my last posts, it really does depend on the sentence, if it's an indeterminate sentence for public protection it means that the person can be considered for parole after the determined period, but then if it's decided he might be eligible after meeting stringent criteria he/she can apply, but doesn't mean it will be granted. An indeterminate sentence is really much more serious than a life sentence when the prisoner can just apply after the designated sentence.

Originally Posted by cashman (Post 1014102)

It may be on the books, but rarely used, I mean jeez go back to the train robbers n sentences they got, It depends who yeh upset i.e. that was the Government twas there money, going to be destroyed, but theres. The Krays - murdering thugs, but never really did much against the innocent folk, They upset the Yard n Met etc, The cruelty n severity of Brady n Hindley ensured by public opinion they would never be released, but dickhead Longford still tried to get Hindley out. Knobs like him have helped make society what it is today in my opinion.

Originally Posted by jaysay (Post 1014181)

To me that's totally immaterial Anne anybody who stabs a 15 year old girl because he's jealous shouldn't even be eligible for parole never mind after 10 years, he's obviously a very dangerous person

Originally Posted by Restless (Post 1014109)

Its a hard one to agree on.

What serves as a good deterrent for a person not to commit a heinous act?

Is it 'life' in prison? Is it the death penalty? Some say bring back hanging.. blah blah blah. When I hear that I think of 10 Rillington place.

Well. What I mean is this. Look to America and the crazies they have there. In some places they have the death penalty and it doesn't stop them from committing the crimes such as this. So does either deterrent work?

Is this really Human Nature? and no matter what cannot be stopped? If so it is a shame.

Originally Posted by Eric (Post 1014340)

There is no deterrent for murder. Look at all the murders commited in Britain in any given year. (Don't look at the States; because there are just too many:rolleyes:). How many are actually premeditated? Many of them are what the French would call "Crimes of passion" ... only they would say it in frog:D In most cases, the perp and the victim are known to one another. Even mass murders are not "normal", in the sense that the killer is a nutbar. In the States, and maybe in most other Western Nations, many murders fall into the, let's say, "disgruntled postal worker" category. And let's not forget the murders that are a direct result of "The War on Drugs":rolleyes:

Originally Posted by Guinness (Post 1014390)

*Thread wander alert*

I'm of the opinion that the ability to commit premeditated murder is innate.

People from all walks of life, social upbringing, parental role models etc... have senselessly killed another human being. So I agree with you, there can be no such thing as an effective deterrent for a person who is amoral enough to commit an act as vile as taking a life.

Should murderers be executed? No..its far too humane, after all it's what we do for our sick animals, (and it wont be too long before we can do it to our sick relatives). As evidence I'll cite Gary Gilmore and more recently Anders Brevik who both pretty much begged to be be executed. Gilmore even went to court to select the method of his own destruction.

Should murderers die behind bars? Yes..it appeases my own 'innate' sense of fair play, even though it galls me to have to pay (via taxes) for them, never to have to worry about keeping a roof over their head, never having to worry about putting food on the table, never having to wait for a doctors/specialists appointment, never having to wait in their dementia ridden old age for a carer to pop in for a few minutes to give them their medication and microwaved ready meal.

But then I think, they are never going to spend a drunken friday night with good mates, a sunday walk in the woods with someone special, a drive round the ring of Kerry, a cruise down the nile, xmas with the family etc..etc.. and I really wouldn't mind my taxes being spent on life meaning life..

without the chance of parole..

ever..

Originally Posted by jaysay (Post 1013970)

Former Premier League Footballer Andrew Hall, 18 has been jailed for the murder of his 15 year old girlfriend the judge said it was because he was jealous of her other friends. He knifed her around 60 times in her own home, yet the Judge sentenced him to life in prison, with a requirement that he serves at least 10 years:eek::eek::eek:Ten flaming years, if that had been my daughter I'd have been pulling my hair out at that sentence, knifing anybody 60 times tells me and most right minded people that this chap is a very dangerous person, and the thought that he could be back on the streets in 10 years is, to say the least frightening

Originally Posted by kestrelx (Post 1014797)

If he serves at least 10 years that means he could be out when he's 29 which means he still would have part of his youth left ( youth meaning he'll still be young) What the law should do in these cases, because he took the life of someone, then the law should take his life, if not literally, then at least take away the quality of his life, in that he be let out when he is at least 40 years old and those youthful years lost for ever. To me that is fit punishment.

Originally Posted by kestrelx (Post 1014797)

If he serves at least 10 years that means he could be out when he's 29 which means he still would have part of his youth left ( youth meaning he'll still be young) What the law should do in these cases, because he took the life of someone, then the law should take his life, if not literally, then at least take away the quality of his life, in that he be let out when he is at least 40 years old and those youthful years lost for ever. To me that is fit punishment.

Originally Posted by Balbus (Post 1014897)

Prison is a punishment. The only people who think it isn't are those who have never been inside one. I have (professionally) frequently. I hated it and was always glad to get out at the end of the day. I only saw the "nicer" parts of the prison when interviewing Defendants, and that was bad enough.
Remember, if you treat people like animals, they will behave like animals (viz. the Strangeways riots).
Prison should (but not always does) work on the basis that there is always hope of redemption. That is what Parole is all about. Not everyone can be redeemed, that is why not everyone gets parole.
Bear in mind too, that the younger you are, the longer time appears. At 20, a 10 year sentence is half your life so far, and arguably a greater punishment than it would be for an old lag.

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington (Post 1014914)

It is sad that the families of the prisoner are punished......but shouldn't the prisoner have thought about them when he/she was perpetrating the act?

At least the family will get to see their relative on visiting day....the murdered persons family have been robbed of their relative and will never see them again.......I think you have to keep that perspective in mind.

Prison might feel bad to those who are only visiting, but the fact that many criminals re-offend means that it can't be that bad, or the thought of going back in would be a deterrent. It clearly isn't.

Originally Posted by susie123 (Post 1014922)

If we are talking about murder, as has been stated before on this thread, it is often if not usually a heat of the moment affair so the family is likely to be the last thing on the perpetrator's mind.