21/08/13

                          Life for a life?

On the 23^rd October 1983, Suzanne Laitner planned the most memorable day of her life- her wedding. It was to become the most memorable day of her life for a very different reason. Hours after her wedding reception, her parents Basil and Avril Laitner were murdered in their home. Her brother Richard was also stabbed to death and her 18 year old sister raped at knife point by Arthur Hutchinson. Hutchinson, who was already wanted for rape and had spent 5 years in prison for attempting to murder his brother-in-law, was sentenced to life imprisonment in September 1984. It was recommended that he spend at least 18 years behind bars, meaning he could have been released in 2002.

Former home secretary Leon Brittan placed Hutchinson on a list of prisoners, whose life sentences should mean life, meaning he would probably never be released.

Hutchinson appealed the sentence, his solicitors arguing that an actual life sentence was in breach of the treble murderers' human rights. In July this year the European Court of Human Rights ruled that it was inhuman and degrading to never have the possibility of parole and was indeed in breach of his human rights.

In August 1985 25 year old Jeremy Bamber shot dead his adoptive parents and sister along with her 6 year old twins. He was given 5 life sentences for the crimes which prosecutors said he carried out for inheritance money. He claimed and still pleads to this day his innocence. Like Hutchinson, Bamber also claimed the sentence breached his human rights and the European Court of human rights has ruled in his favour also.

The government now has six months to respond to Strasbourg’s rulings.

These rulings by the ECHR begs the question, should life mean life? Should a man or woman convicted of crimes like these be locked up until they die, or should their human rights be protected and their liberty granted at some point? If killers like Hutchinson and Barber are freed by Strasbourg what message would it send to criminals? Would it lead to prisoners such as serial killer Peter Sutcliffe, who murdered 13 women in the ‘80s and is serving 20 life sentences having the right to appeal?

Some will no doubt say that if we take away the civil liberties and breach the human rights of murderers, then we are no better than them. They will argue that the fact we have the decency to grant these people their dignity is what grants us the right to sit in judgement. There will, inevitably, be those who say everyone deserves a second chance and prison should be about rehabilitation.

There will also be those who say an eye for an eye, a life for a life. Some might say the likes of Bamber, Hutchinson and Sutcliffe should be executed. There are still many people who believe that the death penalty should be brought back for crimes such as these.

Some opportunist political voices will use this story as proof that we should get out of Europe and make our own rules.

 Personally, I can see a case for all of these arguments but ultimately, we must treat even the most savage of criminals like human beings. It is wrong to intentionally take another life under any circumstances. It is wrong to deprive someone of their dignity, even if they have deprived others of theirs. It is vital that we show humanity and compassion to people convicted of the most terrible crimes if we are to protest when other countries do not treat prisoners the way we would like them to. If we are to be held aloft as an example of fairness and decency as a nation, then we need to demonstrate this to our monsters, not just our petty criminals.

 That said, I also believe that some people are incapable of rehabilitation, and even aged in their 70’s pose a threat to the general public. One would hope that these people would not be released but that should be for the parole board to decide, not a single home secretary.



update 27/2/14

 

In August last year the European Court of Human Rights ruled that all convictions should be reviewed after 25 years. This ruling would mean that whole of life sentences – with no possibility of release would no longer be allowed, putting hold some high profile cases, such as soldier Lee Rigby’s killers.

Last week a panel of five judges backed the principle of whole life terms, overturning the Strasbourg decision. It said that the ability to pass whole-life orders was entirely compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.

The court increased the 40 year minimum term handed to Ian McLoughlin who murdered a good Samaritan during a robbery while on day release from prison, to a whole-life tariff. Even McLoughlin, who was on day release from a life sentence for a 1992 murder, said the family of victim Graham Buck, deserved to know that he would die in prison. McLoughlin had previously served 10 years for manslaughter after beating a man over the head with a hammer in 1984.

The court also rejected an appeal against a whole of life sentence given to Lee Newell, who murdered a child killer while in prison for a separate murder.

Tory MP, Dominic Raab said “the UK courts have definitively rejected the ludicrous ruling from Strasbourg demanding that the most dangerous criminals are given the chance to be freed. It is a victory for common sense and democracy- and shows the government is right to fight the human rights mission creep tooth and nail.”

 

 

There are currently forty nine prisoners serving whole-life sentences including Rose West and cop killer Dale Cregan.

Some would argue that the heinous crimes these people have committed should mean they are punished severely and should give up the right to their freedom for ever, along with any other rights such as voting.  Other more liberal people may argue that no matter what the crime there has to be a portion of rehabilitation to prison and one could argue that hope is an integral part of that process. If we are simply punishing, and are to throw away the key, then there is little chance of (or point to) rehabilitation.

If we are to say once convicted of serious crime we give up on you and you in turn give up your rights to be treated like a human being then surely we are no better than the cold blooded killers we seek to punish.

I’m not saying set them free- far from it. I think stiff sentencing is crucial as a deterrent and to say we as a society will not tolerate this behaviour but to take away all hope will lead to desperation. Desperate people do desperate things. There should be a minimum term with a review to follow. The word review does not guarantee freedom but gives hope. If in forty years’ time these people are still a threat to the public or if they fail to show any remorse then they should be kept locked up- that simple.

I fear too many people will use this case to bang the drum for getting out of Europe. We always hear that parliament is sovereign meaning it makes its own laws so the EU argument ought to be irrelevant but whether in Europe or not we simply cannot remove all hope and dignity from people in prison.  Again, I’m not advocating Xbox and movie night, I’m saying if you take away a person’s rights completely you will only make a bigger monster.

 There are people alongside the life term prisoners who have not committed such crimes. Some are purely victims of circumstance and have a second chance on release. People who have all rights and all hope taken away have nothing to gain from behaving and nothing to lose from not. The less dangerous criminals locked up alongside such caged animals will be at risk of never rehabilitating either and may even continue to commit crimes in jail, leading to longer sentences like in the case of Lee Newell. Other young vulnerable prisoners will also be at risk of being radicalised by the two men jailed this week for the horrific killing of Lee Rigby.

We need to make a decision whether we want our prisons to places of rehabilitation and education, providing offenders with a chance of life after prison or simply a nasty place to punish criminals we have given up on as a society.