what is "for life"

[jackvdbuk]

i think all these questions i never know the answer to...

and so i was reading the paper today, about someone doing something naughty and had been sentenced to life in prison...

now to me that means till the person dies behind bars, yet it then goes on to say that it will be a minimum of 11 years... now where do they work that out from?

[TooNice]

I am not sure why they call it life when it's not in many countries (though some do mean it), maybe it's because it's long enough to mess up someone's life for good. There is also the whole life tariff in the UK which is closer to what it means.

[staffsMike]

Well the way I see it is 11 years is a fairly long time and in that time certain criminals will rehabilitate, have behaved themselves in prison and should probably be given a shot at life on the outside.

We couldn't hope to give everyone life (who probably do deserve it) and support them in prison that whole time, so we need to differentiate between those who will probably not re-offend and those who will. I don't know the statistics so I'm no sure how accurate we are with those assumptions lol

I mean a man may find his wife cheating on him and kill the bloke in a fit of rage. It's obviously murder and since he is capable of murder should be behind bars. But chances are he is no Charles Manson and would never kill again so life in prison just isn't worth the tax payers money.

[Whiternoise]

Some people get multiple life sentences for example, in the US certainly, dunno about the UK, which are literally "for life".

Reoffending depends on the crime i guess. Prison has it's downsides, if you're in for 11 years, chances are by the time you get out you'll have learnt a thing or two and may have also got a drug addiction amongst other things (so you'd be much more likely to reoffend).

Bear in mind that reoffending rates are also very high because it's practically impossible (or very difficult) to get a decent job with a criminal record - so naturally people steal to make ends meet.

[Twigman]

As far as I understand life means it is permanently on your record. In the way that points on your driving licenses eventually expire, so do prison sentences etc. The shorter the sentence the shorter it's on your record. Life sentences never expire and are with you "for life".
I think that's basically it
I'm sure some legal-er will come and add to this.

[TooNice]

We couldn't hope to give everyone life (who probably do deserve it) and support them in prison that whole time, so we need to differentiate between those who will probably not re-offend and those who will.

I understand what you are saying but I think the question here is why not just say '11 years in prison' as opposed to 'life for 11 years'? I also wonder about on the condition of prison life. If someone was caught red handed, and given life imprisonment as a punishment, does said individual deserve a prison with an upkeep that should concern tax-payers (or maybe I am wrong, and overestimating the conditions of prisoners)?

[staffsMike]

Because it is 11 years minimum of a life sentance. They would be elligable for parole at 11 years but that certainly doesn't mean they are getting out.

I guess you're venturing into the commit a crime, void your human rights argument towards the end there. Some countries are obviously far harsher on their criminals than we are.

[TooNice]

*Going off topic*. Well, I am not going as far as supporting capital punishment, then billing the cost of the bullet to the family of the convict (or even capital punishment, full stop). Still, prison is meant to be a punishment, the quality of life shouldn't be improved as a result of their crimes. The man on the street deserve the tax payers support more than the one who could not resist turning to crime (one's a burden to society, the other harm society).

Alternatively, would it be cost effective to have prisons where the physically healthy convicts have to do income generating manual labour as form of exercise? For instance, have them dig up coals or something. I am not sure if that's how it work in real life, but on TV, prisoners are seen playing basketball and such. Now I understand that people need exercise. But I also think that the energy should be used on something that would allow them to give something back to society rather than just their own entertainment .

[Saracen]

I understand what you are saying but I think the question here is why not just say '11 years in prison' as opposed to 'life for 11 years'? I also wonder about on the condition of prison life. If someone was caught red handed, and given life imprisonment as a punishment, does said individual deserve a prison with an upkeep that should concern tax-payers (or maybe I am wrong, and overestimating the conditions of prisoners)?

If you get a sentence of 11 years, you're going to be eligible for a parole hearing a fair bit earlier than that, and once you've served the sentence, you've served it.

If, during that 11 year sentence, you manage to get parole you'll be released, but you're on parole! Even though out of jail, you're not yet clear of that sentence. Break the terms of that parole and you can be slapped straight back inside to finish your 11 years. But again, if you do, once you've served the 11-year sentence you're out, and you'd need to be tried and convicted of something else to be banged up again.

Contrast that to a life sentence. With a life sentence, you're NEVER off parole. You might be given life, with a tariff of 11 years, which means that's when you'd become eligible for parole but, as Mike said, it's by no means a given that you'll get it. And if you do, you're effectively on parole for the rest of your life. Put a foot wrong and breach your licence conditions and you're back inside serving your sentence again, with no need for trials, convictions, etc.

Whether it's satisfactory or not is another matter, but getting an 11 year tariff on a life sentence has very different implications from getting an eleven year sentence, the major one being that you'll never be clear of that sentence, because even if out of jail, it's on licence.

[TooNice]

Thanks for the explanation, it does make sense. Is an overlap likely though ? How likely is it likely that someone is sentenced for a duration comparable to that of a life sentence, yet not receive a life sentence?

[Lucio]

Thanks for the explanation, it does make sense. Is an overlap likely though ? How likely is it likely that someone is sentenced for a duration comparable to that of a life sentence, yet not receive a life sentence?

Generally speaking, things like Armed Robbery, Drugs offenses and sometimes terrorism offenses where no one dies can recieve a 15-20 year sentance, which means they spend longer inside than someone with a "life" sentance.

[Saracen]

Pretty likely, I'd have thought.

There are a fair few offences for which lengthy sentences are appropriate, and given, but for which life isn't appropriate ..... or available. I'd think it's quite conceivable that you ( a mythical you, I mean ) could receive a non-life sentence that actually sees you serving longer behind bars than someone with a life sentence but a low tariff.

Bear in mind that "life" is mandatory for a murder conviction, but that "murder" covers a multitude of very diverse scenarios, ranging from the most heinous of child or sex predators that kill, to a drunken brawl that ends up in a killing. Some people may be likely to re-offend given half a chance, such as if they're ever released, while others may have to serve time as punishment for their actions but aren't in the least likely to ever re-offend. Suppose a wife has been repeatedly beaten or abused, and can take it no longer. She waits for abusive husband to pass out drunk and, fearful of a beating on his awakening, stabs him. It's likely to be murder, because arguably she could have fled, could have appealed for help and wasn't in imminent danger, so it wasn't self-defence.

But, in the absence of the wife-beating hubby, is she an on-going danger to society?

We can't just declare open season on anyone that's ever slapped his wife, because thoroughly reprehensible though that is, it's hardly a justification for killing someone. So there has to be a line as to what any of us can do in such situations, a line where something ceases to be self-defence and becomes either murder or manslaughter. Given that, however much we might sympathise with the abused wife, we can't (or at lease, society doesn't) just condone killing as the solution.

So .... that abused wife gets, for argument's sake, convicted of murder .... and she likely would. She WILL then get "life", as it's mandatory. However, though "life" is mandatory, the judge has a fair degree of latitude on the tariff. Given a situation like that, do we want someone that killed in that kind of situation banged up for 20 years? Is that actually justice? Or did the abusive poopbag husband not at least half deserve what he got? Is the wife going to be an on-going danger to society when she gets out? Should she be treated with the same severity as the bastard that, for instance, shot PC Sharon Beshenivsky?

Given that murder carries a mandatory life sentence, and given that the circumstances of a murder can vary very significantly, it's only right that the tariff varies too, because the element of punishment ought to fit the crime, and because the extent to which the public need protecting varies hugely too.

So yes, a serious offence that doesn't carry life could well result in a sentence that overlaps with the prison element of a life sentence (which, incidentally, while it's mandatory for murder is also available as a non-mandatory sentence for a range of other crimes) ... and so it should, IMHO.