Indeterminate and Life Sentences in England and Wales - Term Paper Example

Indeterminate and Life Sentences in England and Wales Sentences are important for the criminal justice system to achieve its objectives. These are aimed at punishing an offender and deterring others from engaging in crime. They also protect the larger community from harm, and help to show the victim of a crime that justice has been served (Tonry 2005). Nonetheless, sentences must be certain and swift, in order for them to achieve their objectives. There are different types of prison sentences that can be given, depending on the magnitude of offences. This paper explores the situation of indeterminate sentences in England and Wales. It will be possible to determine whether indeterminate sentences can be defended; and whether life should mean life. According to Criminal Justice Alliance (2012), Wales and England register the highest prison population in Western Europe, hence prison overcrowding. Although the prison estate has attempted to address this situation, no major results have been achieved. Prison overcrowding occurs when prisons have to house a bigger number of inmates compared to the number they were designed for (Ashworth 2010). In addition, when there is no investment in prison building programmes, this leads to lack of capacity to accommodate inmates. Furthermore, inefficient bureaucracies in the management of prisons might be the cause of prison overcrowding. In England and Wales, indeterminate sentences have been considered to contribute to prison overcrowding (Ashworth 2010). Judges in Britain sent many people to prison between 1951 and 1980. This contributed to the high level of prison overcrowding experienced in the late 1970’s. However, this declined considerably starting 1981. This was because other alternatives such as fines, punishment, cautions, and community sentences as forms of punishment were adopted (Politics.co.uk 2012). In 1991, the Woolf report predicted that prison population would double from 44, 000 to 83,000 by 2008 (The Howard League of Penal Reform 2013). This led to the adoption of new measures in prisons in order to help prevent prison population from rising rapidly. The main measure adopted was early release. This measure was put into practice for less than one year and this registered a considerable reduction in the prison population. However, when the measures were dropped, the prison population began to surge again. Plans by the government to address this issue have continued to be thwarted. In January 2011, the prison population was 82,991, compared to its holding capacity of 87,936 (Politics.co.uk 2012). The existence of diverse life sentences in England and Wales has complicated life sentencing in the regions. In addition, the complexity is increased since the parliament influences the law that regards sentencing; hence complicating them more due to the changes it makes (Ashworth 2010). Nonetheless, the life sentences in England and Wales include whole life orders, discretionary life sentences, custody for life, detention for life, mandatory life sentences, detention at Her Majesty’s pleasure, and Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) (now abolished). In whole life orders, offenders are imprisoned for life without a provision for release. This decision is reached when the judge is convinced that deterrence and retribution can only be satisfied when the offender spends the rest of their life in prison (Broadbent 2013). Unlike other life sentences, offenders in whole life orders or whole life tariff are not granted a minimum tariff. Mandatory life sentences apply to murder convicts of age above 21.This is therefore, an automatic sentence to any individual convicted of murder, and aged above 21 (Broadbent 2013).This type of life sentence is indeterminate in nature. The judge sets a minimum jail term, which the offender should serve, before they are considered for release from prison. After serving the minimum term, the offender will face the parole board, who will determine whether they will be released or not, based on whether or not the offender still poses a risk to society. If released, the offender remains on licence, and might also be recalled in case they breach the terms on the license, or if they become a threat to the public again. Discretionary life sentences on the other hand have life sentence as the maximum penalty for the offences, such as rape (Appleton 2010). The life sentence in this case is therefore, not mandatory, since the judge might give a lesser sentence. Similarly, this is an indeterminate sentence; hence the offender is not guaranteed release. In mandatory life sentence, there is also a provision of a minimum term, which on expiry leads the parole board to decide on whether or not to release the offender, basing on the level of risk they pose to society. If released, the offender is subject to recall if they breach the commit further crime or breach conditions in the license (Appleton 2010). Custody for life is also indeterminate in nature, and applies to murder convicts aged between 18 and 21. These also serve a minimum term, and the decision for their release lies with the parole board. On the other hand, detention at Her Majesty’s pleasure applies to murder convicts that were aged between 10 and 18 at the time of crime. This is also an indeterminate sentence, thus one serves a minimum term before possible release by the parole board. Detention for life is another indeterminate sentence that applies to convicts aged between 10 and 18. They are those that have committed an offense that carries a maximum penalty of detention for life, and poses significant risk to society (Broadbent 2013). Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) is also an indeterminate sentence without a fixed term. According to Strickland & Grimwood (2013), the IPP sentences were developed in order to protect society from dangerous people. These sentences might be given to people who have committed one or many serious offences, which however, do not qualify a life sentence. After serving the tariff, the offender will wait for the parole board to decide whether they will be released or not, based on whether or not they still pose a risk to society. The parole board may decide that the offender be detained indefinitely, if he or she is still considered dangerous to the public. Although the IPP sentences were implemented in April 2005, by 31 December, 2009, 5,788 individuals had been made subject to the sentences. 99 people had been released, but later 24 of them were recalled (McSherry & Keyzer 2011). Today, there are about 6,500 individuals serving this sentence in England and Wales (Broadbent 2013). Today however, the IPP sentence has been abolished, even though there are still many offenders serving the sentence today. The indeterminate sentences in England and Wales have been faced with significant criticism. First, these sentences are considered to have a large provision, hence catching people that had committed more serious offences, as well as those that had committed less serious offences. In addition, the indeterminate sentencing has led to an increase in the number of prisoners with short tariffs, and all these needed to prove that they were no longer risky to the community, in order for them to be released. This therefore, has put a strain on the parole board, as they have to deal with a big number of cases. In the past, the parole board dealt with prisoners, who had longer tariffs, thus the numbers were manageable (Hough, Allen & Solomon 2008). The large number of prisoners detained on indeterminate sentence has led to administrative delays in prisons. Barnes (2012) notes that this has resulted in some prisoners being denied justice, and a lot of uncertainty resulting. According to Hough, Allen & Solomon (2008), the indeterminate sentence is a major factor that has contributed to overcrowding in prisons. For instance, in the year 2006, there were about 1,000 prisoners on indeterminate sentence for public protection. This figure however rose in March 2012 to reach over 6,000. By 30 September, 2013, there were about 5,468 prisoners serving an indeterminate sentence for public protection in Wales and England. In 2013, a total of 12,963 people were serving indeterminate sentences in England and Wales prisons (Ministry of Justice 2013). Indeterminate sentencing is also considered as a breach of human rights. For instance, the European court of Human Rights condemned the case where three men serving indeterminate sentencing in England were denied release, owing to the lack of resources by the prison, which delayed their uptake of courses that would lead to their release (Casciani 2012). As seen, indeterminate sentencing also has a provision for the recall of released offenders, if they fail to adhere to the conditions in their licence. Padfield (2012) observed that in England and Wales, there is an increase in the number of offenders, who had been previously released after serving an indeterminate sentence. Nevertheless, this has also contributed to maintaining large numbers of offenders in prisons. Nonetheless, Padfield (2012) argues that the authorities in England and Wales should review this provision in indeterminate sentencing, so that after release, an offender will not be subject to recall or lifetime supervision. Basing on the information gathered on indeterminate sentencing in England and Wales, it is not possible to defend this kind of sentencing. Once a judge decides the type of sentence, it is not possible for the offender to appeal, except for whole life order sentences. In other sentences, one may appeal after the decision of the parole board to have them detained further after serving minimum term. Indeterminate sentences are linked to many negative effects. Apart from contributing to overcrowding, these sentences might also delay or deny justice for offenders, and have adverse effects on the psychological health of offenders (Strickland & Grimwood 2013: Barnes 2012). Therefore, considering that the adverse effects of indeterminate sentences are more than the positive effects, these sentences should therefore, be reviewed, even as many people do not support them (Conway 2014). Basing on the nature of these life and indeterminate sentences, one notes that in some cases, life means life. For instance, an offender sentenced to a whole life order is sure of spending the rest of their life in prison, as they will not be released. On the other hand, offenders that have received discretionary and mandatory life sentences have the probability of being released. These might or might not be released, basing on various aspects. Therefore, life means life only in whole life orders, since the other life sentences have a provision for release, if the offender meets specific conditions after their minimum term. In England and Wales, there is a total of 40 prisoners that are currently serving the whole life order sentence. However, one might appeal, if they are given a whole life order sentence. For instance, David Beiber, who was convicted of murdering PC Ian Broadhurst, was given a whole life order sentence but appealed, and this was replaced with 37 years minimum term (Broadbent 2013). Given the situation of life and indeterminate sentencing in England and Wales, it is possible to argue that life should not mean life. First, there are diverse life sentences in Wales and England. Therefore, if all offenders that are sentenced to these life sentences were to be imprisoned for life, this means that many people in England and Wales would be spending the rest of their lives in prison. This situation would heighten the level of prison overcrowding in England and Wales. Prison overcrowding is already a problem in England and Wales; hence it would only become worse. In conclusion, this paper has explored the situation of indeterminate sentencing in England and Wales. Most of the life sentences are indeterminate in nature, thus offenders are held in prison for an undefined period of time, except whole life order sentences, where an offender will not be released. A major problem that is associated with indeterminate sentences is prison overcrowding, as indeterminate sentencing has led to the detention of many people in prisons. This makes indeterminate sentences inappropriate, thus should not be defended. Similarly, life should not mean life, as this will also contribute to prison overcrowding. Given the many types of life sentences in Wales and England, if all meant that the offenders should spend the rest of their life in prison, this would worsen the situation of prison overcrowding. Works Cited Appleton, C 2010, “Life after Life Imprisonment,” Oxford University Press, London. Ashworth, A 2010, “Sentencing and Criminal Justice,” Cambridge University Press, London. Barnes S 2012, “Indeterminate sentences: a 'stain' on the criminal justice system,” The Guardian, 18 September, Accessed 3 April, 2014 < http://www.theguardian.com/law/2012/sep/18/prisoners-indeterminate-sentences-ipps > Broadbent R 2013, “Does Life Mean Life? Life Sentences in England and Wales,” Accessed 3 April, 2014 < http://thestudentlawyer.com/2013/07/23/does-life-mean-life-life-sentences-in-england-and-wales/> Casciani, D 2012, “Indeterminate sentences 'breach human rights,” BBC, Accessed 4 April 2014 < http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-19630617> Conway, Z 2014, “David Blunkett 'regrets injustices' of indeterminate sentences,” BBC Newslight, 13 March, Accessed 3 April, 2014 < http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-26561380 > Criminal Justice Alliance 2012, “Crowded Out? The impact of prison overcrowding on rehabilitation,” Accessed 3 April, 2014 Hough J., Allen, R. & Solomon, E 2008, “Tackling Prison Overcrowding: Build More Prisons? Sentence Fewer Offenders?” The Policy Press, London. McSherry, B. & Keyzer, P 2011, “Dangerous People: Policy, Prediction, and Practice,” Routledge, New York. Ministry of Justice 2013, “Story of the Prison Population: 1993 – 2012 England and Wales,” Accessed 4 April, 2014 Padfield, N 2012, “Recalling conditionally released prisoners in England and Wales,” European Journal of Probation, 4 (1): 34 – 45. Politics.co.uk. 2012, “Prison Overcrowding,” Accessed 3 April, 2014 Strickland, P. & Grimwood, G 2013, “The abolition of sentences of Imprisonment for Public Protection,” House of Commons Library. Tonry, M 2005, “The Functions of Sentencing and Sentencing Reform,” Stanford Law Review, 58(1): 37-66. Accessed 4 April 2014 The Howard League of Penal Reform 2013, “Revealed: The True Scale of Overcrowding In Prisons in England and Wales,” Accessed 3 April, 2014 Read More