Talk:Whole life tariff
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Harry Roberts
If it is indeed accurate that Roberts was not "officially handed a whole-life tariff", then why is he in the table? It's not a table of "prisoners with a whole-life tariff plus a couple of others who probably won't ever get out so let's stick them in too"! Loganberry (Talk) 00:03, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
- There are a handful of prisoners who are on whole life tariffs but have never been publicly confirmed as such - Roberts is believed to be one of them. Perhaps a further list is required of such prisoners, assuming we're prepared to dip our toes into the water of speculation and hearsay? Bentley Banana 14:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Right, I've embellished the list of "rumoured" with a new table. The page is starting to look complete. I've also put in requests for pages on Hall, Hilton and Green in the hope that we can add them to the top table and complete the job. Bentley Banana 11:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not British, but why don't they publicize all the people on the list? Thanos6 07:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- Ongoing appeals, ill health, wishes of victims' families, all sorts I suspect. 83.100.150.94 18:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
- It's at the discretion of the prisoners and their leagl teams, not the Home Office, to decide whether their status should be made public. Bentley Banana 19:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Ongoing appeals, ill health, wishes of victims' families, all sorts I suspect. 83.100.150.94 18:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not British, but why don't they publicize all the people on the list? Thanos6 07:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- Right, I've embellished the list of "rumoured" with a new table. The page is starting to look complete. I've also put in requests for pages on Hall, Hilton and Green in the hope that we can add them to the top table and complete the job. Bentley Banana 11:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Myra Hindley
She's not on a whole life tariff any more; she's dead. Surely she shouldn't be in the table, but instead in the paragraph with Kray? Bentley Banana 14:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Harold Shipman
He too is not on a whole life tariff any more; he's dead. Therefore the reasoning for his removal from the table applies too? Bentley Banana 14:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] International content
How does the British concept of "whole life tariff" relate to the American concept of "life imprisonment without parole"? --GCarty 14:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- The British version is not an alternative to the death sentence, unlike many federal versions in the USA. Also, our political system is legally barred from entering the debate on a prisoner's parole possibilities - this used to the the case with whole life tariffs but is now illegal, as explained on some of the whole life tariff entiries on the main article. In the States, government officials can allow amnesties or pardons through the President, can they not? This means politics can play a role. In the UK, the judiciary hands down the sentence and only through an apolitical legal system can the tariffs be changed or challenged. Bentley Banana 19:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Question
What is a "whole life tariff"? I'm not sure I understand even after reading the article. The two critical sentences are "The intention of a whole life tariff..." and "The whole life tariff came into force...", rather than "A whole life tariff is...". Can anyone help? Stevage 13:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Some Comments
First of all, with respect to Myra Hindley and Harold Shipman, their inclusion in the table is valid, because the entries in that table are defined as persons upon whom a whole life tariff was imposed at some point in their penal careers. The death of these individuals does not alter that basic fact. If the table were to be redefined in terms of living prisoners currently serving a sentence subject to a whole life tariff, then the removal of Hindley and Shipman to a separate table would be appropriate. However, the current arrangement is sufficient to be informative, and needs no revision (at least in my view).
Second, with respect to the defintion of a whole life tariff, while the sentences opening the page are perhaps less than ideal, they do in fact reflect the nature by which the entity came into being. English law is a peculiar animal at times, as this document should illustrate quite well, the document in question being the House of Lords judgement on an appeal by Hindley against her whole life tariif.
The whole life tariff is, in effect, a piece of legal machinery which allows the criminal justice system to categorise a prisoner as [1] too great a danger to public safety ever to be released, or [2] for want of a better phrase, 'too irredeemably evil' to be released. it is also a means by which the criminal justice system can enforce the principle that some offences are so heinous that the only suitable punishment, in the absence of the death penalty, is incarceration of the convicted person until death. At its onset, it was wielded by the Home Secretary, who at that time numbered among the duties of that office the setting of suitable time spans for prisoners whose sentence was that of 'mandatory life'. Under the English system, a mandatory life sentence automatically follows a conviction for murder: this sentence was created directly to address issues arising from the abolition of the death penalty. It is apposite, though possibly unencyclopedic from Wikipedia's standpoint, to speculate that without it, opposition to the death penalty might have been considerably less strong. However, the mandatory life sentence suffered from absence of adequate definition in terms of time: all other sentences are fixed in time, and thus the prisoner knows in advance the duration of imprisonment that must be served. For those interested in rehabilitative issues, the prospect of a reduction of sentence in exchange for expression of remorse and contrition on the part of the convicted person, and other indications that the convicted person has undergone a reformation of character, is considered to be of utility value, while for those interested in deterrence and retribution, defined time scales allow offences to be categorised by severity, and thus the degree of revulsion evoked by an offence can be made manifest in this manner. Consequently, the notion of a minimum term to be applied to a mandatory life sentence came into being. However, for certain extreme cases (and several of the individuals in the table are certainly notorious in British criminal history), the need to express social revulsion at crimes of extreme depravity and savagery remained. There is also the issue of whether a particular offence is considered to be so revolting as to be the product of a person who is uniquely dangerous and/or evil. Hindley's case has provoked much debate in this arena for reasons that are readily apparent either to British readers or to anyone outside the UK who has studied the details of the crimes she committed.
Of course, it was argued that having the power to apply whole life tariffs in the hands of a minister of government was a somewhat less than optimal arrangement. Not least because certain notorious figures might conceivably be handed such a tariff at least partly on the basis that failure to do so would be political suicide for the minister. Hence the move to transfer that power to the judiciary. This carries with it, however, the potential for much discontent if a judge allows a notorious figure to be released. It is fair to say that one issue contributing to Hindley's whole life tariff was a degree of protection of the prisoner: the family of Lesley Ann Downey, one of Hindley's victims, repeatedly stated that if ever Hindley were released, they would track her down and kill her. In the case of other notorious figures, such as Dennis Nilsen, it is fairly safe to say that the whole life tariff is more completely a reflection of the notion that such persons are considered irredeemably evil. A brief perusal of the particulars of Nilsen's offences, for example, tend to favour such a view, and not only in lay circles. From the lay standpoint, a whole life tariff is, in effect, a statement to the effect that a person is considered, after conviction for murder, to be so dangerous to the public and so wicked that the only recourse left open to society is incarceration until death. The legal picture is, of course, a good deal more complex, but aspects of severe retribution and societal need to express revulsion for truly heinous crimes is doubltess a part of the intellectual matrix underlying the whole life tariff.
While I am no legal expert, I believe the above is a fair summary. Anyone who is a legal expert is, of course, invited to provide a superior explanation!
I hope these comments prove to be of use and value. Calilasseia 15:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] There has to be some limit to a whole life tariff?
Humans can live for anything up to over 100 years, and if a killer lived to be over 100 they would surely have long deteriorated enough physically to ensure that they were no longer a danger to the public. And some countries have a maximum age for prison. So if a whole life sentence prisoner lived well into their 100s and had long gone blind, deaf and wheelchair bound, would they stand much chance of release?
- Each case would be treated on its own individual merits. Bentley Banana 19:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Also, you have to remember that prison is not employed solely as a public protection measure. It has a retributive function. An aged prisoner such as you mention might be thought to deserve continued incarceration because of the heinousness of their crime, even though they had long since ceased to pose a threat to the public. 86.136.92.2 13:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Language of this article
Is it just me or does anyone else find the language this article is written in a bit odd? For instance, the repeated phrase he could be released any time now is an odd expression to find in an encyclopedic work. Some of the descriptions of the crimes are boardering on the lurid as well.
- You could have signed your comment. Initially, each individual's piece stated that they would not be released; however, the judgment came into force during this period and we had to revert back to the original tariffs imposed by trial judges. In the case of Donald Neilson, for example, his tariff of 30 years expired this year (technically it expired in December last year if you count his period on remand), so the expression he could be released any time now is apt, as his tariff has expired suddenly and there is absolutely no indication as to when, if ever, he will walk free. For what it has in vagueness it maintains in absolute accuracy.I don't think the tone is lurid, just factual. Try using examples to make your point - it's a long article! Bentley Banana 10:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Updated list under FOIA
I intend to give this article the total overhaul it now requires after the UK Government were forced to reveal the names of all 30 prisoners on whole life tariffs following a request under the Freedom of Information Act. There are new names to add - which means some extensive research into their crimes - and one or two to move or remove. I'll add a final list of 'prisoners unlikely to be released' for the likes of Sutcliffe, who somehow aren't on the refreshed whole life tariff list (for technicality reasons) but will undoubtedly never see freedom again. Bear with me. Bentley Banana 11:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
