The problem with IPP sentences is more complex than just "the government arbitrarily locking people up indefinitely". The IPP prisoners who are still behind bars are there for a reason - in every case I'm aware of, because they keep committing violent offences while in prison.
The psychological burden of an indefinite sentence is undoubtedly an obstacle to rehabilitation, as are the wider issues of understaffing and overcrowding in the prison estate, but let's not kid ourselves. IPP sentences were created specifically to deal with prisoners who habitually reoffend on release. These are people who were on a revolving door of offending and imprisonment before their IPP sentence, and who would almost certainly be stuck in that cycle again if their IPP sentence was quashed.
IPPs are unjust and the current government will almost certainly retroactively resentence most or all IPP prisoners within this parliament, but the underlying problem is still there. We could definitely do a better job of rehabilitating this cohort, but even the best-funded and most liberal systems have had fairly meagre success in actually breaking the cycle of reoffending; the much-heralded low recidivism rates in Scandinavia are substantially a reporting artifact rather than a meaningful difference in outcomes.
Headline recidivism rates aren't really comparable across jurisdictions, because there are so many variables - what kind of offences lead to imprisonment, what counts as "reoffending", how long you follow up for, how likely people are to be arrested, charged and convicted etc. One study found that recidivism rates could vary from 9% to 53% based on the same underlying data, simply by changing the definitions. The more you try to standardise the methods, the smaller the difference in apparent recidivism rates.
It sounds like you're "just-so"ing a broken system that doesn't actually seem to be in the process of reforming (including implementing retroactive re-sentencing), and understating the role of the conditions such prisoners find themselves in in creating a self-fulfilling prophecy of re-offense. Ironically, you are kidding yourself, as to the defensibility of any part of this.
> IPP sentences were created specifically to deal with prisoners who habitually reoffend on release.
The whole point about this situation is that the sentences were applied to people who do NOT fit that description (not my just view, also the view of the architect of this atrocity, David Blunkett), so in the majority of cases in question your reasoning does not apply.
HM Inspectorate of Probation's review on IPP prisoners released on license paints a very different picture - of people with complex problems, chaotic lives and a high and ongoing risk of reoffending.
IPP prisoners can't be arbitrarily detained forever. There has to be a reason for the refusal of parole or for a recall to prison. There are clearly significant shortcomings in how IPP prisoners are supported, but it's also clear that a cohort of people who are living with drug addiction, severe mental illness and behavioural problems are going to struggle to stay on the straight and narrow even in ideal circumstances.
I wonder how much of that is "bad people" and how much of that is "Stanford prison experiment"
Or to put it another way, how much of this indefinite prison sentence due to reoffending is caused by prison guards assuming these people are bad apples and finding every fault they can with them to extend their sentence?
I'm an attorney barred in the US, so I'm not familiar with this kind of sentencing. However, I'm having a hard time understanding commenters trying to add nuance to IPP sentences simply by saying that inmates don't get released because they keep committing violent offenses while inside.
The reasonable thing to do in such cases is to give the inmate a new trial for each of those alleged offenses. This is very basic due process.
it is truly baffling... My personal theory is that society dehumanizes prisoners and felons constantly, especially through media and through cultural means. So I believe that bias plays a LOT into how people perceive blatant injustice against them. This is inherently denying a human being their basic rights to a trial and basic dignity.
Im genuinely repulsed by the general sentiment here (and in general) regarding incarcerated people. It doesn't help that crime based reporting has been flooding social media and news channels at disproportionate rates post 9/11's 24 hour news cycle. Its almost always an obvious attempt to evoke an emotional response too, despite crime steady decreasing over 50+ years by a fairly large margin.
Correct, It's trivial to both maintain that humans deserve some rights and the prisoners do not, if you conclude then that prisoners are not human. They must be subhuman, beings of lesser worth.
This is particularly evident in American systems of modern slavery. In states like Georgia, prisoners are forced to work 40+ hours a week in places such as fast food establishments (McDonald's etc). They make well under minimum wage, and they're not allowed to miss work. Simple missteps result in punishment, loss of "good time". This means no phone calls, no visits, no venturing outside.
Such a system, if employed on everyday people, would be unthinkable. But for prisoners it's not only prevalent, we view it as a privilege. The right to work and earn money is so gracious to give to these dogs, and they should be thankful. Parole, too, is a reward, and they should be so lucky to endure 20+ years of slavery for the mere chance of getting out.
Does it really surprise you that normal, law-abiding people don't like criminals? Them being allowed to re-enter society at all should be seen as a privilege.
The fair trial and "due process" was the initial conviction. The punishment for that is imprisonment until they prove to a parole board that they no longer pose a risk to the public.
That's the thing about "due process", isn't it? It's just a phrase that basically means "the law", and the law can be changed by legislation and judges, and the law can be unjust. The phrase is nothing more than giving airs of being impartial or some check and balance against the law. This hapless fellow got his "due process".
I hear you, but the problem is that the alternative is much worse. These indefinite detentions lend themselves to all manner of corruption. Maybe a prison guard doesn't like you and falsely claims you committed a violent offense, just to keep you inside. Maybe a fellow inmate attacks you, and when you defend yourself, it gets registered as a violent offense.
The first element of due process is that a citizen be notified that the State is mobilizing its resources with the intention of depriving them of their life, liberty, and/or property.
Another core tenet of due process is that, once notified, you get a chance to submit evidence in your favor before an impartial adjudicator, precisely to avoid the issues in my first paragraph.
New Zealand has the same concept, called preventative detention, which means kept in jail until they deem the risk of danger to the public meets some threshold.
I'm having trouble understanding if he received an 18 month sentence or an indefinite one: "was jailed for 18 months but is still trapped in prison 18 years later under a cruel indefinite jail term".
> [IPP] was intended to protect the public against criminals whose crimes were not serious enough to merit a normal life sentence but who were regarded as too dangerous to be released when the term of their original sentence had expired. It is composed of a punitive "tariff" intended to be proportionate to the gravity of the crime committed, and an indeterminate period which commences after the expiry of the tariff and lasts until the Parole Board judges the prisoner no longer poses a risk to the public and is fit to be released. [1]
That last bit is even worse than it sounds: the burden of proof is on the prisoner to prove that they're no longer a danger to society, instead of requiring the Parole Board to prove that they're still a danger. Between that burden and the rest of the Parole Board's workload, it's taking forever to get anyone released.
IPP was eliminated in 2012 because it was unjust and overused, but politicians made the conscious decision to not retroactively undo it because of the bad PR it'd cause if some violent offender was released and killed someone.
On the point that the prisoners have to prove that they’re no longer a danger: in some cases that means completing courses which are completely inaccessible to the prisoners due to cutbacks.
> politicians made the conscious decision to not retroactively undo it because of the bad PR it'd cause if some violent offender was released and killed someone.
So it's ok if a violent offender jailed after 2012 gets released and kills someone. Typical politican logic.
Basically, the “18 month sentence” is a minimum sentence for the crime(s). But after that period, a parole board is supposed to rule on whether this person is fit to rejoin society.
What I don’t understand:
- are parole boards just denying for any reason? Why are people serving such long sentences?
- is it a backlog of cases to review to blame?
- or is this similar to “cash for kids” scandal in the US? Basically, teenagers were sentenced harshly under the pretense of “zero tolerance” and sent to prison. But, in reality it was motivated primarily by the need for private prison systems to fill the cells and many judges getting kickbacks.
The onus is put on the prisoner to show they will successfully reintegrate into society, rather than on the parole board to show they will not. Of course, I'm sure the guidance or help given to said prisoner is nonexistent.
> are parole boards just denying for any reason? Why are people serving such long sentences?
Yes. There's guidelines for parole but they're just guides. Personal bias, as well as potential monetary values, keep prisoners in prison. For example, Georgia, based on statistics, should have a parole rate of 80% for non-violent offenders. The parole rate is 8%. This is for non-violent offenders. That's an order of magnitude of difference.
The culture around parole and personal biases fuel this. Ultimately, the community and parole judge can only LOSE by allowing parole. In the best-case scenario, they break even - nothing bad happens if you let someone loose. In the worst case, they commit a crime. They're heavily biased to preserve the interests of themselves, the prisons, and their community. The well-being of the prisoner is least important because they are a criminal.
> motivated primarily by the need for private prison systems to fill the cells and many judges getting kickbacks
There's some of this as well. Some of these prisoners in (again, Georgia) are being coerced to work. Parole is a carrot above their head. They're paid less than minimum wage to literally flip burgers at McDonald's. It's a win-win situation for everyone involved. The prison makes money (garnishes half the wages), local shops get cheap labor, and "dangerous" people are kept locked up. Only the prisoners lose.
He received an indefinite sentence (for a crime that absent this statue doesn't allow for life sentences) with an 18 month minimum where it was later ruled that indefinite sentences were torture and driving prisoners to suicide.
But the gov't has been slow to review people's cases and so folks are stuck.
"guilty to two robberies and two common assaults, while asking that a further four robberies, one attempted robbery and one assault occasioning actual bodily harm be taken into consideration."
Also:
"2020 - Luke Ings appeared over videolink from HMP Long Lartin at Worcester Crown Court yesterday where he denied four counts of administering a poisonous or noxious substance with intent. The 31-year-old was arraigned by the clerk, denying four counts of administering 'human excreta' unlawfully and maliciously with intent to injure"
No mention about this in the article, looks like a very biased source.
An indefinite prison sentence is unethical - the article is quoting people calling for a review of all indefinite prison sentences. Presumably Mr Ings hurling feces at someone or whatever it is he did would be taken into consideration.
Idk about you but I think a fight in McDonald's and hurling poo at someone don't deserve decades long prison sentences.
I agree that a fight in McDonald's and hurling poo at someone doesn't warrant locking someone away forever.
But the comment you're replying to is also mentioning seven robberies and several other assaults, which you conveniently ignore just like the biased article that makes it sound like he's in prison only for a fight in McDonald's.
He's in prison to keep him from victimizing more people, and I think there's a huge difference whether that is done after one fight, or a history of crime after crime after crime.
Don't you think at some point ordinary non-criminal people deserve an assurance that this person won't be allowed to hurt them?
It is not like prison prison, more like a mental hospital with prison. So you have more freedom and get treatment and evaluation. He probably doesn't improve or gives the correct answers.
We're also talking about the difference between 17 and 35 years old. That alone I think would be grounds for parole, he's a completely different person twice over in that amount of time.
In a perfect world, we would have actual rehabilitation programs that work, but since we don't, that type of person should absolutely kept away from public. If you assault someone with (i.e intend to injure them through physical means), you don't belong in society, period. A fight could end up with life lasting damage should someone get struck in the head with enough force.
That last part sounds to me, reading between the lines, like the guy who's been stuck in prison for 18 years past his sentence and has been rug-pulled at least once on the subject of being released on probation had a breakdown and smeared poop on something, which the administration then treated as a deadly assault.
Of course, the whole situation may as well be designed to literally drive people crazy, so nobody should be surprised when things like that happen.
No, only until it's likely that he won't continue committing crimes.
It's a balance between his right to freedom and the rights of everyone else to not be made victim of his crimes. I think after a certain number of crimes, it's appropriate to weigh the latter over the former.
Edit: And I think the threshold should be less than ten violent crimes
So let's get this straight. The guy got into a fight in a Macdonalds 19 years ago. Noone died. He has autism. He got an indefinite prison sentence, which was seen to be so unjust it got abolished.
So he is still in jail indefinitely for his original crime.
The crime you mention doesn't allow him to be kept in jail indefinitely, not for the original offense.
So let's get this straight. You see the post stating that he committed seven robberies and three assaults, i.e. was persistently victimizing people, and you choose to completely ignore that.
He isn't in prison to punish him for one specific crime, he's in prison to keep him from victimizing people, because his history of crime makes it likely that he will keep doing that.
It’s not unjust. People with these records of several crimes almost always go on to victimize others. Why should law abiding society have to take on that risk?
Wow, and you don’t do anything productive for a year and you think you wasted your life... absolutely cruel. Even if he were released today, he would need another 15 years of therapy.
He was sentenced to "imprisonment for public protection", which is life imprisonment by another name. I don't understand why they would use such an euphemism instead of calling it what it is.
Because it's intentionally distinct from imprisonment to punish and/or rehabilitate. He already served his punishment, but because he has shown to be a danger to society, he is removed from it until he is no longer a danger (which may be only when he's dead or too frail to commit more violent crimes).
Habeas corpus allows you to challenge the legality of detention. If a writ were sought in this case the prison governor would present the original order of the court authorising imprisonment and the application for habeas corpus would be dismissed.
There are routes to challenge 'wrongful' detention authorised by a court, but not via habeas. Some IPP prisoners have been released by the Court of Appeal criminal division on a (very late) appeal against sentence where other factors appeared after the original sentencing. You can also challenge the refusal of the Parole Board to release you by judicial review, though this is a fairly high bar to clear.
Readit News
The psychological burden of an indefinite sentence is undoubtedly an obstacle to rehabilitation, as are the wider issues of understaffing and overcrowding in the prison estate, but let's not kid ourselves. IPP sentences were created specifically to deal with prisoners who habitually reoffend on release. These are people who were on a revolving door of offending and imprisonment before their IPP sentence, and who would almost certainly be stuck in that cycle again if their IPP sentence was quashed.
IPPs are unjust and the current government will almost certainly retroactively resentence most or all IPP prisoners within this parliament, but the underlying problem is still there. We could definitely do a better job of rehabilitating this cohort, but even the best-funded and most liberal systems have had fairly meagre success in actually breaking the cycle of reoffending; the much-heralded low recidivism rates in Scandinavia are substantially a reporting artifact rather than a meaningful difference in outcomes.
More on this?
https://sci-hub.ee/10.1177/0011128715570629
Deleted Comment
The whole point about this situation is that the sentences were applied to people who do NOT fit that description (not my just view, also the view of the architect of this atrocity, David Blunkett), so in the majority of cases in question your reasoning does not apply.
IPP prisoners can't be arbitrarily detained forever. There has to be a reason for the refusal of parole or for a recall to prison. There are clearly significant shortcomings in how IPP prisoners are supported, but it's also clear that a cohort of people who are living with drug addiction, severe mental illness and behavioural problems are going to struggle to stay on the straight and narrow even in ideal circumstances.
https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/wp-cont...
Or to put it another way, how much of this indefinite prison sentence due to reoffending is caused by prison guards assuming these people are bad apples and finding every fault they can with them to extend their sentence?
The reasonable thing to do in such cases is to give the inmate a new trial for each of those alleged offenses. This is very basic due process.
Im genuinely repulsed by the general sentiment here (and in general) regarding incarcerated people. It doesn't help that crime based reporting has been flooding social media and news channels at disproportionate rates post 9/11's 24 hour news cycle. Its almost always an obvious attempt to evoke an emotional response too, despite crime steady decreasing over 50+ years by a fairly large margin.
This is particularly evident in American systems of modern slavery. In states like Georgia, prisoners are forced to work 40+ hours a week in places such as fast food establishments (McDonald's etc). They make well under minimum wage, and they're not allowed to miss work. Simple missteps result in punishment, loss of "good time". This means no phone calls, no visits, no venturing outside.
Such a system, if employed on everyday people, would be unthinkable. But for prisoners it's not only prevalent, we view it as a privilege. The right to work and earn money is so gracious to give to these dogs, and they should be thankful. Parole, too, is a reward, and they should be so lucky to endure 20+ years of slavery for the mere chance of getting out.
That's the thing about "due process", isn't it? It's just a phrase that basically means "the law", and the law can be changed by legislation and judges, and the law can be unjust. The phrase is nothing more than giving airs of being impartial or some check and balance against the law. This hapless fellow got his "due process".
The first element of due process is that a citizen be notified that the State is mobilizing its resources with the intention of depriving them of their life, liberty, and/or property.
Another core tenet of due process is that, once notified, you get a chance to submit evidence in your favor before an impartial adjudicator, precisely to avoid the issues in my first paragraph.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preventive_detention#New_Zea...
That's in the first paragraph.
> [IPP] was intended to protect the public against criminals whose crimes were not serious enough to merit a normal life sentence but who were regarded as too dangerous to be released when the term of their original sentence had expired. It is composed of a punitive "tariff" intended to be proportionate to the gravity of the crime committed, and an indeterminate period which commences after the expiry of the tariff and lasts until the Parole Board judges the prisoner no longer poses a risk to the public and is fit to be released. [1]
That last bit is even worse than it sounds: the burden of proof is on the prisoner to prove that they're no longer a danger to society, instead of requiring the Parole Board to prove that they're still a danger. Between that burden and the rest of the Parole Board's workload, it's taking forever to get anyone released.
IPP was eliminated in 2012 because it was unjust and overused, but politicians made the conscious decision to not retroactively undo it because of the bad PR it'd cause if some violent offender was released and killed someone.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imprisonment_for_public_protec...
So it's ok if a violent offender jailed after 2012 gets released and kills someone. Typical politican logic.
Dead Comment
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imprisonment_for_public_prot...
Basically, the “18 month sentence” is a minimum sentence for the crime(s). But after that period, a parole board is supposed to rule on whether this person is fit to rejoin society.
What I don’t understand:
- are parole boards just denying for any reason? Why are people serving such long sentences?
- is it a backlog of cases to review to blame?
- or is this similar to “cash for kids” scandal in the US? Basically, teenagers were sentenced harshly under the pretense of “zero tolerance” and sent to prison. But, in reality it was motivated primarily by the need for private prison systems to fill the cells and many judges getting kickbacks.
Yes. There's guidelines for parole but they're just guides. Personal bias, as well as potential monetary values, keep prisoners in prison. For example, Georgia, based on statistics, should have a parole rate of 80% for non-violent offenders. The parole rate is 8%. This is for non-violent offenders. That's an order of magnitude of difference.
The culture around parole and personal biases fuel this. Ultimately, the community and parole judge can only LOSE by allowing parole. In the best-case scenario, they break even - nothing bad happens if you let someone loose. In the worst case, they commit a crime. They're heavily biased to preserve the interests of themselves, the prisons, and their community. The well-being of the prisoner is least important because they are a criminal.
> motivated primarily by the need for private prison systems to fill the cells and many judges getting kickbacks
There's some of this as well. Some of these prisoners in (again, Georgia) are being coerced to work. Parole is a carrot above their head. They're paid less than minimum wage to literally flip burgers at McDonald's. It's a win-win situation for everyone involved. The prison makes money (garnishes half the wages), local shops get cheap labor, and "dangerous" people are kept locked up. Only the prisoners lose.
But the gov't has been slow to review people's cases and so folks are stuck.
"guilty to two robberies and two common assaults, while asking that a further four robberies, one attempted robbery and one assault occasioning actual bodily harm be taken into consideration."
Also:
"2020 - Luke Ings appeared over videolink from HMP Long Lartin at Worcester Crown Court yesterday where he denied four counts of administering a poisonous or noxious substance with intent. The 31-year-old was arraigned by the clerk, denying four counts of administering 'human excreta' unlawfully and maliciously with intent to injure"
No mention about this in the article, looks like a very biased source.
Idk about you but I think a fight in McDonald's and hurling poo at someone don't deserve decades long prison sentences.
But the comment you're replying to is also mentioning seven robberies and several other assaults, which you conveniently ignore just like the biased article that makes it sound like he's in prison only for a fight in McDonald's.
He's in prison to keep him from victimizing more people, and I think there's a huge difference whether that is done after one fight, or a history of crime after crime after crime.
Don't you think at some point ordinary non-criminal people deserve an assurance that this person won't be allowed to hurt them?
This guy did it multiple times.
Of course, the whole situation may as well be designed to literally drive people crazy, so nobody should be surprised when things like that happen.
It's a balance between his right to freedom and the rights of everyone else to not be made victim of his crimes. I think after a certain number of crimes, it's appropriate to weigh the latter over the former.
Edit: And I think the threshold should be less than ten violent crimes
So he is still in jail indefinitely for his original crime.
The crime you mention doesn't allow him to be kept in jail indefinitely, not for the original offense.
I think it's pretty clearly manifestly unjust.
He isn't in prison to punish him for one specific crime, he's in prison to keep him from victimizing people, because his history of crime makes it likely that he will keep doing that.
Sentences are based on intent, not outcomes. Fighting can result in life lasting injuries.
Why is nobody sharpening an axe over this kid stuck in jail?
There are routes to challenge 'wrongful' detention authorised by a court, but not via habeas. Some IPP prisoners have been released by the Court of Appeal criminal division on a (very late) appeal against sentence where other factors appeared after the original sentencing. You can also challenge the refusal of the Parole Board to release you by judicial review, though this is a fairly high bar to clear.