Jeremy Bambers Whole life tariff is unjust.

[ILB]

Taking the argument of guilt or innocence out of the equation. I believe it is wrong for home secretaries to interfere with the judicial process.

It's common misconception that Michael Howard changed Jeremy's sentence to a whole life tariff. When in actual fact it had been changed without the prisoners knowledge in 1988. By Douglas Hurd.

Justice drake set Jeremy's tariff at a minimum of 25 years. And I believe it should have stayed that way. That isn't a gateway to release. It's highly unlikely that even with a 25 year minimum tariff Jeremy Bamber would ever be paroled. I'm not championing fairness for prisoners. But it was initially a judge's verdict. And it was rubber-stamped as such. By lord lane I believe.

Looking at it from a nuetral prospective. Whether it be Jeremy Bamber, or anyone else. I believe it wrong to be informed years into your sentence that you are now whole tariff. It was in 1993 in long Lartin.

Having said that though, would it be seen as Justice drakes sentencing being paltry? In essence it's a standard Life sentence of a minimum of 25 years. It equates to five years per murder victim.

Did Douglas Hurd do it for political reasons. I am unsure. Or the barbarity ?

[David1819]

If I remember correctly, there was once a time when convicts on whole life tariffs were never told they had no possibility of parole. But that later changed.

I believe it is wrong for home secretaries to interfere with the judicial process.

The home secretary has the power to pardon convicts. The CCRC can also recommend pardons to the home secretary. This is in circumstances where the system has epically failed, i.e a convict is factually innocent, all avenues of appeals are exhausted and thus exculpatory evidence is inadmissible on technical grounds.

Such mechanism should exist. But I doubt it will ever be carried out on a conviction where the convicted is still alive.

[ILB]

If I remember correctly, there was once a time when convicts on whole life tariffs were never told they had no possibility of parole. But that later changed.

The home secretary has the power to power to pardon convicts. The CCRC can also recommend pardons to the home secretary. This is in circumstances where the system has epically failed, i.e a convict is factually innocent, all avenues of appeals are exhausted and thus exculpatory evidence is inadmissible on technical grounds.

Such mechanism should exist. But I doubt it will ever be carried out on a conviction where the convicted is still alive.

I think the criminal justice act 2003 passed the buck from the home secretary to the judiciary.

In regards to sentencing tariffs

Ian huntley is a noticeable case to this. He was convicted a day before the act came into implement and his tariff was set almost two years later by the original trial judge

You are correct David reference pardons. It's unlikely it will be granted even if the prisoner is serverley infirm

[ILB]

I don't believe it is wrong for Jeremy Bamber to fight his sentence like he did whilst in a challenge from day one to overturn his convictions

It's not an admission of guilt by him challennging his sentence.

[ILB]

An innocent individual will use any means nessecary to get out.

Even if Jeremy got a tariff. Doubtful he would get released
.

[Jane]

Taking the argument of guilt or innocence out of the equation. I believe it is wrong for home secretaries to interfere with the judicial process.

It's common misconception that Michael Howard changed Jeremy's sentence to a whole life tariff. When in actual fact it had been changed without the prisoners knowledge in 1988. By Douglas Hurd.

Justice drake set Jeremy's tariff at a minimum of 25 years. And I believe it should have stayed that way. That isn't a gateway to release. It's highly unlikely that even with a 25 year minimum tariff Jeremy Bamber would ever be paroled. I'm not championing fairness for prisoners. But it was initially a judge's verdict. And it was rubber-stamped as such. By lord lane I believe.

Looking at it from a nuetral prospective. Whether it be Jeremy Bamber, or anyone else. I believe it wrong to be informed years into your sentence that you are now whole tariff. It was in 1993 in long Lartin.

Having said that though, would it be seen as Justice drakes sentencing being paltry? In essence it's a standard Life sentence of a minimum of 25 years. It equates to five years per murder victim.

Did Dougla

s Hurd do it for political reasons. I am unsure. Or the barbarity ?

Justice Drake's rider to the minimum 25 year sentence was that it remained to be seen whether it would ever be seen as safe for him to be released.  A full life tariff by any other name, perhaps?

[Roch]

Justice Drake's rider to the minimum 25 year sentence was that it remained to be seen whether it would ever be seen as safe for him to be released.  A full life tariff by any other name, perhaps?

Where is the evidence that he would be likely to commit an inheritance killing upon release?

[Steve_uk]

Where is the evidence that he would be likely to commit an inheritance killing upon release?

I suppose because he hasn't acknowledged his guilt.

[ILB]

Justice Drake's rider to the minimum 25 year sentence was that it remained to be seen whether it would ever be seen as safe for him to be released.  A full life tariff by any other name, perhaps?

I don't think politicians should interfere with the judiciary.

[Bubo bubo]

Justice Drake's rider to the minimum 25 year sentence was that it remained to be seen whether it would ever be seen as safe for him to be released.  A full life tariff by any other name, perhaps?

They had to give JB a whole life tariff because they were not only concealing a framing but the framing was to take the focus away from the initial coverup caused by the failed entry of the TFG. If JB an innocent man served a normal life sentence he would work to clear his name on release. Just like he has tried to prove his innocence from jail. The framing and withholding of evidence and all the other tricks employed down the years mean he has had to work on the case against him and prove it wrong. On release he would have been able to press his case more easily with the media authors etc. So the whole life tariff was used to keep him incarcerated.

Once the framing was proved attention would then fall on the reason and the best the EP could muster would be Noble Cause Corruption. Even though there is nothing noble about this process. Inevitably other reasons for the framing would emerge over time and eventually the truth might emerge.
He has to be kept in jail at all costs.

[Roch]

I suppose because he hasn't acknowledged his guilt.

Which is exactly what an innocent person would do.

[ILB]

It is wrong on all levels.

The 25 year minimum should have never been changed.

It's not even a pro argument for jeremys sake. It should be the same for any prisoner

[ILB]

It's an insult to the judiciary for a politician to make amendments to s tariff

[Zoso]

Which is exactly what an innocent person would do.

Or a guilty one who isn't prepared to come clean.

[ILB]

Sentencing in the 1980s could seem paltry.

In 1981 the Yorkshire ripper got a minimum of 30 years for murdering 13 women.

But life sentences are just that. Just a minimum.

In this day and age a person can get a whole life tariff for a single victim