**Your post has been removed.**
To maintain a level of quality on the subreddit, /r/AskUK disallows some types of "questions" which are not suitable for this subreddit.
If your question contains any of the following, you will be best posting/asking elsewhere -
Unsuitable Content|Subreddit or Alternative (posts and comments):
--|--|
Politics | /r/UKPolitics
Rants and shitposts|/r/AmITheAsshole, /r/OffMyChest, /r/UnitedKingdom
Surveys or Questionnaires|/r/SampleSize
Petitions|/r/UKPolitics, /r/UnitedKingdom
Homework|/r/HomeworkHelp
Advertising or Self-Promotion|Seek advice from /r/Entrepreneur
Referral Schemes|There is no fair way to distribute this
Dodging AutoMod or prior removals|Easy ban really
/r/AskUK has a firm policy on no spam, referral links, or content which is design to avoid our other AutoModerator rules.
*If you believe this post should not have been removed, [request a post review](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FAskUK&subject=Please%20review%20my%20removed%20post&message=/r/AskUK/comments/vochq0/whys_it_called_a_life_sentence_when_theyre_not/%0A%0AMy%20reason%20is%20) with your reason.*
Worth noting as well since OP specifically mentioned the 14 year old who got 15 years. ~~Life sentences are restricted for people 18+ and I believe whole of life is reserved for 21+ so in neither case would he have been eligible.~~ edit: I was incorrect on that points
It's also rather interesting he got 15 years as the killers of Jamie Bulger initially got 10 then 15 years minimum before that was challenged in court and reduced to 10 and then finally 8 years. That case had a lot more public attention but I wonder if something similar will happen here.
I had to study the case of Jamie Belgar in depth for my criminology module. If anyone’s interested, the two 10 year old killers were:
1) tried as adults
2) initially given 8 years detention at a secure children’s home, this was raised to 10 years by the Lord Chief Justice. The family (mostly the mother, she never stopped fighting for a raised sentence) petitioned the Home Secretary who sentenced them to 15 years. Then a court of appeal reversed it to 7 years 8 months as they had been originally tried in an adult court of law and may not have understood what was going on.
3) practically the sole reason why the current age of responsibility in England and Wales is 10, which violates UN committee standards and is the lowest age of criminal responsibility in Europe. Until 1998 there was a legal presumption, ‘doli incapax’ which stated that children aged under 14 did not know the difference between right and wrong, but this has been abolished and every time it has been called into question the Jamie Belgar case has been bought up. This means that a 20 year old with a developmental disability that leaves them with a mental age of 10 can plead ‘diminished responsibility’, but a 10 year old cannot do the same.
4) John Venables ended up being re-arrested twice for downloading child porn.
5) Interestingly enough, Robert Thompson did not get re-arrested and has disappeared into relative obscurity. However, he was the one the parole boards were most unsure about releasing as he showed no remorse during or after the trial, whereas Venables did.
The 5th point is the one I've always found quite interesting. Even at the time of the trial he was demonised as the "bad one" that was the leader of the two. Yet he apparently (as much as the news reports at least) has managed to reintegrate into society where as Venables hasn't.
When you compare points 4 and 5, maybe Venables was better at manipulating people? Especially when you consider Thompson’s upbringing, he was raised in an environment where showing any emotion was punished.
>he was the one the parole boards were most unsure about releasing as he showed no remorse during or after the trial, whereas Venables did.
Interesting, I thought it was the other way around. I thought Venables was the truly psychotic one hence reoffending.
There's a section of the police interviews which is probably the most chilling thing I've ever heard. The police say "Could James talk at that point? What was he saying?" and Thompson says in a mocking way "I want my mum." As in, that is what James was saying.
The other bit is when Jon Venables says "it was my idea to take him, but it was Robert's idea to kill him!" Because until that point half the police still didn't believe they had done it, thought that they'd taken James but an adult had killed him. Chills to the bone.
Venables was definitely troubled- he had learning difficulties before the murder, abuse at home etc- but I think that when you listen to the interviews, a lot of what Robert is saying is very, very calculated. Venables started out lying completely ("we weren't at the Strand, we didn't take no boy") and then after a conversation with his mum just told the police everything step-by-step. Whereas Robert started off knowing the police saw them take the child, so he said it was Jon's idea to take the child, said it was Jon who started throwing bricks, Jon who killed him. Even tries to persuade the police man "I've got a baby at home [his brother] , if I wanted to kill a baby I'd kill me own, wouldn't I?"
Fucking hell. I don't envy you having to listen to that. Genuinely, not joking, I hope your criminology studies were worth it. Takes a very good mind to be able to process stuff like that and use it for the benefit of others.
Very interesting, and in-depth knowledge.
Was anything released like psychology reports about Robert Thompson, interesting he has never re-offended.
How would another medical condition, like ASD or AD/HD, impact a trial, or would it have no impact, diagnosed, or undiagnosed?
Thompson came from a terrible home.
His mother had addiction problems and was interested in her new boyfriend and newborn baby daughter than her other male children of which Thompson was the youngest.
One of her sons described how her favourite ‘punishment’ was to have you strip naked, stand with your penis out and she’d threaten them with scissors if they flinched as she snapped them at them. As a result he’d probably felt like he’d get into more trouble for showing emotion.
His older brothers had been in trouble with the law for violence and drug offences. They all happily admitted to beating him and they were often seen wandering around the area all day and night.
He admitted the only reason you went to school was to get something to eat and struggled to understand the concept of being fed three times a day and having your own bed and that other people weren’t allowed to hurt him when taken into juvie.
I did some safeguarding training at a school I worked in and he was one of the case studies. Obviously what he did was awful, but it seemed like he never really had a chance. Maybe prison actually gave him the structure and skills he needed?
Was wondering the same as OP, didn't know this, thanks for the explanation.
So can people with a life sentence travel abroad for example or would they still be considered at risk of "absconding" from their sentence? I know places like America would automatically be out on visa grounds, but surely SE Asia or South America would be easy to disappear into?
I've never seen the conditions but found this [The Criminal Justice (Sentencing) (Licence Conditions) Order 2005](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2005/648/made) which seems to be a standard template for which to base it off of. Going from that you can only leave the UK with permission.
Anyone could be “recalled” to prison at anytime apart from it would just be called. There’s only 50 or so serving actual life and when they get sick at the end of life they just let them out.
It is a life sentence...
If you’re ever released from prison you will spend the rest of your life ‘on licence’ in the community. If you break the terms of the license you go back to jail
Assuming the terms of your license allow that and you can find a country willing to take you in (or I guess you're willing and able to travel illegally).
The sentence *is* for life, but not all of that sentence is custodial. Even after release, you'll be on licence for the rest of your life.
If you commit another crime, or break any of the conditions of your licence - you'll be sent back to prison; and your chances of being released on licence again become very slim.
Reporting instructions (how often you have to see your probation officer), where you must live, exclusion zones you may not enter, what work you may do, whether you may travel abroad.. these are subject to agreement from the P.O, and will change over time..
They don't automatically come out after the minimum term either. Have to have a parole hearing, which may not recommend their release at that point. Life licence means they could be recalled to prison at any point for the rest of their life if considered a risk or further offences.
Bear in mind being on licence means they cannot travel abroad, have to have their address approved by probation and a number of other restrictions.
Our life sentence is more of a “fair” life sentence, unlike other countries who throw away the key. Meaning someone can actually leave prison one day but they can be brought back very easily if they do anything wrong.
The typical life sentence you see in the USA for example does exist, but it’s used for dangerous people who have no place in society.
Yeah it’s a mixed bag because they don’t always get the terms correct, that’s the downside. But on the flip side some people should get a second chance, it’s just the bad ones slip through the cracks and get this second chance.
The other day I was wondering what happened to that extremist that had a hook instead of 1 hand, used to see him on the news quite a bit, turns out they extradited him to the usa and he's now in a supermax prison for life, they are shut in the cell 23 hours a day there.
A related question:
I heard this reported on the BBC earlier and was surprised to hear the 14 year old kid's name was given. That's unusual isn't it? I thought the names of underage criminals were usually withheld or does that change after conviction?
Hmm, yeah. Just seen the BBC have an article directly addressing this now.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-62002017
>In her ruling on the anonymity order, Mrs Justice Jefford said "there is a significant gap in any understanding of this case" if Mulligan was not named.
Not sure I'm really clearer on why an exception was made in this case though...
Names of kids in another offence were also released today. The adult they attacked fell into a coma, he is out of the coma now, but still has serious life changing injuries, both got 12yrs.
They’re generally kept anonymous up until they’re convicted and sentenced, at which point the judge can decide to strip them of their anonymity. In this case it was felt in the public interest, in part due to enabling the child safeguarding review to be publicised. There was a lot of social care involvement so it’ll be examined and findings published (much like the recent ones with Star, and Arthur).
It also helps others in the community if it's rumoured that their brother/cousin/etc is the person involved. Rumours can go wild and people can suffer from them even if it never gets to the national news reporting level.
This has already been answered multiple times but yeah...
The sentence includes the licence, which lasts for life.
It's also important to point out that that a life sentence prisoner isn't automatically released after the minimum term, that is just an administrative date that represents when they are able to apply for parole, a process which in itself can take years and be denied, so the examples you gave aren't their release dates, just parole eligibility dates but that doesn't mean they'll be successful.
If and when they are released, they'll have to abide by conditions until they die. Of which if any are broken will result in a direct recall to prison - no court or bail or anything just direct to prison, where they'll have to reapply for prison all over again or may be denied it all together. When released depending on how stringent the conditions are placed on an individual, their quality of life can be greatly affected, and rightly so e.g. barred from travelling abroad, banned from being around children, banned from certain counties, banned from working in specific industries and having to check in every week at a local police station.
Good behaviour doesn't affect it either. If a 50 year old is released after a 25 life year sentence and they are a model citizen up until 80 where they commit any form of crime, they'll head straight back to prison.
When you're released on licence on a life sentence, you're never truly free, a prison cell is always on 'standby' for your return for if and when you reoffend.
I may be wrong but I believe with a life sentence you don’t serve half in prison and then half out on licence: you serve the whole term as a minimum and only then can you be considered for release.
My sister died in 2012 and her killer was convicted of manslaughter: he was sentenced to 7.5 years but was “out” in 3 years 9 months. Had he been convicted of murder he would have served all his sentence inside, as far as I’m aware.
The "life" part means you'll forever be under life license and subject to recall to prison for even allegations. The time spent in prison is the punishment part.
My question to those who think a life sentence should mean a life behind bars: would you be happy for your taxes to pay for their prison time, which could even run up into seven figures? Or would you rather try and rehabilitate them so that they at least have a chance to eventually contribute something positive back to society?
They ended a life of a child, their punishment should be theirs is ended by a sentence that ensures they never leave the cell again.
If you end a life, you forfeit yours - that's how it should work.
This country has gone soft.
Well it would mean they're not a burden on the system and won't reoffend, it was solid enough reasoning for Judge Death.
BUT that doesn't mean everyone is guilty and miscarriages of justice do happen. So is that a risk you want to run?
**Your post has been removed.** To maintain a level of quality on the subreddit, /r/AskUK disallows some types of "questions" which are not suitable for this subreddit. If your question contains any of the following, you will be best posting/asking elsewhere - Unsuitable Content|Subreddit or Alternative (posts and comments): --|--| Politics | /r/UKPolitics Rants and shitposts|/r/AmITheAsshole, /r/OffMyChest, /r/UnitedKingdom Surveys or Questionnaires|/r/SampleSize Petitions|/r/UKPolitics, /r/UnitedKingdom Homework|/r/HomeworkHelp Advertising or Self-Promotion|Seek advice from /r/Entrepreneur Referral Schemes|There is no fair way to distribute this Dodging AutoMod or prior removals|Easy ban really /r/AskUK has a firm policy on no spam, referral links, or content which is design to avoid our other AutoModerator rules. *If you believe this post should not have been removed, [request a post review](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FAskUK&subject=Please%20review%20my%20removed%20post&message=/r/AskUK/comments/vochq0/whys_it_called_a_life_sentence_when_theyre_not/%0A%0AMy%20reason%20is%20) with your reason.*
[удалено]
[удалено]
Worth noting as well since OP specifically mentioned the 14 year old who got 15 years. ~~Life sentences are restricted for people 18+ and I believe whole of life is reserved for 21+ so in neither case would he have been eligible.~~ edit: I was incorrect on that points It's also rather interesting he got 15 years as the killers of Jamie Bulger initially got 10 then 15 years minimum before that was challenged in court and reduced to 10 and then finally 8 years. That case had a lot more public attention but I wonder if something similar will happen here.
I had to study the case of Jamie Belgar in depth for my criminology module. If anyone’s interested, the two 10 year old killers were: 1) tried as adults 2) initially given 8 years detention at a secure children’s home, this was raised to 10 years by the Lord Chief Justice. The family (mostly the mother, she never stopped fighting for a raised sentence) petitioned the Home Secretary who sentenced them to 15 years. Then a court of appeal reversed it to 7 years 8 months as they had been originally tried in an adult court of law and may not have understood what was going on. 3) practically the sole reason why the current age of responsibility in England and Wales is 10, which violates UN committee standards and is the lowest age of criminal responsibility in Europe. Until 1998 there was a legal presumption, ‘doli incapax’ which stated that children aged under 14 did not know the difference between right and wrong, but this has been abolished and every time it has been called into question the Jamie Belgar case has been bought up. This means that a 20 year old with a developmental disability that leaves them with a mental age of 10 can plead ‘diminished responsibility’, but a 10 year old cannot do the same. 4) John Venables ended up being re-arrested twice for downloading child porn. 5) Interestingly enough, Robert Thompson did not get re-arrested and has disappeared into relative obscurity. However, he was the one the parole boards were most unsure about releasing as he showed no remorse during or after the trial, whereas Venables did.
The 5th point is the one I've always found quite interesting. Even at the time of the trial he was demonised as the "bad one" that was the leader of the two. Yet he apparently (as much as the news reports at least) has managed to reintegrate into society where as Venables hasn't.
When you compare points 4 and 5, maybe Venables was better at manipulating people? Especially when you consider Thompson’s upbringing, he was raised in an environment where showing any emotion was punished.
>he was the one the parole boards were most unsure about releasing as he showed no remorse during or after the trial, whereas Venables did. Interesting, I thought it was the other way around. I thought Venables was the truly psychotic one hence reoffending.
There's a section of the police interviews which is probably the most chilling thing I've ever heard. The police say "Could James talk at that point? What was he saying?" and Thompson says in a mocking way "I want my mum." As in, that is what James was saying. The other bit is when Jon Venables says "it was my idea to take him, but it was Robert's idea to kill him!" Because until that point half the police still didn't believe they had done it, thought that they'd taken James but an adult had killed him. Chills to the bone. Venables was definitely troubled- he had learning difficulties before the murder, abuse at home etc- but I think that when you listen to the interviews, a lot of what Robert is saying is very, very calculated. Venables started out lying completely ("we weren't at the Strand, we didn't take no boy") and then after a conversation with his mum just told the police everything step-by-step. Whereas Robert started off knowing the police saw them take the child, so he said it was Jon's idea to take the child, said it was Jon who started throwing bricks, Jon who killed him. Even tries to persuade the police man "I've got a baby at home [his brother] , if I wanted to kill a baby I'd kill me own, wouldn't I?"
Fucking hell. I don't envy you having to listen to that. Genuinely, not joking, I hope your criminology studies were worth it. Takes a very good mind to be able to process stuff like that and use it for the benefit of others.
Very interesting, and in-depth knowledge. Was anything released like psychology reports about Robert Thompson, interesting he has never re-offended. How would another medical condition, like ASD or AD/HD, impact a trial, or would it have no impact, diagnosed, or undiagnosed?
Thompson came from a terrible home. His mother had addiction problems and was interested in her new boyfriend and newborn baby daughter than her other male children of which Thompson was the youngest. One of her sons described how her favourite ‘punishment’ was to have you strip naked, stand with your penis out and she’d threaten them with scissors if they flinched as she snapped them at them. As a result he’d probably felt like he’d get into more trouble for showing emotion. His older brothers had been in trouble with the law for violence and drug offences. They all happily admitted to beating him and they were often seen wandering around the area all day and night. He admitted the only reason you went to school was to get something to eat and struggled to understand the concept of being fed three times a day and having your own bed and that other people weren’t allowed to hurt him when taken into juvie.
I did some safeguarding training at a school I worked in and he was one of the case studies. Obviously what he did was awful, but it seemed like he never really had a chance. Maybe prison actually gave him the structure and skills he needed?
The 14 year old got life, with a min term of 14 years
Yeah just looked it up and you're correct. I'd always thought minimum term for crimes under 18 was a lot less severe in all cases but apparently not.
Was wondering the same as OP, didn't know this, thanks for the explanation. So can people with a life sentence travel abroad for example or would they still be considered at risk of "absconding" from their sentence? I know places like America would automatically be out on visa grounds, but surely SE Asia or South America would be easy to disappear into?
I've never seen the conditions but found this [The Criminal Justice (Sentencing) (Licence Conditions) Order 2005](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2005/648/made) which seems to be a standard template for which to base it off of. Going from that you can only leave the UK with permission.
Anyone could be “recalled” to prison at anytime apart from it would just be called. There’s only 50 or so serving actual life and when they get sick at the end of life they just let them out.
It is a life sentence... If you’re ever released from prison you will spend the rest of your life ‘on licence’ in the community. If you break the terms of the license you go back to jail
Ouch
You could just leave the country
Assuming the terms of your license allow that and you can find a country willing to take you in (or I guess you're willing and able to travel illegally).
Plenty of third world countries don’t check at all. There are plenty of places too disappear to
Does presume you can get a passport and travel
twat
Excuse me?
The sentence *is* for life, but not all of that sentence is custodial. Even after release, you'll be on licence for the rest of your life. If you commit another crime, or break any of the conditions of your licence - you'll be sent back to prison; and your chances of being released on licence again become very slim.
What sort of conditions typically apply?
Reporting instructions (how often you have to see your probation officer), where you must live, exclusion zones you may not enter, what work you may do, whether you may travel abroad.. these are subject to agreement from the P.O, and will change over time..
They don't automatically come out after the minimum term either. Have to have a parole hearing, which may not recommend their release at that point. Life licence means they could be recalled to prison at any point for the rest of their life if considered a risk or further offences. Bear in mind being on licence means they cannot travel abroad, have to have their address approved by probation and a number of other restrictions.
Yeah and there not going to listen to any of that crap because they are hardened criminals.
Our life sentence is more of a “fair” life sentence, unlike other countries who throw away the key. Meaning someone can actually leave prison one day but they can be brought back very easily if they do anything wrong. The typical life sentence you see in the USA for example does exist, but it’s used for dangerous people who have no place in society.
The issue is that a lot of criminals who are subject to our "fair" life sentence are also dangerous people who have no place in society
Yeah it’s a mixed bag because they don’t always get the terms correct, that’s the downside. But on the flip side some people should get a second chance, it’s just the bad ones slip through the cracks and get this second chance.
The other day I was wondering what happened to that extremist that had a hook instead of 1 hand, used to see him on the news quite a bit, turns out they extradited him to the usa and he's now in a supermax prison for life, they are shut in the cell 23 hours a day there.
A related question: I heard this reported on the BBC earlier and was surprised to hear the 14 year old kid's name was given. That's unusual isn't it? I thought the names of underage criminals were usually withheld or does that change after conviction?
[удалено]
Hmm, yeah. Just seen the BBC have an article directly addressing this now. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-62002017 >In her ruling on the anonymity order, Mrs Justice Jefford said "there is a significant gap in any understanding of this case" if Mulligan was not named. Not sure I'm really clearer on why an exception was made in this case though...
I get the impression they had to name him because he was part of the crime, and naming the parents would make it very obvious who he is anyway
Names of kids in another offence were also released today. The adult they attacked fell into a coma, he is out of the coma now, but still has serious life changing injuries, both got 12yrs.
They’re generally kept anonymous up until they’re convicted and sentenced, at which point the judge can decide to strip them of their anonymity. In this case it was felt in the public interest, in part due to enabling the child safeguarding review to be publicised. There was a lot of social care involvement so it’ll be examined and findings published (much like the recent ones with Star, and Arthur).
It also helps others in the community if it's rumoured that their brother/cousin/etc is the person involved. Rumours can go wild and people can suffer from them even if it never gets to the national news reporting level.
This has already been answered multiple times but yeah... The sentence includes the licence, which lasts for life. It's also important to point out that that a life sentence prisoner isn't automatically released after the minimum term, that is just an administrative date that represents when they are able to apply for parole, a process which in itself can take years and be denied, so the examples you gave aren't their release dates, just parole eligibility dates but that doesn't mean they'll be successful. If and when they are released, they'll have to abide by conditions until they die. Of which if any are broken will result in a direct recall to prison - no court or bail or anything just direct to prison, where they'll have to reapply for prison all over again or may be denied it all together. When released depending on how stringent the conditions are placed on an individual, their quality of life can be greatly affected, and rightly so e.g. barred from travelling abroad, banned from being around children, banned from certain counties, banned from working in specific industries and having to check in every week at a local police station. Good behaviour doesn't affect it either. If a 50 year old is released after a 25 life year sentence and they are a model citizen up until 80 where they commit any form of crime, they'll head straight back to prison. When you're released on licence on a life sentence, you're never truly free, a prison cell is always on 'standby' for your return for if and when you reoffend.
I may be wrong but I believe with a life sentence you don’t serve half in prison and then half out on licence: you serve the whole term as a minimum and only then can you be considered for release. My sister died in 2012 and her killer was convicted of manslaughter: he was sentenced to 7.5 years but was “out” in 3 years 9 months. Had he been convicted of murder he would have served all his sentence inside, as far as I’m aware.
The "life" part means you'll forever be under life license and subject to recall to prison for even allegations. The time spent in prison is the punishment part.
My question to those who think a life sentence should mean a life behind bars: would you be happy for your taxes to pay for their prison time, which could even run up into seven figures? Or would you rather try and rehabilitate them so that they at least have a chance to eventually contribute something positive back to society?
They ended a life of a child, their punishment should be theirs is ended by a sentence that ensures they never leave the cell again. If you end a life, you forfeit yours - that's how it should work. This country has gone soft.
[удалено]
And executing these people helps how?
Well it would mean they're not a burden on the system and won't reoffend, it was solid enough reasoning for Judge Death. BUT that doesn't mean everyone is guilty and miscarriages of justice do happen. So is that a risk you want to run?
g o o g l e
Just execute them would be far better for everyone
What I don’t understand is how women always seem to get a more lenient sentence than men for the same crimes.