And in two sentences you show complete ignorance of the UK’s justice system and then accuse everton of ignorance of the UK’s justice system. Why don’t you just leave your foot in your mouth permanently, to save time?
The Home Secretary does not occupy a judicial office. He is an elected member of parliament, appointed by the prime minister to serve as minister for justice.
The Lord Chamberlain on the other hand does occupy a judicial office and also serves on the cabinet.
TwistofFate , please read Rod Hill’s link. Life may generally mean 15 years before parole, but legally it can, and sometimes does, mean life.
**
So you and the other people in this thread are arguing against your legal system? That’s not what I’ve gotten from Irishgirl’s posts or Everton’s earlier ones.
If everyone agrees that it’s wonderful that the murderess spent her dying days in jail then the minister for justice prevented a major miscarrage of justice from occurring and he did so in a competely legal way, right? I truly don’t understand what the problem is.
**
But from what I’ve seen, there was due process, and there was openness. To me, “due process” means “within the law”. No-one’s complained that the Minister for Justice did anything illegal. And “openness”? We’re debating it, it wasn’t done in a star-chamber behind closed doors, I assume the murderess’s lawyer had a chance to speak on her behalf, so how much more open can it be? Are you using these terms differently from how I’m using them? (I’m not being snotty: I’ve run into difficulties with US/UK terms before! “Two nations seperated by a common tongue” and all that 
)
**
Frankly, although I’d want more details on the specifics of your system, yes.
I fully support a responsive judicial system which includes judges being elected or easilly impeached/removed. If I could wave a magic wand, I’d make it much easier to impeach, term-limit and/or remove judges up to and including the Supreme Court Justices. I’d love to have a system where there’s a maximum term a judge can serve after which he or she is automatically removed unless they can get a supermajority of the popular vote.
Since that’s not the case and it’s not likely to become the case, a person who’s accountable to the public who can overturn a bad decisions within the confines of the law sounds like a remarkably good idea.
I don’t like the idea of an entire branch of government being unelected, (mostly) unaccountable* and appointed for life.
Your system seems to have struck a nice balance against judicial abuses.
Fenris
*Judges in the US are almost never impeached or removed. It’s virtually impossible to get rid of the bad ones.
Just why is it that folk posting here cannot accept that a l"life term" actually has nothing whatsoever to do with the length of imprisonment?
In case anybody is actually reading this please will you note,
A “Life Sentence” relates solely and only to the terms of supervision, convicted prsoners are not sentenced to “life imprisonment” they are sentenced to “life licence” which is a totally differant thing.
The term of imprisonment is a recommendation by the presiding trial judge and this is called the “tariff”.
In Hindleys case the tariff was " a very long time".
You will note that " a very long time" is indeterminate, the judge in effect, was handing over control of the length of incarceration to the home sercretary of the day, and to future nome secretaries.
The judge at the original trial made no mistake, there would have been an awareness by that judge how life prisoners were dealt with, and the role the home secretary had to play in this, including the likely attendant politics.
There was no scope for him to vary his sentence, all murderers that are found guilty must be sentenced to “life”, judges have no discretion in this matter, they may set a recommended tariff.
The recommended tariff is subject to conditions, which I have already laid out, and since Hindley did not meet those conditions then the home secretary was absolutely right in agreeing with the recommeadations of the parole board, which was not to release her.
She was convicted in 1966 and it was not until 1987 that she admitted her role in other murders, that huge gap in time is quite enough to question her motives behind that confession, it was deemed by the parole board and the home secretary to be a self-inerested move on Hindley’s part, and thus not an expression of remorse, and this is an absolute requirement for the start of any parole application, when dealing with convicted murderers.
The European courts have agreed that although, under the terms of the European Convention on Human Rights, that all convicted prisoners have the right to know what the length of their incarceration is going to be, those same Judges have also agreed that there are some offences and offenders whose scope falls so far outside the realms of usual considerations, that overriding public and political issues place such offenders in such an arena that each case can only be taken individually.
The law is a tool to be used for the majority of crimes, but some crimes are so exceptional that they can step beyond those bounds, and Myra Hindley is one of those few cases.
Other cases in the UK about the legal power of the home secretary to intervene in tarriff terms have caused some confusion, mainly in the case of the murder of Jamie Bulger by Jon Venables and Jon Thompson.
Here the home secretary has intervened but has been challenged, and this is largely because he has tried to go against the parole board rulings, and due to the youth of the offenders.
This has been decided to be a case of lesser gravity than Hindley, and the hope of reform is real.
These two cases are fundamentally differant, even though murder was the outcome, for many reasons, such as trying the two boys as adults , and Strasburg does not see them in the same way as Hindley.
The simple fact that must be recognised is that any politician that allowed such as Hindley and Brady their freedom, no matter who made that determination, no matter what country, or political climate, and no matter what legal procedures are, would genuinely be risking losing the consent of the people to be governed, you can call it political, but some crimes take a step beyond the ability of the law to deal with them, this is one of those very few.
Consent by the people to be governed is of such fundamental importance that losing it could never be countenanced.
This may seem a very philosophical point, but think about it, if the people do not believe that authorities are acting in their interest, by keeping such exceptionally evil killers locked up, those authorities would soon be replaced, it would in effect, be a challenge to our nation hood.
There must always be examinations and arguments about which crimes qualify for such unusual treatment, but the Hindleys, Bradys, Neilsons, Sutcliffes and others will always be obvious cases.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by casdave *
**Just why is it that folk posting here cannot accept that a l"life term" actually has nothing whatsoever to do with the length of imprisonment?
In case anybody is actually reading this please will you note,
A “Life Sentence” relates solely and only to the terms of supervision, convicted prsoners are not sentenced to “life imprisonment” they are sentenced to “life licence” which is a totally differant thing.
Casdave**, you seem like an intelligent and reasonable person, but I would ask you, too, to check out the link that Rod Hill provided. The Law Lords seem to be under the impression that she was sentenced to life imprisonment, and I have a feeling that they know something about the subject.
Cheers,
hib:
You are a fool and present yourself as one. The judicial system, as you should know, includes those individuals who make decisions which affect offendors. This might come as a complete surprise to you, what with you being a moron and all, but in the UK, the Home Minister gets to make such a decision from time to time. Also suprising to you, what with you being an unobservant moron, is that in the United States, not only the President but also the Governors get to make such decisions. You see (well, you obviously don’t, but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t), it’s not only judges who get to make judicial decisions.
And I find it laughable that you are unware that Minsiter of Justice is an office that’s part of the Justice system.
Okay, maybe you’re not ignorant. Maybe you’re just stupid.
This thread sure exploded.
With all due respect, Fenris, it’s not my fault if you don’t get it. It’s all too clear that you don’t understand
[ul][li]How our legal system works[/li][li]How our political system works[/li][li]How our tabloid press behave, or the relationship they have with the political system[/ul][/li]In spite of insulting, and groundless, accusations from you that I don’t care about tortured and murdered kids (or that I care about their murderer more), I’m not “upset”, because I put it down to you not knowing what you’re talking about.
So to try again: I have said, clearly and frequently, that justice is only served when the people that are involved in practicing it, and influencing the course of it, act in the interests of what is right and just. They should be influenced by the facts and by the professional judgement of people who are qualified to make such a judgement.
They should not be influenced by populism, or by press trade wars. Sometimes the right decision is the popular one, sometimes it isn’t. Sometimes people arrive at the right decision by accident, sometimes such a decision is wrong.
The Hindley case may be one where the right outcome was reached by accident; there have been plenty more where the outcome was wrong. I am criticising a procedure that depends upon accidental justice. I am criticising a system which is unfairly and destructively influenced by certain elements of our press – not the press that is interested in investigative journalism, or by correcting judicial errors, but by sales alone. They don’t need to point a gun at anybody’s head – they can make or break a politician’s career easily enough without that, and they do affect the decisions that are made.
Before the Home Secretary makes a decision, he will receive numerous pieces of contrasting advice and can emphasise or ignore whatever he likes – it isn’t done in open court anyway. If he chooses, he can push a controversial case to the bottom of his own agenda so that the justice of it isn’t examined at all. The one thing he will never say (but may very well be the case) is “I made this decision because I was shitting myself about what the tabloids would do to me if I made the other decision”.
If you think accidental justice is OK, well you’re entitled to your opinion, but if you don’t understand what I’m saying (or if you think your ignorance of a foreign system outguns my real-life experience of it) it’s your fault, not mine.
A few examples you might care to look at are:
the Birmingham pub bombing,
the Guildford pub bombing (the film In the Name of the Father was based on this one) and
the Stefan Kiszko case.
These were all cases where innocent men were prosecuted and, therefore, where guilty men walked free. In each case, many years passed during which Home Secretaries prevaricated because the subjects were politically controversial or otherwise distasteful, and where there were perceived to be no votes in overturning the status quo. I think that’s a bad thing.
Drat. Be so kind as to mentally change “Home Minister” to “Home Secretary.” Danke.
I may be ignorant, and I may be stupid. But I still know the difference between the executive and the judiciary. You, apparently, do not. This makes you either more ignorant or more stupid than I. Take your pick.
You mistake your view for knowledge. Part of the JUDICIAL PROCESS is, in case this has escaped your obviously cursory attention, EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY.
Not my legal system, since I don’t live in England or Wales. But many Irish people do, and are therefore subject to it.
The problem is that without separation of powers the checks and balances that you rightly wish to uphold will no longer exist. After hearing the evidence in open court, juries determine guilt and judges pass sentence. If the sentence is considered too light, the crown prosecution service may appeal the sentence, again in open court. If you decide to allow extra-judicial decisions on sentencing in individual cases, there is serious risk of injustice. And, whatever Monty might say, and however stridently he may choose to say it, cabinet ministers are not judges.
On the matter of due process, the Home Secretary makes his decision in private, on whatever basis he sees fit, without any requirement for a lawyer to be present. I doubt if this corresponds to any usage of “due process” or “openness” in use in the USA or anywhere.
I haven’t the time for this, but I’d like to voice my support for the position initially taken by irishgirl* and ably backed up by, inter alia, everton and hibernicus.
Particularly commendable is the way they have politely worded their arguments, in contrast to the petty insults and inexcusable rudeness directed at them by others in this thread.
Look, I never said cabinet ministers were judges. I say that certain political offices are part of the judicial (i.e., legal) system. That you choose not to understand the English language is not my fault.
There has been a similar issue in France concerning the release of the probably most (in)famous french murderer (child murderer, who acted somewhat like this couple recently arrested in the UK for the murder of two girls, talking with journalists about the child he had actually killed, displaying concern…etc…and even making hateful statements against child abductors). Famous also because at the general surprise he wasn’t sentenced to death by the jury, after a brilliant plea by his lawyer, a strong opponent to death penalty, who would become later minister of justice and would abolish it.
Anyway, this guy has been embarassment for the last french ministers of justice. He was eligible for parole, and though usually it follows the recommandation of the parole board, the ministery has to approve the decision. And this murderer was so-well known and so well remembered that none of the successive ministers would accept to take the political risk of approving his release.
Eventually, this case was the main motivation for a recent law which removed the “approval by the minister” step in the procedure (IIRC, the last minister didn’t really hide that she wouldn’t decide on this case before thre new law would be passed) . I guess the UK should do the same. It’s not a sane situation when electoral considerations mess up with the administration of justice.
By the way, the guy was paroled, but arrested very recently in Spain for drug traffick. So, he’s going to come back to his cell as soon as he will be extradited.
That makes sense to me too. As I said earlier, the system has already changed for Scotland and Northern Ireland and is likely to change in England/Wales too - in a matter of weeks.
Murder in the UK is the only offence where the trial judge has no discretion as to the sentence that can be imposed.
A judge can make a recommendation, and slowly but surely this is becoming viewed as a binding term, but the fact is that it can be overruled by another judge, if the prosecution appeals against the leniency, or of course the more controversial way is through the home secretary.
When a prisoner applies for parole, the parole board need not be made up of any currently serving judiciary, yet by viewing evidence from various agencies within and outside prison, parole boards can set aside the tarriff and set the date of the next parole application, effectively we already have non-judicial changes to a sentence. AFAIK there are no plans to change this arrangement, I don’t think there any current legal challenges either.
Home secretary nearly always follows the recommendations of the parole board but in Hindley’s case, when the 25 year tariff was originally set and extended to 30 years, this was a provisional tarriff, and so the legal arrguments go that it could be subject to change.
It was not until three years after Hindleys confession to two more murders that this was extended to whole life, a sentence that the original trial judge had not felt qualified, for whatever reason , to impose.
In a way Hindley was in a double bind, she could not hope for release until she demonstrated remorse, and confessed fully to her part in offences that Brady, her partner, had already done, but she only did this to try and get parole, which showed that it was only her self interest that motivated her.
In law, she could easily have been tried for those two other crimes and been sentenced accordingly, but the cost of the trial hardly seemed worth it.
Had she been sentenced for those offences it is certain that she would never be released anyway.
In my mind, in this case, the home secretary, made the decision that it would have cost a fortune to put through the courts, and would have ended up with the same result.
Which is why I state that being sentenced to life by the trial judge does not have much to do with the term served.
I always seriously disagreed with Lord Longford’s view that since Hindley was no threat to the public and that this should be a primary reason for her release, for much of Longford’s campaign to free her she withheld information about these killings, and this shows the devious side to her nature in that she was able to fool all those niaive do-gooders.
Regret and reform are not enough to free a prisoner, nor is the risk to the public being nil, there still has to be an element of punishment, as far as I am concerned her crimes are so serious that nothing she could do on the way to reform would exhaust the requirement for her punishment, she could only reform to find some kind of inner peace, never freedom.