These have always rather puzzled me:
The tough "public protection" sentences – known as
IPPs – were introduced two years ago for violent and sexual offenders
and thousands have been handed down.
Although minimum "tariffs" are set, the decision to release an inmate is taken by the Parole Board.
…
The sentence prevents dangerous and violent criminals
being released until the authorities are satisfied they are no longer a
threat to the public.
A number of legal challenges are pending, brought by inmates who say this is in breach of their human rights.
I mean, I understand why they are imposed: lock the dangerous buggers up until they are no longer dangerous. But I’m not all that sure that they can be squared with hte human rights thing. Be found guilty of a crime, yes, be sentenced and serve that sentence, yes.
But an indefinite sentence is one for crimes that you might potentially commit in the future…how can that actually be consistent with only being punished for crimes that you have in fact committed?
Leave a Reply