Should murderers be eligible for parole?

[Kermit power]

I am not in favour of bringing back the death penalty for the simple reason that if it were to be wrongly applied once, that would be once too often.

However, I really struggle to understand why we have a legal system that allows murderers the possibility of release. Even setting aside any sense of moral outrage, it just doesn't seem logical. If you have ended the life of another human being, then surely you should expect to spend the remainder of your own life locked up. Surely anything less if effectively saying that your life is somehow worth more than your victim's?

Can anyone think of any reason why a murderer should ever be released from prison?

I am, by the way, specifically talking about murder. I wouldn't necessarily be so harsh over someone who killed someone else without intent.

[Mojooo]

Kermit power said:

If you have ended the life of another human being, then surely you should expect to spend the remainder of your own life locked up.

That is probably where your thinking differs from the Justice system.

I would broadly agree but I think a black and white answer is not possible. For example I think someone who has killed for revenge should be considered for release if I had sympathiy for their motivation.

[B3njamin]

Yes, contrary to its failings that are well publicised, I believe the current justice system it is the lesser of two evils if the alternative is locking convicted murderers with no chance for parole.

Even if you do lock somebody up indefinitely, throwing away the key, it won't bring back the dead and it won't be anywhere near comfort to those who are left to cope with the loss. Some things are inexcusable and murder in many cases is arguably one of them, but effectively killing a man in return for his actions won't bring the deceased back.

Say the murderer in question serves just 20 years in prison - that's a long time, about a third of his remaining life taken away by the state at best if he commits murder at the young age of just 20. Aside from sociopaths, people feel remorse for murder and 20 years sat inside a cell gives you plenty of time to think about it - replaying it over and over until it becomes your whole being along with your incarceration. Perhaps the question is more about whether or not you believe people are able to truly change for the better and are able to be released back into society - it's a question arguably without a simple answer and no easy paint-by-numbers response, however if you believe that people are capable of such change then eventual parole makes sense.

Edited by B3njamin on Saturday 26th February 01:29

[Thom987]

I think they should be eligible for parole, but only after they have served a lengthy sentence. Minimum tariffs can be very short in the UK and clearly need to be looked at.

[davepoth]

There are some people that should be locked up forever, but then there has to be the possibility of rehabilitation for all but the most psychopathic otherwise you will see a lot more murdering going on in prison.

[mph1977]

Thom987 said:

I think they should be eligible for parole, but only after they have served a lengthy sentence. Minimum tariffs can be very short in the UK and clearly need to be looked at.

murderers are not paroled in the usual way and remain subject to recall to prison at any time, they don't even necessarily have to be convicted of a further crime or the 'conviction' could be so low level that anyone else would be cautioned or get an fixed penalty

[Eric Mc]

Like most legal issue, it depends. A mad axe murder who bumped off a dozen people should never be considered for release.

However, someone who cracked under some sort of stressful situation and acted way out of character would be at the other end of the "release" scale.

There are lots of different types of murders and lots of different types of murderers.

[alangla]

I've always been in favour of a risk-based approach to release for people convicted of serious offences - if the punishment part of the tariff has been served, then the individual should be released as soon as they're assessed as posing little or no risk to the public. The difficult bit is applying this properly. It's almost inevitable that mistakes will be made and dangerous individuals will be released while very low risk individuals will remain in prison for longer than necessary. I also think things like tagging & home curfews have a part to play in re-introducing long-term prisoners into society.

[JagLover]

Mojooo said:

That is probably where your thinking differs from the Justice system.

I would broadly agree but I think a black and white answer is not possible. For example I think someone who has killed for revenge should be considered for release if I had sympathiy for their motivation.

Yes, as above it depends on the circumstances of the case.

[Brighton Derly]

To would-be killers, life imprisonment would be more of a deterent than it is now, so yes remove parole, as it would help to prevent deaths in the first place.

[davepoth]

Brighton Derly said:

To would-be killers, life imprisonment would be more of a deterent than it is now, so yes remove parole, as it would help to prevent deaths in the first place.

They have the death penalty in lots of countries, and they still have lots of murders. The proportion of potential murderers who would think "you know what, if I kill this person and get caught, I might spend the rest of my life in prison; I'll just brutally assault him instead" is quite small.

[Brighton Derly]

davepoth said:

Brighton Derly said:

To would-be killers, life imprisonment would be more of a deterent than it is now, so yes remove parole, as it would help to prevent deaths in the first place.

They have the death penalty in lots of countries, and they still have lots of murders. The proportion of potential murderers who would think "you know what, if I kill this person and get caught, I might spend the rest of my life in prison; I'll just brutally assault him instead" is quite small.

Then why did the UK murder rate double within 15 years of the death penalty being abolished?

[Einion Yrth]

Brighton Derly said:

Then why did the UK murder rate double within 15 years of the death penalty being abolished?

Looking at the graph in this, I see no step change discontinuity rather a gradual upward trend in the homicide rate. Looks very much like the abolition of the death penalty made the square root of bugger all difference.

[Brighton Derly]

Einion Yrth said:

Brighton Derly said:

Then why did the UK murder rate double within 15 years of the death penalty being abolished?

Looking at the graph in this, I see no step change discontinuity rather a gradual upward trend in the homicide rate. Looks very much like the abolition of the death penalty made the square root of bugger all difference.

Well obviously it took people a while to get used to the idea that committing murder doesn't equal certain death anymore.

[Eric Mc]

I wonder did the number of murder convictions increase PRECISELY because courts knew those found guilty WOULD NOT be hanged.

Was there more effort put into obtaiaing manslaughter convictions by defending baristers BEFORE 1965 in order to try and spare the life of the convicted?

Bare graphs don't always display the full story.

[ExChrispy Porker]

Murderers are released on life licence. They can be, and frequently are, recalled for fairly trivial matters.
I also think the chance of parole ( or licence) helps with maintaining discipline in prisons, for obvious reasons.

[anonymous-user]

davepoth said:

There are some people that should be locked up forever, but then there has to be the possibility of rehabilitation for all but the most psychopathic otherwise you will see a lot more murdering going on in prison.

Yep. Without the possibility of release at some future point there is no incentive to behave at all or to rehabilitate. Obviously the Peter Sutcliffes and Rose Wests need to rot inside but for most the probability of future release should remain.

[Willy Nilly]

Eric Mc said:

Like most legal issue, it depends. A mad axe murder who bumped off a dozen people should never be considered for release.

However, someone who cracked under some sort of stressful situation and acted way out of character would be at the other end of the "release" scale.

There are lots of different types of murders and lots of different types of murderers.

amen to that

Ian Brady is a bit different a bloke I saw on a TV documentary. He was a game keeper, and came home to find his mrs is bed with someone else. He cracked and shot one of them or maybe them both with his (legally held) shot gun. I seem to remember he was doing something with fresh water fish in prison and just looked like you or I apart from being racked with guilt.

[Jasandjules]

If your father had a very painful and terminal disease and you took action to end his life so as to reduce his pain, that's murder. Would you see someone in those shoes go to jail for the rest of their lives?

There are far too many variables to have a blanket punishment for murder.

[elster]

Brighton Derly said:

davepoth said:

Brighton Derly said:

To would-be killers, life imprisonment would be more of a deterent than it is now, so yes remove parole, as it would help to prevent deaths in the first place.

They have the death penalty in lots of countries, and they still have lots of murders. The proportion of potential murderers who would think "you know what, if I kill this person and get caught, I might spend the rest of my life in prison; I'll just brutally assault him instead" is quite small.

Then why did the UK murder rate double within 15 years of the death penalty being abolished?

You can'tuse that as an indicator. The stats start post war, there were other issues and circumstances. Like rebuilding a country and replace a missing generation.

There is no way on earth a logical conclusion can be drawn up from a single action and not take into account the other circumstances.

You can't compare a serial killer or a professional killer to that of an enraged personal moment. Such a s a man who killed the guy who raped his little sister.