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.

London underground was brought to a halt today by Bob Crow and the RMT union. The dispute is over government plans to cut 950 jobs and remove ticket offices. They say only 2% of the public use the offices and closing them would save £40m. London Mayor Boris Johnson condemned the action and called for new laws to outlaw striking. While many have great indifference outside of London, the government and large portions of the media were also less than supportive of Crows action. The RMT however claims that Johnson refused to negotiate and would not meet to discuss the plans, despite him claiming during his election campaign that he was against closures of ticket offices. 

This year marks the 30^th anniversary of the miner’s strike. Thatcher’s government claimed at the time that it planned to close 20 pits. NUM leader Arthur Scargill, claimed the Tories and National Coal Board chairman Ian MacGregor had a secret hit list to close 75 mines.

American industrialist, Sir Ian Kinloch MacGregor, was hired by Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher to run the coal board after originally bringing him in to cut 177,00 Steel worker’s jobs to 71,000 in less than four years. It cost the Tory Government £1.8m to free MacGregor from his Lazard’s contract. In March ’83 MacGregor was installed as Chair of the NCB to the opposition of Scargill, who was less than happy with the Americans business methods and the reputation he had gained closing the steel works.

Thatcher’s plan had little to do with economical ideology and a lot to do with political ideology. She deliberately set about dismantling the coal industry because she wanted to crush the trade unions.

In March of 1984 Scargill brought his members out on a long and bitter strike. MacGregor wrote to every miner denying Scargill’s claims that 75 pits faced closure.

Not only did the actions of the Thatcher government and the strike action of Scargill affect the industry, it wreaked absolute havoc on communities up and down the country, many of which still have not recovered.  In the early ‘80s jobs were already scarce (not helped the steel work closures),  and many villages were full of school leavers who’s only intention was to work down the mines like their fathers, and their fathers’ fathers’ before them. Some villages relied almost exclusively on the local pit for any form of employment and without the pits most other local businesses would not have survived.  So when these communities were fighting for their survival, some families could not cope with hard ship any longer and crossed the picket lines and returned to work. They were called scabs by the pickets and feuds broke out which linger and fester to this day. Such were the emotions of the times that on Lady Thatcher’s death last year, many villages threw parties.  During the dispute there were scenes of serious brutality from Police drafted in to marshal the sites.

On the 18^th of June ’84, the NUM arranged a mass picket at a coking plant in South Yorkshire; the NUM had 5,000 members from across the UK travel to Orgreave in an attempt to temporarily force the closure of the pit.

 Many claim that the notorious Battle of Orgreave was an ambush. The pickets were guided to a field where they were surrounded by Police.  The 5000 miners were outnumbered by 8000 police officers deployed from 10 counties. They included over 50 mounted officers and 50 dogs. Those beaten and arrested that day included journalists, members of the public, teenagers and miners who had turned up to exercise their right to peaceful demonstration. In 2001 a biography by a former  M15 director general, admitted that the organisation had tapped the phones of union leaders, which possibly led to the carnage that day.

 The excessive violence and brutality metered out by the Police that day resulted in South Yorkshire Police being forced to pay out half a million pound in compensation in 1991.

The miners finally returned to work, exhausted by extreme poverty,   after almost a year without wages, on the 3^rd of March 1985, having lost the battle, although around 87% of miners in Yorkshire remained on strike to the end.  Pit closures followed to the point where today there are only a handful of mines in operation.

National archive records recently released prove that Scargill was in fact right in his claims that the Government intended to close 75 pits at a cost of 75000 jobs in a plot to dismantle the trade union movement.

following the release of the papers, Tory leader David Cameron has refused to apologise to the families of miners, insisting it is Scargill and the Labour party that should apologise.

His cold and callous attitude proves that Tory ideology has not changed and that the party is still in favour of privatising the nation to benefit their millionaire donors while wrecking the lives of the workers and the trade unions.