Not.. quite. OK, a few years back the EU courts ruled that indeterminate sentences (i.e. ones that didn't have an end date) shouldn't happen. So 'life' sentences are no longer allowed. They can't just say 'we're going to keep you locked up forever'. What you get in cases like this is 'a minimum term of whatever' - 17 years in this case. What this essentially means is he'll have to be given a parole hearing after 17 years. In practice in a case like this is 17 years from now he'll get his parole hearing, the parole board will say something like 'Hahaha. no'. And he'll go back to jail, with the rule that he gets a parole hearing every few years after that.

So the amount of time he actually serves isn't certain but it's at least 17 years. If you're cynical, you can assume they'll just let him out after that but it's actually unlikely given previous statistics. Plus any successful parole hearing requires the parolee to have modified their outlook and behaviour and not represent a danger to anyone else. He'll have to go some to manage both of those.

IMO, it's unlikely he'll see the outside world at any point before he's a very, very old man not capable of hurting anyone. And I suspect his time in prison will not be very easy. I suspect there are a lot of people inside who would like to express their low opinion of his actions to him at a very personal level.

I think that both crimes carry a maximum life sentence, so it will make little difference. They will obviously be eligible for parole at some point, but there is no guarantee that they will get it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

As along as that keeps on happening, that's fine with me. Get his hopes up and crush them. You couldn't do that with a true life setence.

Should have been hanged by the neck until dead (would save us a few quid too) but politians are all too soft in UK and don't have courage to bring back the death sentance even though repeated polls show the majority of population in favour.

In an adeal world maybe. I was thinking a minimum of thirty years with the laws that we currently have.

Or they're just aware that it isn't a sensible option.

I find myself curious as to whether he'll cost the state more as a prisoner than he did as a free man.

Actually in the long run it is cheaper to hold them for life than kill them. In the US the costs of all the appeals to kill someone make execution a very expensive option. In these times of austerity a death penalty is an expensive luxury.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

in this case the cost of an execution is aprox zero, just let it been known who ever gets him gets an automatic pardon.

Yes but if you were to release criminals in the hope of another crazy killing them, then you really should remove that person as well as a potential killer in their own right. Should no one kill them promptly and the killer goes on another killing spree do you charge the politician in charge of aiding and abetting a murder?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

For those interested, there's a rather good bit of legal analysis of the sentence handed down here:

http://jackofkent.com/2013/04/the-sente ... -philpott/