Shoutbox

if they send you in a prison when you are 20-30 and sentence you on life imprisonment then you're gonna get out when you are 60-70 and thats pretty darn old, so that is basically life imprisonment because your whole life is taken away from you and those last 10-20 years is gonna be false teeth and back ache.

Life Imprisonment should be as the name referts to, FOR LIFE, not for 40 years..now this reminds me the movie Green Mile where people were sentenced on death penalty which is wrong imo, anyone should have a life even though you're in a prison for life and you dont want to put to death..because maybe someone will see that there is no point and say hey, just finish me off..

life in jail never always happens they get let out on good behaviour bond or somthing you dont often hear of a person dieing in prison due to old age

ya they should really update that system, i think they called it life imprisonment because back in like the early 1900s it use to actually be all their life

im not sure about that tho ill have to research a bit but that would be my guess

quote:

---

Originally posted by lizard.boy
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.

---

I dont find punishing murder with murder a very valid idea.

They earn the right to murder because they are the government? Who are they to decide if somebody lives or not?

Imprison a 30 yr old guy and by the time he comes out at 70 his life is already over in a sense
Then they shouldnt call it life inprisionment ..... keep the max term as 40 yrs and give them 40 yrs inprisonment

I think it rlly depends of the situation.. if what ur trying to do is to try to teach that guy a lesson.. then give hi 40 yrs..

If you're trying to prevent a dangerous criminal from being active, put him away for life

I don't think it should mean life, what about mentally ill people who couldnt help their crimes? and what about rehabilitation?

My uncle is a schizo and is currently serving his life sentance. I've seen him once in my entire life, and he's nothing like my mum and dad told me he is. He talks to the vicar all the time and is truly sorry for what he's done.

And what about wrongly accused people, theyd never get a chance of freedom again for something they didn't do

IMO, they should make them serve the age of their victims, unless there victim is a child, then i think they should serve 25years

quote:

---

Originally posted by traxor
Life Imprisonment is 15 years afaik

---

I think it is, my uncles doing 17 years so its close enough

Indeed,

There are a number of reasons why sanctions are imposed on criminals. Namely:

Rehabilitation
Deterrence
Retribution
Incapacitation, and
Reintegrative shaming

Now a life sentence falls under Incapacitation (i.e the state is protecting society from further offenses) However it does not allow for rehabilitation.

quote:

---

Originally posted by pipish
life in jail never always happens they get let out on good behaviour bond or somthing you dont often hear of a person dieing in prison due to old age

---

A good behaviour bond is a criminal sanction that is only imposed during sentencing. It is usually used for more serious summary offenses (i.e high range drink driving etc). You seem to be refering to parole. When sentencing a judge imposes the actual term, but ALSO places a minimum term of which parole cannot be sought (i.e 25 years jail, with a 21year non-parole period) The offender must serve the minimum term. A parole board then asseses their application. They will NOT allow any old criminal out without good reason. They must be reformed.
As for a life sentence meaning an actual life sentence, (so as you say, a prisioner dies in jail) i addressed the common law precedent in an earlier post. I believe such provisions also exist in the relevant laws of the U.K. (As for America, their system to too corrupt for me to care)


As i said in a previous post. The law allows for judges to asses the situation on a case by case basis. If they believe the offender has no prospects for rehabilitation, or the crime was unusually abhorent, they may impose an actual full life sentence. However if the offender may reform theirselfs, a normal life sentence will be given, usually with a parole period.  Judges usually give the benefit of the doubt, so thats why you only see a few actually serve real life terms

ok what do u guys think about children commiting crimes like murder?

cause it does happen

It depends on the crime, however if the person has commited murdur I think that Life Imprisonment is a decent punishment. However accedental man slaughter doesn't deserve life, however it could be said that normal man slaughter does warrent life; also killing in self defence (if proven) doesn't warrent life.
Again, it's hard to just give one sentence for taking a life, there's a lot more to each case than that.

Personally I don't want Ian Huntley released, I think everyone in the UK really hates what he did. It's really hard to forgive someone like that no matter how much time passes. And if he's released from jail (no matter if its now or in 40 years) he'll likely end up being killed himself, because so many people hate him. That obviously doesn't mean it's right to kill him, but someone will always want him dead.