"LIFE"?

[eroticartist]

The media has been full of stories recently about the life sentence that does not mean life. The answer to all this nonsense that the public cannot understand is to abolish the life sentence and let the judge do his or her job by passing an appropriate sentence on conviction when all the evidence is fresh in open court and not years later decided by a parole board.

It is an injustice to have one sentence "life" when all homicides have unique and different circumstances. We have theoretical cases where after a pub fight someone dies after hitting their head on the pavement, a husband killing the wife in a domestic augument or a child killer who has tortured a child to death. Obviously the same sentence is inappropriate.

A child killer ,the most heinous of these examples, would attract a sentence of say eighty years. If this were done then everyone would be satisfied. Abolish the "life" that is distrusted by everyone, prisoners and public alike and sentence convicted criminals in open court at the time they are found guilty.
Mike Freeman

[Steve R]

These are dangerous ideas you express, Mike.

They smack of common sense.

[randyandy]

I can understand your point Mike but can also understand the views of vitims families who don't come under the 80 year child killer guideline.

They want life to mean life as much as any parent would.

The nonsense I've seen has been interpritation by judges at times when they have failed to do their jobs, be it in court 1st time or at appeal.

I don't know what the answer is but if a certain judge deemed a certain sentence for a certain crime it could still be appealed so perhaps sentencing and appeals should be looked at.

[eroticartist]

Randy,
I am saying scrap the "life" sentence. Give sentence that no-one would survive to the most heinous child killers.
Mike Freeman.

[eroticartist]

Marty,

Murder is killing with malice and aforethought. Most people convicted of murder in English courts do not come under this category.

Everyone should be entitled to a fair trial and to be judged by one's peers in open court but of course we should be able to defend ourselves,our property and our families without state sanctions.

Mike Freeman.

[steve56]

no they should hang them BUT hanging was stopped when i was about 9,in 1966 brady&hindley ,the wests,hartley,carr all should have hanged;instead if poor derek bentley that was all wrong.eroticartist wrote:

> Randy,
> I am saying scrap the "life" sentence. Give sentence that
> no-one would survive to the most heinous child killers.
> Mike Freeman.

[eroticartist]

Sorry Keith,

But you are wrong about the "tariff" which is seen as a sentence by most. However the truth is this: when the parole process starts which takes a few to several years the prison social workers, probation opfficers prison officers, governors, vicars all make a report about the prisoners behaviour in prison. If you have misbehaved, or been involved in any violence then the prisoner will do much longer inside than his better behaved fellow "lifers" most of whom are domestic murderers. So perhaps the guy that killed a person, as guilty as he was in a pub fight, or who killed a nasty gangster, could serve a lot longer than a child killer.

Some "lifers" never get out because they become violent, others because they commit suicide, die or are killed by another inmate. English prisons are tough places in which to survive. Most should not be there either because they are mentally ill,illiterate, or victims of crime themselves or of stress in an unnatural world. Very few are those who have planned to kill someone and carried it out for whatever motive.

The time to sentence a convicted criminal is at the time of conviction. Our judges in letting politicians sentence crimininals retospectively are not doing their duty. The state would like to give every convicted person a "life" sentence. They are now using it for an increasing number of offences.!shocked!
Mike Freeman.