Whole life orders

[craigjm]

So the nurse gets a whole life order as we have just seen and joins a small band of other people with the same. I have just had a conversation with a colleague about it who was suggesting those convicted should be given the opportunity to just be euthanised rather than spend the next 50 years in jail kind of thing. Their reasoning was that it would be more cost effective and who wants to be just in jail forever. What do you think? Should it be an option? Or should they be forced to live out their days?

[carl_w]

I was just thinking something similar. If someone is never to be released there doesn't seem to be any point in attempting to rehabilitate them.

However, there is also the possibility of a miscarriage of justice like in the Andrew Malkinson case.

[Getragdogleg]

craigjm said:

So the nurse gets a whole life order as we have just seen and joins a small band of other people with the same. I have just had a conversation with a colleague about it who was suggesting those convicted should be given the opportunity to just be euthanised rather than spend the next 50 years in jail kind of thing. Their reasoning was that it would be more cost effective and who wants to be just in jail forever. What do you think? Should it be an option? Or should they be forced to live out their days?

I don't care about the cost, what I care about is getting the verdict right, if you get it wrong and they are put to death that's pretty irreversible.

Too many tales of wrongful conviction to be certain of a death sentence.

[SmoothCriminal]

Give them the option?

No it should be part of a sentence.

Pure evil like this deserves no compassion she should be put down for her crimes.

[Vasco]

carl_w said:

I was just thinking something similar. If someone is never to be released there doesn't seem to be any point in attempting to rehabilitate them.

However, there is also the possibility of a miscarriage of justice like in the Andrew Malkinson case.

Agreed but the evidence is utterly overwhelming for this case.
Shame we don't have firing squads.

[shirt]

Assuming said person is 100% guilty.

On one hand I think the punishment of having to spend every day until you die behind bars should be so horrific a thought that it stands as a deterrent. To be euthanized is the easy way out.

On the other, it seems to me that a person receiving a whole life tariff is an anomaly to the extent that society is genuinely better off without them, and a death penalty is more humane in comparison.

[ZedLeg]

Getragdogleg said:

craigjm said:

So the nurse gets a whole life order as we have just seen and joins a small band of other people with the same. I have just had a conversation with a colleague about it who was suggesting those convicted should be given the opportunity to just be euthanised rather than spend the next 50 years in jail kind of thing. Their reasoning was that it would be more cost effective and who wants to be just in jail forever. What do you think? Should it be an option? Or should they be forced to live out their days?

I don't care about the cost, what I care about is getting the verdict right, if you get it wrong and they are put to death that's pretty irreversible.

Too many tales of wrongful conviction to be certain of a death sentence.

Yeah, what's the functional difference between euthanasia and a death sentence? Although, I guess hardly anyone would go for it before they appealed the sentence if they thought it was wrong.

[craigjm]

Getragdogleg said:

craigjm said:

So the nurse gets a whole life order as we have just seen and joins a small band of other people with the same. I have just had a conversation with a colleague about it who was suggesting those convicted should be given the opportunity to just be euthanised rather than spend the next 50 years in jail kind of thing. Their reasoning was that it would be more cost effective and who wants to be just in jail forever. What do you think? Should it be an option? Or should they be forced to live out their days?

I don't care about the cost, what I care about is getting the verdict right, if you get it wrong and they are put to death that's pretty irreversible.

Too many tales of wrongful conviction to be certain of a death sentence.

I said give them the opportunity to choose not bring back the death penalty that’s two different things

[Muzzer79]

craigjm said:

So the nurse gets a whole life order as we have just seen and joins a small band of other people with the same. I have just had a conversation with a colleague about it who was suggesting those convicted should be given the opportunity to just be euthanised rather than spend the next 50 years in jail kind of thing. Their reasoning was that it would be more cost effective and who wants to be just in jail forever. What do you think? Should it be an option? Or should they be forced to live out their days?

1. I'm not really bothered whether they want to be in jail or not. Their right to a choice has ended once convicted.

2. I can't imagine many choosing to be euthanised. They'd just commit suicide if that were the case.

3. Should we, as a society, be encouraging suicide? Even for the evil criminal.

4. We do not know what is on the other side of death. In a just world, the evil would be punished in some kind of hell. However, there could be no punishment at all, just ceasing to exist. Where's the punishment there? There could be utopia and forgiveness for all on the other side, fanciful as you may find that.....

I'm an advocator of proper sentencing, but also for hard time. That doesn't mean poor conditions and slavery, but it means not making prison life more appealing than the outside world and it means mandatory, proper working whilst doing time.

[ZedLeg]

Muzzer79 said:

mandatory, proper working whilst doing time.

I disagree, prisoners shouldn't be used as slave labour for companies to make better profits. Unless you're going to have them out working for the council or something?

[chemistry]

craigjm said:

So the nurse gets a whole life order as we have just seen and joins a small band of other people with the same. I have just had a conversation with a colleague about it who was suggesting those convicted should be given the opportunity to just be euthanised rather than spend the next 50 years in jail kind of thing. Their reasoning was that it would be more cost effective and who wants to be just in jail forever. What do you think? Should it be an option? Or should they be forced to live out their days?

An interesting discussion. I don't support the death penalty but I think I agree with your colleague that anyone convicted should be given the option of euthanasia. It must be in society's best interests for money that would otherwise be 'wasted' looking after these people to be potentially saved and one would hope that anyone wrongly convicted would never choose euthanasia as an option.

[Hungrymc]

craigjm said:

I said give them the opportunity to choose not bring back the death penalty that’s two different things

It's a fair proposal. Sits a little uncomfortably. I guess the despair of a whole life sentence could lead some to take the option even if they know they are not guilty but can't see any way forward... Its complex, I don't know what the answer is.

[JackJarvis]

Give them any form of control? Absolutely not.

There are many areas my taxes go which I'm not happy about, keeping convicted murderers locked up isn't one of them.

[ZedLeg]

chemistry said:

one would hope that anyone wrongly convicted would never choose euthanasia as an option.

I'd imagine someone who's been wrongly convicted of a serious crime would be quite low at the time of sentencing. I don't think you can take that hope for granted.

[Oliver Hardy]

craigjm said:

Getragdogleg said:

craigjm said:

So the nurse gets a whole life order as we have just seen and joins a small band of other people with the same. I have just had a conversation with a colleague about it who was suggesting those convicted should be given the opportunity to just be euthanised rather than spend the next 50 years in jail kind of thing. Their reasoning was that it would be more cost effective and who wants to be just in jail forever. What do you think? Should it be an option? Or should they be forced to live out their days?

I don't care about the cost, what I care about is getting the verdict right, if you get it wrong and they are put to death that's pretty irreversible.

Too many tales of wrongful conviction to be certain of a death sentence.

I said give them the opportunity to choose not bring back the death penalty that’s two different things

But death is a cope out, keeping people like that locked away is a punishment.

[Rivenink]

No.

If we don't offer euthanisia to those who are diagnosed with horrible terminal illnesses that rob people of their identity and agency, or leave them trapped and tortured within a pain-filled husk of a physical form, why should such criminals be allowed to cheat their sentences?

I can see how those who believe in fanciful things like divine judgement and such, might be convinced that speeding a murderer to eternal damnation is a good thing.

I'd suggest a sort of pascals wager in reverse; what if there is no hell? What if there is nothing at all. What if releasing evil people to death is just letting them escape punishment?

No. Keep them in prison until they die naturally. If there is hell, it won't mind waiting. A few decades is nothing compared to eternity.

[crankedup5]

Rivenink said:

No.

If we don't offer euthanisia to those who are diagnosed with horrible terminal illnesses that rob people of their identity and agency, or leave them trapped and tortured within a pain-filled husk of a physical form, why should such criminals be allowed to cheat their sentences?

I can see how those who believe in fanciful things like divine judgement and such, might be convinced that speeding a murderer to eternal damnation is a good thing.

I'd suggest a sort of pascals wager in reverse; what if there is no hell? What if there is nothing at all. What if releasing evil people to death is just letting them escape punishment?

No. Keep them in prison until they die naturally. If there is hell, it won't mind waiting. A few decades is nothing compared to eternity.

Spared me from writing pretty much the same.

[craigjm]

Rivenink said:

No.

If we don't offer euthanisia to those who are diagnosed with horrible terminal illnesses that rob people of their identity and agency, or leave them trapped and tortured within a pain-filled husk of a physical form, why should such criminals be allowed to cheat their sentences?

Yes that’s one thing I said in response that if it was going to be offered then we should at the same time be offering euthanasia to those in the situations you speak of.

I guess money saving wise it’s about 50k a year to keep someone in prison so let’s say she lives until she is 85 at 33 now that would cost £2.6m so it would be a considerable saving that could be invested elsewhere. Knowing our governments though that money would not be ringfenced for useful stuff like the NHS etc

[TwigtheWonderkid]

shirt said:

Assuming said person is 100% guilty.

Everyone found guilty of murder is assumed to be 100% guilty, which is how they got convicted. Yet not all are.

[Skeptisk]

Appeals to those in favour of ill-thought out, simplistic solutions to complicated problems. Probably popular with a certain demographic.

Given that there are only a handful of people with whole life sentences it seems like a sledge hammer to crack a nut.

A more fitting punishment would be to cure her so that she is able to understand and appreciate what she has done - and thereby suffer proper remorse for her actions.