Legal Questions and Answers by
Jonathan Stones of John Barkers
Question :-
I’m old enough to remember the debate that took place before the abolition of the
death penalty in 1965. Amongst the arguments that were put forward by the abolitionists at
the time was that life sentences would be just as effective a deterrent as the death
sentence, indeed it was argued, many potential killers would be more afraid of spending
the rest of their lives in prison than they would be of a brief early morning meeting with
the hangman.
As we all now know, a life sentence very rarely means life. Murderers can be released from
prison in as little as ten or twelve years.
However, it would seem that even this is too long for some MPs and lawyers who are now
arguing that killers should not necessarily get a mandatory life sentence.
What next? Are we to have murderers getting short sentences so that they can be given help
and counseling to resolve their ‘anger management’ and other problems?
Answer :-
The suggestion that the sentencing of murderers should be changed has been raised by
the Director of Public Prosecutions, Ken McDonald QC and the Law Commission. Plans for a
review were announced a year ago by the Home Secretary, then David Blunkett, hardly a man
with a reputation for being soft on crime.
The argument is that the current law . . . in which all people convicted of murder are
given a mandatory life sentence . . . is inflexible and does not allow judges to
differentiate between the crimes of offenders.
You could argue that murder is murder but there are clearly differences between, say, the
depraved serial crimes of a Fred West and, say, a husband or wife who retaliates and kills
a partner after suffering years of abuse or someone who helps a terminally ill loved one
to die.
The suggestion that has been made is that there should be degrees of murder, as is
the case in America and in some other countries. Each degree would have a different
tariff.
Mr. McDonald has said that any serious homicide killing with an intention to kill should
continue to attract a mandatory life sentence.
Supporters of change argue that the law is in a mess and needs reform.
Opponents argue that despite the mandatory life sentence judges already have the power to
differentiate between crimes in that they set the tariff, the minimum term, with
parameters set by parliament.
The baseline tariff is fifteen years. The murder of a police officer killed in the
execution of his duty is thirty years. In cases of multiple murder, sadistic murder or
terrorism, a whole life tariff can be set.
This system is relatively new, so it could be argued that it needs to be in operation for
a time to see how it works before any further changes are made.
Clearly this matter is very sensitive and care needs to be taken that we do not end up
with a situation in which we might not appear to have a sufficient deterrent.
There does not appear to be massive enthusiasm within the Government at the moment for
change. It remains to be seen whether or not they will be prodded into new legislation, or
whether the calls will be ignored.
|
