Is "life in prison" too cruel a punishment to be legal?

[hardcore_gamer]

The European Court of Human Rights appears to think so:

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/europe/130709/european-court-life-jail-without-review-breach-human-rights

I am not sure what to think about this. On one hand I understand the argument against the death penalty, why isn't calling life in jail with a chance to get out "a human rights violation" going just a bit too far?

[Kontra Kommando]

Life in prison is a waste of good resources and taxpayer money. I think it's better to just execute violent malcontents. But not with lethal injection, I would prefer firing-squad, and hangings; like they do in Texas.

Basically these brain-dead idiots think that for even the most heinous crime, one should still be given a second chance. So a serial killer could one day have his freedom back, but his victims could never have their lives back. That's just fucking brilliant...

[fraggle]

It's not life sentences that are in question; it's life sentences with no possible chance of release.

Here is the text of the ruling. It's a complicated and subtle ruling, and it's important to read it carefully to understand exactly what it is that they're saying.

13. Prior to the entry into force of the 2003 Act, it was the practice for the mandatory life sentence to be passed by the trial judge and for the Secretary of State, after receiving recommendations from the trial judge and the Lord Chief Justice, to decide the minimum term of imprisonment which the prisoner would have to serve before he would be eligible for early release on licence. At the time, the minimum term was also referred to as the “tariff” part of the sentence.

The UK Secretary of State used to have control over sentences for murderers and had the power to set minimum terms and apply whole life tariffs for particularly bad criminals. That power was struck down because politicians should not have power over judicial sentencing (a separation of powers issue: people should be tried by independent judges, not politicians).

It was also open to the Secretary of State to impose a “whole life tariff” on a prisoner. In such a case, it was the practice of the Secretary of State to review a whole life tariff after twenty-five years’ imprisonment to determine whether it was still justified, particularly with reference to cases where the prisoner had made exceptional progress in prison (see the case of Hindley at paragraph 46 below).

The flip side of that power was that the Secretary of State also reviewed whole life tariffs after 25 years: if the convict had shown signs of improvement, the whole life tariff could be theoretically commuted to a "normal" life sentence, and there was the possibility that the prisoner could some day be freed.

100. For the second issue, the procedural requirement of a review of a whole life order, the applicants submitted that the Government could give no principled reason for the failure to include a twenty-five year review in the 2003 Act. They had not done so in their observations to this Court, or when a statutory amendment to reintroduce that review had been proposed but defeated in the House of Lords in March 2012. Further support for a twenty-five year review could be found in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: the 121 States parties to that Statute had expressly recognised that, even for extremely serious cases like genocide, such a review was necessary.

After the previous law was struck down, a new law was passed in 2003 to reform how whole life tariffs are handled. But that 25 year review wasn't included: it was just ditched entirely.

The Government have submitted that the twenty-five year review was not included in the 2003 Act because one of the intentions of the Act was to judicialise decisions concerning the appropriate terms of imprisonment for the purposes of punishment and deterrence (see paragraph 95 above). However, the need for independent judges to determine whether a whole life order may be imposed is quite separate from the need for such whole life orders to be reviewed at a later stage so as to ensure that they remain justified on legitimate penological grounds. Furthermore, given that the stated intention of the legislative amendment was to remove the executive entirely from the decision-making process concerning life sentences, it would have been more consistent to provide that, henceforth, the twenty‑five year review, instead of being eliminated completely, would be conducted within a wholly judicial framework rather than, as before, by the executive subject to judicial control.

Instead of getting rid of it entirely, they should have made the judiciary do the review.

119. For the foregoing reasons, the Court considers that, in the context of a life sentence, Article 3 must be interpreted as requiring reducibility of the sentence, in the sense of a review which allows the domestic authorities to consider whether any changes in the life prisoner are so significant, and such progress towards rehabilitation has been made in the course of the sentence, as to mean that continued detention can no longer be justified on legitimate penological grounds.

All that this judgment is saying is that the 25 year review (or some kind of review, at least) needs to be reinstated. It's not saying that the whole concept of whole life sentences is "too cruel" or is inherently a violation of human rights, although the media seem to be trying to spin it that way. This may be because the government has a desire to abolish the human rights act and withdraw from the European Court on Human Rights. It's therefore in their interests to play up any rulings so that they sound unreasonable.

[Da Werecat]

Prisons in general are cruel. It's unpleasant to be there.

[Kontra Kommando]

Da Werecat said:

Prisons in general are cruel. It's unpleasant to be there.

It would probably be a lot less unpleasant if killers got what they deserved, instead of being in the population with non-violent convicts. I agree that there need to be reforms made, so prisons would serve more as a means of punishment/rehabilitation, instead of a gang factory.

[Rayziik]

Da Werecat said:

Prisons in general are cruel. It's unpleasant to be there.

That's kind of the point. "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time" and all that.

Also: This should become standard procedure for all crimes. It works on children (albeit that is never as intense) why not criminals?

[hardcore_gamer]

fraggle said:

snip

No, I got nothing wrong. I was already aware that they wanted it to be possible to get people "reviews" every 25 years, but I don't think that makes this any less stupid. I can't think of any reason for why the state should not be allowed to lock up the worst of the population forever with no chance of getting out. If the crime wasn't so bad that that it doesn't warrant life in prision, then that person should not be sentanced to that in the first place.

The whole general notion that prisoners should have their sentances reduced because they behaved well in prison is insane.

Fun fact: Hitler got out of jail early for good behaviour.

[TimeOfDeath]

It should be like that planet in Star Trek TNG where you get killed for breaking any of the laws at all.

[fraggle]

hardcore_gamer said:

The whole general notion that prisoners should have their sentances reduced because they behaved well in prison is insane.

While I understand the general sentiment, I'm not convinced that there might not be some possible reason why a judge, looking at a prisoner, might find some reason to commute a whole life tariff.

Whole life tariffs are usually used in cases of multiple murders, so in practise I doubt that any such commutation would ever actually take place (or ever has taken place). But perhaps some day there might be some exceptional situation where it could be justified. Mental health issues are the only possibility I can think of, but there might be others.

More importantly, I think it's important that there's due process in ensuring that such a review takes place: it's an exceptional sentence to be applying (the highest that can be applied in the EU, where the death penalty is illegal), so it's important that it is properly supervised and applied.

To use an analogy, it's the difference between saying "we will lock you up for the rest of your life" and "we will lock you up and throw away the key". While the latter sounds appealing from an emotional point of view, it isn't true justice.

[Maes]

There are prison sentences and prison sentences: it's one thing to be closed in e.g. a Norwegian prison with some white-collar "criminals", and another one in an overcrowded Greek prison filled with horny Pakistanis and paranoid Russian-pontiacs.

[dew]

hardcore_gamer said:

The whole general notion that prisoners should have their sentances reduced because they behaved well in prison is insane.

it is the pivotal idea behind prisons working towards reform hand in hand with punishment. no one is saying the serial killers will be let out - belgium has just recently denied dutroux's appeal, for example - but a humane society tries to put everything into perspective. e.g. the lockerbie bomber was released, because he was terminally ill and wanted to die at home. there's no need to throw words like "insane" around just because you feel offended. :P

[geo]

Fuck that. Life outside prison is too cruel. I got bills, work, and other shit going on. Prison is easy. They give you a job. They give you room and board. They give you clothes. They give you food. They keep you healthy. They keep you from having to buy gas.

Life in prison is to keep someone in prison for fucking up our cruel life on the outside. If prisoners can behave themselves and be good role models, they should get out early and be with the rest of society.

But prison is to keep people from further contaminating society.

[Maes]

Kontra Kommando said:

Life in prison is a waste of good resources and taxpayer money.

Big Business seems to agree with you.

Kontra Kommando said:

So a serial killer could one day have his freedom back, but his victims could never have their lives back. That's just fucking brilliant...

Well, you can be certain that he will -at least- never get his full sphincter tone back, FWIW.

[geo]

I've always thought it would benefit Chinese labor businesses to just do it in prisons. Save the shipping, pay your workers 5 cents per hour. Its all good. They're never later or sick.

[Maes]

geo said:

I've always thought it would benefit Chinese labor businesses to just do it in prisons. Save the shipping, pay your workers 5 cents per hour. Its all good. They're never later or sick.

Actually, even the Chinese are getting quite fancy and expensive as laborers. Incidentally, that's pretty much the same monthly salary level of Eastern Europe and -soon- Greece (it translates to about 350-400$).

When that happens, the next source of cheap -but relatively skilled- labour is actively sought.

[geo]

Maes said:

Actually, even the Chinese are getting quite fancy and expensive as laborers. Incidentally, that's pretty much the same monthly salary level of Eastern Europe and -soon- Greece (it translates to about 350-400$).

When that happens, the next source of cheap -but relatively skilled- labour is actively sought.

Ha yes they are! My friend is a purse designer that worked her way up to be #3 in her last company. They were using Chinese labor that got too expensive, so they sent her to China to hook up a new deal with a less expensive factory. She said the 'expensive' factory didn't have any electricity, chairs or heat. Everyone had a coat on, and if it was storming, there was zero light... but they kept working, since they know what they're doing light or not.

She said the factory they ended up going with gave each worker a lightbulb to keep them warm.

My friend's company set her up in a $500 per night hotel that boasts the world's largest pane of glass, longer than a football field.

Anyway, end of story, back to prisons :-) They have electricity. So how is life in prison too cruel?

[Maes]

geo said:

They have electricity. So how is life in prison too cruel?

Ask Bubba's bitch.

[Rayziik]

geo said:

Anyway, end of story, back to prisons :-) They have electricity. So how is life in prison too cruel?

Well if the majority of inmates have all this (stuff on left side, not specific, but there's example throughout), it's almost the equivalent of welfare abusers leeching off the government, just in a less desirable setting.

[Maes]

Typically, well-connected and powerful prisoners can have -almost- everything they want in prison, including cell phones, good food, internet access, leisure, drugs and sex, so for them it certainly doesn't have much of a punitive role -they often can lead full-fledged businesses (legal or otherwise) from behind bars.

For those less fortunate...well...it's generally not a very nice place, especially in countries where there are overcrowded prisons run by powerful gangs and cliques.

Anders Breivik's prison cell:



Typical US jail cell (without the Bubba or Latino Papi putting it into your culo):



Russian prison cell:



Are you telling me that these are all equally "desirable"?

[geo]

Russian Prisons are very locked down from the documentaries I've watched. I'd rather be in American prisons. Sure it still sucks, but if I had a choice....

LOL I'm reading prison reviews on google >>

A Google User reviewed 2 years ago
Overall Good
Racine County Jail is a despicable hellhole, a quagmire of human suffering and degradation...

^^^ I have a friend that tried to get a job there as a CO. They told her she was #34 of the top applicants. So if #33 people can't make it, they'll give her a call.

[Kontra Kommando]

Maes said:

Big Business seems to agree with you.

No lie, I actually wrote a letter to my congressman, requesting to put forward an idea in the House of Representatives that was similar to this. Looks like it's already something that's happening.

[Kontra Kommando]

Jesus Christ, if I was Norwegian, I'd be a crack-dealing mass murderer. His cell looks better than my friend's apartment.

You would probably pay $1200 a month plus utilities for a space like that in Manhattan.

Ironically, it was probably liberals like the ones whose children were slain by Anders Breivik, that passed laws to accommodate murderers with cells like that. I wonder how they feel about that now.

[Technician]

Kontra Kommando said:

No lie, I actually wrote a letter to my congressman, requesting to put forward an idea in the House of Representatives that was similar to this. Looks like it's already something that's happening.

Claims convicts are a waste of tax payer money.

Suggests big business takeaway jobs from the free populace and assign them to the convicted, at a small fraction of the pay.

Sound GOP logic, bro.

[Gez]

geo said:

I've always thought it would benefit Chinese labor businesses to just do it in prisons. Save the shipping, pay your workers 5 cents per hour. Its all good. They're never later or sick.

Well, they already do. Many Chinese prisons double up as work camps.


The idea is that since prisoner labor costs less than workers wage, this allows to increase unemployment numbers so as to keep a strong pressure on actual employees to prevent wages from rising.

This is the key to competitiveness. The general idea is to outdo your competitors by reducing your production costs. You can do that either by buying cheaper materials with which to make your products, or by paying your employees less. To pay your employees less, you can reduce wages (or have them raise more slowly than inflation), or you can reduce the numbers of employees you have. But if you have less employees, then they need to do more work individually: you need to increase their productivity, so they do more work without being paid more.

This is why it is hilarious to have all the suits and technocrats at the EU tell the various countries plagued by debt and mass unemployment that they need to #1 perform austerity policies and #2 improve the competitiveness of their private sector. The end results will be more debt (austerity == less money in circulation, therefore less consumption and less tax income) and more unemployment (increased productivity without increased demand for products means you have to fire more people, which will also have a result of decreasing the quantity of money in circulation in the economy, so even less income for the state).

The actual solutions to end the crisis are to do basically everything that the economists approved by the financial mafia have spent the last thirty years convincing everyone not to ever do anymore: strongly progressive taxes, taxing capital income more than work income, re-establishing tariffs, repealing any and all free trade agreements, etc.

[gggmork]

The prison system is currently an egregious corrupt crime college against humanity and unconcerned with rehabilitation.

How could prisons work in a free society that respects the non aggression principle (where force is only legitimate in self defense)?

Make prisons (and whatever other dispute resolution solutions that appear on the free market) compete for would be prisoners as their customers, so they have to be non shitty to get customers. Everyone in society chooses whatever insurance they want on the free market which deals with dispute resolution. The insurance might say something like 'if i murder someone i agree to such and such terms'. If an insurer was like "DEATH FOR JAYWALKING" then people would catch on and stop doing business with that insurer. If someone defaulted on the retribution for stealing a car, they'd be an uninsured outlaw, and most of society wouldn't do business with outlaws. It uses voluntary ostracization as punishment instead of coercion/force.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NYqDxFEt4w&feature=c4-overview-vl&list=PL746B797D3D3486F2
http://c4ss.org/content/7741

[Kontra Kommando]

Technician said:

Claims convicts are a waste of tax payer money.

Suggests big business takeaway jobs from the free populace and assign them to the convicted, at a small fraction of the pay.

Sound GOP logic, bro.

Well, the letter suggested that we give those menial jobs such as assembling iPhones and other gadgets to non-violent criminals (drug dealers, tax evaders, etc.); taking them away from prisons who should really house rapists, and other violent offenders. I figured, it's better to give those jobs to non-violent offenders as a form of punishment/rehabilitation, instead of outsourcing them to places like china. I do think it's a better idea to give work to those people, than to a country that tries to fuck the U.S. on a daily basis.

[Technician]

Kontra Kommando said:

Well, the letter suggested that we give those menial jobs such as assembling iPhones and other gadgets to non-violent criminals (drug dealers, tax evaders, etc.); taking them away from prisons who should really house rapists, and other violent offenders. I figured, it's better to give those jobs to non-violent offenders as a form of punishment/rehabilitation, instead of outsourcing them to places like china. I do think it's a better idea to give work to those people, than to a country that tries to fuck the U.S. on a daily basis.

If businesses are going to exploit labor for higher profits, they might as well do it here rather than a developing nation, right?

[Dragonsbrethren]

hardcore_gamer said:

The whole general notion that prisoners should have their sentances reduced because they behaved well in prison is insane.

People with opinions like yours are the reason prisons are next-to-worthless for reform.

[Aliotroph?]

Technician said:

Claims convicts are a waste of tax payer money.

Suggests big business takeaway jobs from the free populace and assign them to the convicted, at a small fraction of the pay.

Sound GOP logic, bro.

His other great idea was just killing them. Never mind states that try some due process always manage to kill or imprison innocents. Apparently feeling good about killing criminals to save taxpayers money you're otherwise taking from taxpayers (by sucking up their jobs) is more important than protecting your taxpayers' lives. *head explodes*

Norway got it right. Prisons work better when the inmates are kept as sane as possible. The staff stays saner when the inmates are saner, and society doesn't have to pay to rehabilitate prison staff with PTSD. I honestly thing the law-enforcement types and businessmen who set up cruel prisons need professional mental treatment.

Now I have a random question! How come the Russian cell in Maes' picture has nicer-looking blankets? Does this somehow fit with the tendency of even the smallest Russian apartments to be basically wallpapered in ornate rugs?

[dew]

Kontra Kommando said:

Ironically, it was probably liberals like the ones whose children were slain by Anders Breivik, that passed laws to accommodate murderers with cells like that. I wonder how they feel about that now.

the only person in norway conservative enough for you is breivik himself, so the joke's on you. they're proud that despite breivik's inexcusable cruetly their legal system just did what it had to. you consider it liberal weakness, they consider it a sign of more advanced society. the stats (despite the breivik outlier) are on their side, by the way.