European News and Poland Thread 3

OK, that's enough for me.


What do you mean?


As in no parole or something like that? If that's the case then we don't have such punishment in Poland. It would be a good idea to have that in some cases though, I think.

Do you think that a serial killer can lead a "good and productive" life if let out of prison? Without killing anyone again?

Zero possibility of parole. It's given sparingly in theory however politicians wanting votes from Daily Heil readers are sometimes swayed by the court of online opinion.

IMO it should exist but should almost never ever be used. Even some of the worst offenders can eventually lead decent lives and those that can't should perhaps be more a matter for psychiatric hospitals.


Yes, and some have.

Karla Homolka comes to mind and there are certainly others.

Like Ted Bundy?


But those that are a matter for psychiatric hospitals are being sent there.


Examples?

Wasn't he executed?

Hard to be released after that, and it's hard to understand why you'd think he was a suitable candidate for release.


Just as you call for harsher sentences, ai call for some of the worst offenders to be in hospitals rather than the prison escape.


It's good generally to actually read the post before replying to it.

How does it matter? I asked you if you believe that Ted Bundy wouldn't kill again if he was let out of prison at some point. So - do you? Do you think he should be let out, if he was sentenced to life in prison instead of being executed, after serving some years?


She was an accomplice to her husband though. "Homolka scored 5/40 on the Psychopathy Checklist, in contrast to Bernardo's 35/40":

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karla_Homolka

I meant rather someone like her husband.


Don't be an ass, I posted my comment before you edited yours :)

You picked a very odd example. Just about the least likely well known one to be eligible for parole.


Who's on a 25 year tariff and of course any decisions about granting or not granting parole will be made when that milestone is reached and will be made by the appropriate professionals. Every case has to be decided on its own merits and decisions about release or otherwise need to be taken with great care.


You must have been pretty quick.

Odd that we're discussing serial killers, perhaps the most extreme form of murderer.

Most people in prison aren't in any sense career criminals. They are people who underestimated their own strength in a fight, got drunk, dis a foolish thing. Should life automatically mean life for them?

To be honest, I don't think the staff in psychiatric hospitals should be forced to deal with the likes of Ted Bundy.

Psychopaths can't be cured as far as I know. Until they can be, there's no point in sending them to psychiatric hospitals.

Don't get me wrong - I'd like psychopathic murderers, serial killers, serial rapists, the worst offenders to be studied, because maybe one day scientists will be able to find out how/if they can be helped. So maybe there should be a research facility where some of them could be put and "reasearched" in the right conditions with treatment attempts, for example. I am not aware if such project exists anywhere though.


This is what I'm asking you - do you think that someone like Ted Bundy should be allowed parole or not?


Why "odd"? We're discussing what kind of offenders should never be let out of prison, life sentences, etc. And you were first to mention a serial killer - Lucy Letby.

You'd be surprised at what/who they have to deal with.

Be under no illusions at all that every serial killer, every murderer who commits the most stomach-churning crimes makes it into the newspapers. Some are kept out to avoid causing discomfort and distress to the public.


Ted Bundy? No, his case is too extreme and as far as I know, nobody ever advocated for his release.. Charles Salvador and Maria Pearson, probably. Beverly Allitt, possibly, depending on whether she's cured of her mental illness and whether or not her release can be managed. We will find out soon, since she's up for parole shortly. Mary Bell was of course released and has committed no crime since.


Indeed. Would she kill again? She has a whole life tariff, though that of course could be removed on appeal (and there are certainly some who believe her to be innocent). She's a candidate for possible future release should her tariff be altered and appropriate professionals decide she is no longer a risk.

I don't believe that everyone can be rehabilitated. Paedophiles and serial sex offenders for example. These type of offenders don't just get better.


And with increasing regularity the appropriate professionals get it wrong and release people who go on to reoffend again. Or you get a judge that should have been put out to pasture giving a ridiculously lenient sentence in the first place.

I'd say that the worst of those are unlikely candidates for release.

For sex offenders (and there are an awful lot of those locked up at the moment) there are some who are on IPP sentences and eligible for parole but wont be released due to maintaining innocence. In some cases there are serious issues with the evidence that convicted them and the way the police gathered it however there seems to be little interest in revisiting the evidence.


As far as I know, that was the driving factor behind the Unduly Lenient Sentences Act.

Sure and in effect such offenders can never be free again until they die, because they will be denied parole every time. I do think though that there are such cases where it's so obvious that this person should never get out of prison that in those cases they could get those "whole life tariffs".

Having said that - I don't care that much if such people are getting life sentence or that whole life tariff, as long as it works and a person who shouldn't be let out of prison isn't being let out of prison.


I have been :)


That happens too, yes.

Only in the most extreme circumstances. Broadmoor Hospital, where there are some very dangerous people, operates a network of satellite old people"s homes and that is a better option for elderly long term inmates. That was a suitable option for Peter Sutcliffe however the court of public opinion would have screamed at any Home Secretary who permitted it.


Of course, which is why great care is needed. I'd say though that more prisoners are kept in longer than necessary than are released inappropriately.

I have no way of knowing that. You're basing this opinion on what exactly?

I know that in Poland, for example, it happens that people who should be in prison don't even make it there, even though they were found guilty (for crimes as serious as rape) or they have to wait for their turn to serve their sentence, because there's not enough room in prisons.

That's certainly a fault of the prison system. Poland's prison population isn't small, however there seem to be a lot of short sentences which might better be replaced with community service orders and also a surprising number of recalls.

As I say, rehabilitation is usually better than just punishment. We've been chatting about serial killers here. They are a very small part of the prison population. The overwhelming majority are inside for far less serious concisions and do not benefit from their stay inside and nor of course do their families.


Thirty years involvement in prison reform, including being a former employee of NACRO.

I don't understand why you keep repeating that... We're discussing serial killers, because we're discussing whole life tariff and life sentences. I'm not saying that someone who stole a car should get a life sentence or whole life tariff, for God's sake... *sigh*


In which countries?

You don't need to.

As I've said, serial killers (which the Yazidi girl isn't) are very rare. The overwhelming majority of prisoners are not lifers, and the majority of ligers are not career criminals.

Don't you think a murderer can be rehabilitated or that rehabilitation is (in every case where it is possible) a better aim of the criminal justice system than punishment?

Don't you think that a whole life tariff should only be used in the most extreme situations?

?
That ISIS bride is German, not Yazidi. The victim was Yazidi.


The husband of that ISIS bride got life sentence though.


Yes and that's what I've been saying all this time:

'I do think though that there are such cases where it's so obvious that this person should never get out of prison that in those cases they could get those "whole life tariffs".'

Does that make a difference tnough? I'd say that nationality, religion, sexuality, educational level and social class should not be factors in sentencing policy.


As far as I know, that is the only possible sentence for murder. Do you know what his tariff is (or if DE don't use them, what the normal parole wait is)?


That is the intention of whole life tariffs. or was the intention when they were introduced in the U.K., however subsequent Home Secretaries have used them less sparingly than was their original intent, often due to tabloid pressure.

That's the best part. There were many cases where two a-holes would point fingers at each other who shot the victim. We solved this dilemma quickly: We don't give a fu*ck and sentence both to LWOP or the DP and let God sort it out. I love this country so much...

OK, Mr. Nice Guy, would would you do as a judge or a juror when two a-holes point fingers at each other who shot the victim?

Now, children, a demo of how Euros weasel out...

Looks like he's never heard of the very controversial concept (in English law) of Joint Enterprise and certainly has no idea how many prisoners are currently serving sentences due to that provision.

Using evidence to prove who actually murdered the victim? Forensics have come a long way after wall.

@jon357


Depends. A life sentence means the convict can appeal for parole after 15 years, which is statistically speaking granted after two more years in prison.

If the crime was particulary heinous, the convict can only apply for parole at an unspecified time after he is no longer considered to be dangerous. Mind you this is rather rare for first-time offenders and if there is "only" one victim.

It is possible to sentence someone to preventive detention on top of the prison sentence if he is deemed a risk for society, which can last until the convict dies. Notably this sentence is not exclusively for murder, but also sex crimes and if the culprit commits many other heavy crimes.

Each of your three paragraphs are pretty well how the U.K. does it with only a few subtle differences. A 15 year tariff is usually the minimum and would apply in a case where, say, someone killed their neighbour in a drunken rage, the only real difference is that longer tariffs are given in where there are circumstances that the court believes would merit that.


We call that IPP (an indefinite sentence for public protection) which was sometimes used for sexual predators or for other complicated matters. It's not the same as a life sentence and doesn't have a tariff. Basically the person is in prison until it's felt that they are no longer a risk. They were sometimes used as an alternative to detaining someone under the Mental Health Act, especially if psychiatrists can't agree on the person's sanity. Although they were abolished a few years ago many of the people who received those sentences are still inside.

@jon357

Interesting how similar those systems are.


Do you mean that IPP is still possible, but the conditions for its' application have been sharpened? We had the same thing happening to preventive detention a few years ago.

Statistically speaking, most murders are crimes of passion and the culprit knows the victim. The former has often led an unremarkeable until then, without any prior crimes They are less likely to reoffend than other types of criminals, and very few of them commit another murder. That does in no way excuse their crime, but it also means that they have a real chance of rehabilitation afterwards.

You made a mistake (a pretty *shocking one for me) and so I corrected you.

*It's as if you mistook an SS officer with his Jewish victim.


Where did I write that those should be factors?


?

I didn't, but then again, you tried to pick an argument, lost it, and have been sat up all night seething. That adds nothing to a discussion on serious matters.


Who said you did or didn't?


??

Do you want a list of countries that a poster has worked in. And why would it make the slightest difference?

Not how I see it.

I also don't have much hope in rehabilitation of a person that showed such level of cruelty for prolonged period of time.

Another matter not mentioned here is justice. There is no agreement in me that a person who committed such crimes can walk out and lead normal life after short time.

There is however agreement among those who have to actually make the decisions. Hence the sentence that was given to the woman in question by those who give sentences.


Did you think that's what parole and release under licence are about?

It's a bit more complicated than that.

I was sleeping at night, jon357. I also didn't try to "pick an argument" and I didn't "lose" anything.


I only corrected your mistake. If it wasn't for your unnecessary and irritating comment on that, I'd have nothing to respond to.


Yes, you did:

An odd thing to try to pick up on. A sure sign that you lost an argument that you deliberately tied to pick. And of course entirely irrelevant to the direction of the discussion. The English term for that is "nit-picking" and it is never considered to be a good habit.


You did, and not by any means for the first time. You would do well to read Eric Berne on the matter.