Usually, when someone is sentenced to life without parole, you expect them to stay in prison for the rest of their lives, right? But that doesn’t seem to be the case, at least not always.
David Gordon Smith was convicted of first degree murder in 1979 and given life without the possibility of parole. In 1984 he was even granted a parole hearing! He messed it up because he escaped… he was later captured… and had a parole hearing in 2008! He didn’t pass, but still… Or that one guy, he was featured on one episode of “Forensic Files”: he murdered his wife by suffocatting her with a laundry bag and tried making it look like an accident, was sentenced to life without parole but was paroled after serving fifteen years.
I don’t understand this… does mandatory release time applies to the ones given life without parole too? And if that is the case why the parole hearing?
I googled David Gordon Smith and everything I found just referred to him getting a life sentence. Do you have a cite for him being sentenced to life without parole?
I quickly found a couple of cites that said he got LWOP.
You must have better google - du than me!
Commutations/executive clemency orders don’t seem to be that unusual in cases where someone was sentenced to life without parole.
That was a surprising link. I’d have thought that governors would be extremely reluctant to grant clemency (no Willie Horton’s HERE!!). I’ve also heard (‘This American Life’) that in California, the requirement that the governor sign off on any grant of parole has lead to a very high bar for release (with many denials despite strong parole board support).
Maybe the large number of cases in the link merely reflects that there are tons of cases under consideration?
Is it possible that something loosely called a “parole hearing” includes mandatory reviews of prisoner status at intervals? Even if “parole” or release is not an option?
In the UK we have successfully challenged an EU ruling that disallowed long sentences without possibility of early release. We don’t have 99 year sentences but 30 years or more is possible for really nasty murders.
The compromise was that these prisoners would be allowed a periodic review, which might look at the conditions in which they were imprisoned. This would relate to any privileges the may or may nt have etc, but not early release.
Linguistic aside: “parole” is what the prisoner or POW gives his captors - his word that he will behave (not get into criminal trouble, or not take up arms again). It’s not - strictly speaking - what the prison system gives the inmate.
You’re about 300 years behind the times.
This must vary by state. Here in Michigan, life without parole is a common sentence for first degree murder, and it means just that. There are no parole hearings and intervention by the governor is rare (or done quietly?).
But we’ve never had the death penalty, since statehood in 1837, so we’ve got some horrific criminals locked up, where other states would have sent them to death row.
It all depends on the specific sentencing structure of the state, but “parole” is often used too loosely to refer to any form of supervised release. I can only speak about my state , but in this state “parole” specifically refers to discretionary release by the parole board. If a person is released by operation of law ( with no discretion involved) , it is a “conditional release” which also comes in different varieties depending on whether the original sentence was an indeterminate sentence or a determinate sentence including a period of post-release supervision. Additionally , commutation by the governor (which is very rare) may take the form of granting parole eligibility to someone who is otherwise ineligible for discretionary release- which doesn’t mean the person will be released, only that the parole board can consider release.
You have something called a “whole life order”, meaning life imprisonment with no hope of parole though. Apparently the Home Secretary makes that decision.
The only cite I could find that says Smith’s sentence was without parole is the Unsolved Mysteries wiki that pkbites linked to. The statement is an uncited addition by a frantically active amateur editor who doesn’t appear to have a great handle on fact-checking. A PDF of one of Smith’s appeal denials notes only a life sentence, as does the story the L.A. Times ran, and Oklahoma state law does indeed prohibit parole hearings for those sentenced to LWOP.
I’ll go out on a limb and say Smith was never sentenced to LWOP, and any reality TV guys who said otherwise just screwed up.
Ah, but that just makes the peeving stronger. If it were actually a recent change, others might agree with them, making them less a Beacon Of Intelligence and more of a sad little yobbo who isn’t keeping up.
Frankly, I’m amazed the peevers haven’t cottoned on to the idea that “British” and “English” are two mutually-exclusive categories, with the British being the native Brythonic peoples and the English being the Germanic invaders run riot after the Romans left.
This situation is an interesting case of Politics versus Human Rights. The European Convention as written is as clear as it could be in its original form and decades of interpretation that ‘whole life tariffs’ are not compatible with it.
The European Court on Human Rights is currently under pressure with the current British government that is not human rights oriented and opposes strongly some decisions. There are no whole life tariffs likely to become an issue soon and the court has made a pragmatic judgement to ‘kick the ball into the long grass’ for the time building. I strongly expect this will be one of a series of reversals that will occur when the cases are revisited under a more sympathetic government.