should those people who commit murders as horrific and grusesome as the terry lee hurst murder (slaughter) be given a set prison sentence and shud the sentence have a minimum no lower than 25 yr,s as that is considered life shud that not be the minimum that they have to serve before they are given the chance to enter the outside world again or shud life mean life as that is the sentence that is handed out on most murders

No they ought to be hanged.

For once I agree with the man from BNP.

The death penalty is fraught with problems which if any of you have seen the Life of David Gale you will understand. There is no going back and there will always be cases where people are wrongly convicted.

I personally feel that we should have a system similar to that in some states of the US, where life really does mean life, and people are locked away in solitary confinement until they die.

Current sentences for murder are far too short, with most offenders only serving half the sentence given. As discussed on another thread, there also seems to be a direct correlation between level of publicity of the case and length of sentence passed.

Life should mean life. I don't agree with the death penalty because of the mistakes that are so often made but to count 15 years as a life sentence is wrong in my view.

I think the main issue here is the inconsistency with the sentances handed out.

i'm not 100% sure about some of the following details, so no shouting at me if I get them wrong....

The 12 yr old child who raped his teacher was given life - but could be out in 18 months??

The kids who killed another kid by throwing him in the river, got sentances of between 8 months and 18 months??

Judges are given suggested boundaries to use when applying sentances, but there does not seem to be any correlation between the amount given and then the amount actually served.... is this more to do with overcrowded jails ??

hangng or electrocuting murderer's is far too good for them and an easy get out in life
life sentances should in fact mean that, our systems are so wrong, we let offenders out of prison ie paedophiles, rapists annd murderers and they just re offend

Originally posted by LoopyLou


The 12 yr old child who raped his teacher was given life - but could be out in 18 months??

The kids who killed another kid by throwing him in the river, got sentances of between 8 months and 18 months??

Judges are given suggested boundaries to use when applying sentances, but there does not seem to be any correlation between the amount given and then the amount actually served.... is this more to do with overcrowded jails ??

The 12 year old child must serve a minimum of 21 months (which is a standard minimum) but is likely to be in for much longer due to his history and the circumstances of the case.

The children who threw another child in the river were convicted of manslaughter and weren't given life sentences, just the length that you mentioned as they didn't mean to kill the boy, it was an act of bullying gone 'wrong'.

The correlation between the sentence given and length served is generally half, unless the offender breaks prison rules or they have evidence to suggest they will re-offend in which case it will be longer.

For horrific murders , where theres no reasonable doubt involved then i dont think the murderers should be allowed to draw breath.
30 years isnt enough never mind 15.
But some crimes of passion eg cases like the ruth ellis one.
(which i might add she would probably only have recieved a manslaughter charge in this day and age) as her victim lied cheated and constantly provoked her.
I dont agree with a death sentence for things like that.
But child killers and horrific murder cases yes.
there just freaks of nature wasting the tax payers money
keeping them alive.

The minimum sentence with lifers is known as a tarriff which is decided by the judge, I can't remember if this can still be over ruled by the home secretary. The subsequent length of the sentence is dependant upon the tarriff and if the lifer adheres to their sentence plan ie addresses offending behaviour etc.

What is not over publicised is that upon release the lifer is released on liscense and can be recalled to prison should the appropriate recommendation be made. Numerous cases have been reported where a lifer has seved the original term to be recalled for almost half the original tarriff!

If the judiciary were to hand out the death sentence then what would happen in the case of miscarriages of justice? You can't resurrect the dead so you can say sorry.

Further reading for those who are interested would be: A life inside by Erwin James - an extremely good book which I found to be very informative.

I'm with the "life should mean life" crowd. With the guilty party forced to work whilst in prison instead of having a free hotel and attending woolly rehabilitation schemes costing £1000's per year.

Originally posted by royjames
No they ought to be hanged.

"An eye for an eye, and we all go blind" - Mahatma Gandhi

K x

Originally posted by Twiglet


The children who threw another child in the river were convicted of manslaughter and weren't given life sentences, just the length that you mentioned as they didn't mean to kill the boy, it was an act of bullying gone 'wrong'.


According to witnesses, the boy told them over and over that he couldn't swim, and once they threw him in knowing he couldn't swim, they didn't make any attempt to help him. How can that be bulling gone wrong? By the fact that they knew he couldn't swim, they should know that they are throwing him to his death. They should be held responsible for his death and by the fact that they didn't try and help him, they were letting him die. Bulling gone wrong! Don't make me laugh.
The judge could have given them life for manslaughter, the sentence they got is an insult to the poor boy who died a horrible death and to his family.

Jamie Oliver has highlighted that more money is pumped into prison meals than school catering. Why do we have cosy jails, its missing the point. The dumb idiots only go out and do it again anyway.

The NHS has had to stop supplying certain drugs to patients who have lived lawfully all their live.

The choice for capital punishment must be made an alternative.

Surely this thread falls under the very broad umbrella of "politics" and should therefore be locked away?

Prison should be a deterrent, not a holiday camp like most UK prisons are.

After reading the book "Damage done", about a man locked in a Thai prison for 12 years for smuggling drugs.. I realised THAT is what all prisons should be like, as once you're out.. You're too scared to commit any crime in fear of being sent back.

Also, prevention is better than cure.. so once word of this type of incarceration get's out, a whole lot of people are gunna think twice about doing something that may give them a stint there....

GazB

I don't think that any nick (other than some of the open Cat D's) could be described as cosy- imagine an over crowded cell on 23 hour bang up with your two pad mates climbing the walls, not overly cosy is it?

The line between rehabilitation and punishment is a very fine one - surely it's better to encourage inmates attend courses like SOTP and ETS while they are remanded to ensure that they address offending behaviour than to bang 'em up with nothing to do or aim for.

The real question is: what would you like, a pennitent, reformed ex-offender with the skills to make a fresh start or a resentful, hatefilled ex-con who will reoffend as he has no job, stability or skills?

I'm not daft enough to think that every person afforded a chance of rehabilitation will take it but surely the opportunity should be there in the first place?

I agree life should mean life. ESPECIALLY for the sort of murderers who are killing children, attacking women, the likes of Ian Huntley, Peter Sutcliffe and the rest, these killers have serious mental health disorders and they are almost guaranteed to reoffend if let out. The majority don't believe what they have done is wrong, they don't know what remorse is and as a result see no problem in doing it again.

I've visited Belize jail in Central America with the RMP whilst stationed there. The police there had caught two Americans smuggling drugs into the country. These men were locked up with the other inmates.

During the 3 days they were there they were gang raped every hour by the other men and had a shower once a day when the hose was turned on them.

This was also to wash out all the s**t and they held up containers to gather water as it was constantly 30-40 degrees C. All the waste gathered into a pit in the centre of the isolated camp and had flies and mosquitos constanbtly hovering.

If you gave the government there £20 a day to take British prisoners we would see suicides here rather than go to jail.

When cons have done their turn in jail it doesn't make the victims any more comfortable, it just makes them fearful of reprisals.

Fixed term jail sentences are like black and white, there is no such thing apart from in the sun and the edge of the universe

Originally posted by Foxxx
According to witnesses, the boy told them over and over that he couldn't swim, and once they threw him in knowing he couldn't swim, they didn't make any attempt to help him. How can that be bulling gone wrong? By the fact that they knew he couldn't swim, they should know that they are throwing him to his death. They should be held responsible for his death and by the fact that they didn't try and help him, they were letting him die. Bulling gone wrong! Don't make me laugh.
The judge could have given them life for manslaughter, the sentence they got is an insult to the poor boy who died a horrible death and to his family.

Sorry, it wasn't my opinion, just what I read from reports. I think they should have got a much longer sentence than they did. Apparently what happened was that they dangled him off the bridge but never intended to let go, but they lost their grip and he fell in. Whether this is true or just their version I guess no-one will ever know.

i thnik that life should mean life, not in the luxury that appears to be what many prisoners are experiencing today in the uk. murderers shouldnt be given the chance to die for their crimes, i know that i for one would much rather die than spend the rest of my life in a cell.

yes if you take a life, you should serve life

life should mean life - if you kill someone then you should spend the rest of your days behind bars. The death penalty is an easy way out - they should have time to reflect on what they have done and realise the misery they have caused to their victims and victims family. They should live everyday hoping for death - no cushty cells and tvs. Solitary confinement and just enough food to keep them alive. Prisons would be a lot cheaper to run if that were the case. And if we're talking money ect deport anyone who wasn't born in the UK back to their country of origin to be locked up there.

yes if you take a life, you should serve life

You dug up a 6 year old thread???
Why?

i agree life should mean life! my mum got murdered by my father and he only served a mere 5 and a 1/2yr its wrong were is the justice for my mum

200 years seems a good idea and only let out if they agree to live with their parents:D