Forum menu
maybe my command of the English language isn't very good, but I thought "indefinitely" means "without end"? Just heard on the news that Baby P's mother was "jailed indefinitely" but it actually means that she has to serve at least 10 years and is eligible for parole after 5.
Clearly I don't understand "sentencing speak"... 😯 ❓
I'm guessing it means "undefined", or open to review.
Because it's against their human rights to be in jail.
The victims have even less rights
Indefinitely does [i]not[/i] mean forever. It means without a definite end.
She [i]may[/i] be in priosn forever. She will not be considered for release on licence for [i]at least[/i] ten years. After that she may be considered for release, and may be released if appropriate. She will be released "on licence", meaning she can be brought back.
Prison isn't meant to be an oubliette where we chuck repugnant people to rot. It's meant to punish people but also reform them, address the problems they have and reintegrate them into society. In this case there's a possibility that the criminal will never be able to do this and the sentence reflects this.
ah, I see - just my interpretation that "without definite end" actually means "no end", but really it means that the end is not clearly defined.
Thank you STW "interactive dictionary" 🙂
People also confuse the sentence - such as a 'life sentence' with the jail term. A life sentence is never 'spent' even after someone has been released. Its easy to get confused as the press thrives on a misconception of sentencing and punishment. It needs to be believed that no jail term is enough punishment for any crime. And of course prisons are all holiday camps anyway, because the have TV's.
Seemed like a reasonable sentence (the indefinite bit) given the crimes - still can't even get my head around how people can be capable of that sort of thing though.
"it actually means that she has to serve at least 10 years and is eligible for parole after 5."
There are lots of different factors that go into sentencing, some to do with the nature of the crime, the offender's characteristics, and some are outward facing (deterrance, retribution etc).
If she managed to tick every box to do with her 100% and every possible outward-facing factor was 100% in favour of early release, it would technically be possible for her to be released on licence after 5 years.
This will not happen.
Prison isn't meant to be an oubliette where we chuck repugnant people to rot.
I dunno - you ask what prison is for, you look at what happens in real life and then you're kind of left with the conclusion that the main reason prison still exists is because it's already in use and no proven alternatives exist.
Seemed like a reasonable sentence (the indefinite bit) given the crimes - still can't even get my head around how people can be capable of that sort of thing though.
no neither can I. Maybe its cos i have 2 little boys, but I have found it near enough impossible to watch any coverage of this case without getting insanely angry or welling up 🙁
The question is, konabunny, what alternatives would you come up with that don't already exist? I presume none of the things which have been tried and abandoned (eg stocks, hanging, etc.) would be suitable either, so should we just tell criminals "you've been a very naughty boy, don't do it again"? Would it really be better to have no prisons at all?
Because it's against their human rights to be in jail.The victims have even less rights
You're not my mother in law are you ? She's the only person I know that comes out with that sort of stuff.
Because it's against their human rights to be in jail.The victims have even less rights
No it isn't, and no they don't. Read [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_of_Human_Rights ]this[/url].
And it's 'fewer', not 'less'.
Er, don't want to get into argument about the actual meaning of the sentence, ie get opportunity for parole some years down the line and all that, but the sentence is called [b][i]indeterminate[/b][/i] not [b][i]indefinite[/b][/i] so actually does what it says on the tin, ie not determined yet. It may be you misheard, just as likely the radio news got it wrong too.
Edited, I see both BBC and Telegraph websites are swapping the terms too, which is just sloppy reporting.
There is a difference between justice and revenge.
Prison is also there to keep the rest of us safe from fellons.
From the report she appears to have got an IPP ~(indefinate sentence for public protection.)
The judge makes a decision that she is a "dangerous offender" that is essentially a future risk to the public of serious harm.
He then calculates the sentence he would normally have given for the offence in this case 10 years . In the normall case the offender would automaticaly be released on licence at the 1/2 way point ie 5 years . The judge then passes a 5 year IPP. The offender serves 5 years in jail (as the judge believes they deserve) but is then not released unless and untill they have satisfied the parole board that they no longer pose a risk of serious harm to the public. This could mean in prison for ever . We did have a "catch 22" problem with people on very short custodial sentences being kept way longer than apropriate , as to show them selves safe for release they were told to pass courses in prison but no such courses were made available to them , that i belive is now solved.
pigface - you watched the mentalist too then? i thought i was the only one 😉
And of course prisons are all holiday camps anyway, because the(y) have TV's
isn't that part of the punishment ?? Watching other people routinely exercising freedom must be gruesome 🙁
midlifecrashes, interesting - on the news just now they did say "indeterminate", you been in touch with the news editor :wink:?
crankboy, thanks for your post, now I understand a bit more about that type of sentence!
The question is, konabunny, what alternatives would you come up with that don't already exist?...Would it really be better to have no prisons at all?
Well, most likely we'd have a better idea of what methods worked if we were clearer on what exactly we were trying to achieve. At the moment, English law tries to achieve a whole bunch of different and often contradictory aims all at the same time. Deterrence, condemnation, punishment and rehabilitation all often point in different directions, for instance. IMO this leads to none of the objectives being achieved satisfactorily.
Consequently (and ignoring your sarcastic tone for a second 😉 ), I don't necessarily think that abolishing prisons would be a good idea because we don't know what the purpose is supposed to be.
It's a bit like coming across a guy beating his car engine with a mallet to try to make it work. You ask him, "what the hell are you trying to do with that mallet?" and he replies, "well, the ****ing screwdriver isn't going to be any better, is it? So I'll just keep doing this..."
(The analogy obviously doesn't work if he's trying to give the bushes a bit of a nudge because in that case a mallet might be the perfect tool).