What is the meaning of ‘life’? Well, it’s the alternative to death. Not least in British penal policy.
Back in the 1950s and 1960s when the UK was phasing out capital punishment, politicians came up with what they thought sounded like a tough alternative.
Killers, they said, should get life, not death. Some made being behind bars for all your days sound even worse than the quick snap of the noose.
More than half a century later many Britons - including some right wing politicians north of the border - are still in thrall to this desire to punish.
Scottish Tories have even suggested their own answer to the eternal question: life they reckon should mean life, at least sometimes.
Professor Dirk Van Zyl Smit is not so sure. In fact, he reckons Conservative plans for whole life tariffs would be unlawful under European rights regime Britain is remaining in after Brexit.
The academic is currently looking at how many lifers are behind bars around the world. His findings might shock some: Scotland has twice as many as France in absolute terms. His comparison is broadly fair although, of course, France does not have the automatic life sentences we imposed for all murderers. You only get life in France if you commit a very serious murder, such as a terror attack. And he is not comparing sentences for murder: our lifers can get a minimum sentence even if, after release, they remain on licence till they die.
Like Scotland and England, Germany hands out life sentences for all murders. But it defines murder far more narrowly than we do. The Netherlands has whole life sentences, but only 30 lifers. Scotland has 1000. Russia, where jail conditions admittedly can be very bad, has just 1800.
Some 30 jurisdictions have abolished life sentences as well as capital punishment (only one European state, Belarus, has the death penalty).
Scotland likes to pitch itself as progressive. The SNP has made baby steps towards cutting our prison population, among the highest in western Europe, by ending short-term sentences. Do they have the political confidence to do the same for longer ones?
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel