Last night on Question Time, Piers Morgan related the tale of going to the House of Lords and having lunch there and boring the arse off a Lord who fell asleep at the table and his face fell into his bowl of soup. Before Lord Phillips became Lord Chief Justice, his reward for dismissing my case at the Court of Appeal when he was Master of the Rolls, I was telling him about the psychiatrist member on my first Parole Board hearing who fell asleep whilst trying to assess whether I was still an unacceptable risk to the public. It was after lunch, so he had probably had too much to drink. I was trying to make the point that I failed to see how his assessment could keep me in custody longer than I should be in prison when someone in his position owed both the public and myself a duty to hear the evidence. The doddery old fool was a geriatric. Lord Phillips' response was "Quite, quite, Mr Hirst, but where does that get us?". An entry in Private Eye, mi'Lord!
The Lord Chief Justice is arguing that sending more and more people to prison for longer and longer sentences is causing overcrowding in the penal system. He was particularly concerned with the increase in geriatric lifers. H.M. Prison Kingston in Portsmouth is an old peoples home, and other old peoples homes are springing up in other parts of the penal estate. Lord Phillips states that the 30 year life tariffs for murder are utterly barbaric. I agree. I think we should go back to the 19th century when lifers who were transported to Australia served between 7-8 years. This is the length of a life sentence in the enlightened Swedish penal system. He states that he is against the mandatory life sentence for murder, and that it should be replaced with determinate sentences to fit the circumstances of each case.
I know that I cost the taxpayer well over a £1M during my life sentence. There are now over 3,000 lifers in prison for murder, manslaughter, rape and arson. And another 2,000 automatic lifers, on 3 strikes and you are out, for stealing bottles of milk from Tesco and such like. There is a need for some to serve natural life, and some to serve more than a tariff of 8 years, however, the vast majority are serving too long and it is costing too much. Whichever party comes to power at the next election, this growing problem needs to be tackled. At present, it would appear that both John Reid and David Davis are asleep together in a double bed.
A mixture of law, politics, autobiography and humour. Once described as "The Devilish Advocate" (Guardian), I do have the ability to provoke a response. Sometimes it comes from someone who uses a thought process, and sometimes from jerks usually associated with the knee.
Site Meter
3 comments:
A well written and thought-provoking post. Why do you think 30 year life tariffs are barbaric? Do you feel that they do not take into account the rehabilitation element in a sentence? On the other side of the argument, I would argue that proson sentences for some crimes are too short.
I suppose it all depends on how much weight you give to the purpose of prison. If you give more weight to the punishment element than to the rehabilitation element, you would perhaps argue that the sentences were too short. However, in addition, there is the public safety element. Thirty years in prison is perfectly right for a dangerous fiend who, for example, has been killing young girls, and who poses an immediate danger to the public. However, in typing these words, I am now asking myself, are we punishing this fiend, not for what he has already done, heinous though that is, but also for what he might do? And is it right for us to do that?
(I've added your blog to my links, btw.)
Well seeing as the detection rate for burglary is only 20%.. and in most Europena countries it is nearer 90% you could argue we need more prison spaves to take the extra jailed criminals.. so lets release a few lifers..
Does prison act as a deterrent?
I reply:
not to the insane.
Not if your chances of being jailed after a crime are less than 50%.
And of course we have drugs: if we jailed all 3 million cannabis users...
So we end up with worst of all worlds: if you get caught you may get banged up for a long time but for many crimes, the chances are you will never be caught.
No wonder the entire legal system is falling into disrepute.
I suggest you ask the wider question: how do we amke our legal system work?
Tinkering at the edges is not going to solve any problems imo.
Hi bel
If you click on the title it is actually a link to the original piece in the Guardian.
When I first went into prison, a life sentence was 7-8 years on average. But, politicians have pandered to the hang 'em and flog 'em brigade and gradually it got extended and extended.
Back in Saxon Times, a murder would attract a fine. By the 18th century, it was a hanging offence, as was many minor offences. What alot of people fail to understand, is that a life sentence was never intended to mean that a lifer should spend the rest of his life in prison. The sentence arose when the death penalty was abolished, and the prisoner's sentece was commuted from taking his life to giving him his life back. So, when people say life should mean life in prison they are misunderstanding the concept of the sentence. (I have just been phoned by Radio 5 Live, they want to do an interview tonight with me on this topic).
It's the indeterminacy of the sentence which is cruel. Not knowing how long you will serve. Whichever party gets into office, the prisoner loses out because the politicians pander to the whims of a vociferous minority and the editorials in The Sun. Churchill stated that you can judge how civilised a society is by how it treats its prisoners. And we treat them badly which makes us not very civilised. Rehabilitation is better than seeking revenge. Churchill said that in every man there is a nugget of gold, not all men are all bad.
In the Ian Huntley case or Moors Murders case, these are particularly bad examples, but the public have lost the ability to reason this out and differentiate and we all get tarred by the same brush.
What we need to have is a civilised debate rather than ignorant ranting and raving that serves neither society nor prisoners.
I served 15 years for what I had done, and then I served 10 years for what the Parole Board thought I might do in the future. I was not guilty of this, and have not reoffended since I have been out. It is unjust to serve time for thought crime in the minds of others.
I saw that you had linked.
Post a Comment