Shoutbox

Whoah I thought lfe imprisonment was imprisonment for life.  It should be.  Haha I always wondered why they would say you are sentence to two life imprisonments

Life.

well personally he should get the death sentance but hey im a harsh b*****d.

Its been proven beyond doubt that he did it, so why should the UK tax payers have to pay to keep him in prison

[/end of view]

quote:

---

Originally posted by traxor
Life Imprisonment is 15 years afaik, I think life inprisonment should be enforced, at least until the convict is well over 70, and unable to commit any more offences .

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hmaster
I thought 'life imprisonment' was 25 years

---

depends what country (and state) you're in as to how long a 'life' sentence is. in victoria (australia) we have a life sentence (not sure how long that is) and also life never to be released, which is just that, NEVER to be released.

i personally think that it shouldnt be called a life sentence if they're not in there for life.

i also like the US way of doing things. 9 consecutive life sentences lmao, that's brilliant, means that person would be in there for like 200 years if they didnt die

I think Life should be... well... all your life... I don't agree with sentencing people with multiple life sentences... as they'll only be able to serve one... I just believe that some people do deserve parole from it, and some don't.

quote:

---

Originally posted by lordy16

i also like the US way of doing things. 9 consecutive life sentences lmao, that's brilliant, means that person would be in there for like 200 years if they didnt die

---

lol no, they do that incase they later get evidence that gets them out of a life sentance, however 9 life sentances are harder to prove than one.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mwe99

quote:

---

Originally posted by lordy16

i also like the US way of doing things. 9 consecutive life sentences lmao, that's brilliant, means that person would be in there for like 200 years if they didnt die

---

lol no, they do that incase they later get evidence that gets them out of a life sentance, however 9 life sentances are harder to prove than one.

---

like is they kill 9 ppl, they sometimes get 9 life sentences for each person they've killed if they can prove all of the murders

In Australia the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 1900 (NSW) defines "life inprisonment" as a period of 25years incarceration.

However, The case of Regina v Travers, Murdoch, and Murphy (1987) [NSWSC] set a legal common law precedent. The judge handed down a life term for the Anita Cobby rapists/murderers. However he also recommended that the prisioners were to "never be released"

This was then enshined within legelation passed by state paliament.


So in NSW at least a judge may say that the life term does indeed mean life. (There are currently only 5 or 6 who have being sentenced as such)

Such a situation gives flexibility to the judiciary when passing sentence. Its not as black or white as saying it should/ shouldnt be.  The law here as it stands allows judges to determine that on a case by case basis.

i almost think that if the person did something bad enough to warrent life in prison, they should be given the death penalty. it would save hundreds of thousands in tax payers money, and other crimianls may think twice if someones being executed more often.

The death penalty huh?

And have the state commit the very action they condemn? Cant get any more hypocritical than that.

The world is moving away from the death penalty. The forward thinking countries of the west removed the ultimate sanction decades ago. The savages of the United States southern states and many backward regimes need to abolish it too. The death penalty should never be an option in an advanced and socially evolved society