Human Rights and Whole-Life prison sentences

[samsmart]

I know why they panel ruled the way it did but that doesn't negate the argument for whole life sentences, no matter how rehabilitated a criminal may be. Putting in the possibility of parole for even the most heinous of crimes actually does away with the whole life tariff effectively even if the EUHCR says that's not what they are doing.

Except that's not what they're doing. And you were still misleading in your post.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

Except that's not what they're doing. And you were still misleading in your post.

Sorry but it is.

Judge one - "I sentence you to a whole life term in prison" = life sentence.

Judge two- I sentence you to a whole life term to be reviewed every 5 / 10 / 15 / 20 / 25 (insert own number) years" ≠ life sentence.

 

[Northern Light]

I don't see what the controversy is about.

Even if prisoners are unlikely to change or become rehabilitated to the point of release, it should be a basic right to have their case heard every couple of decades or so, to see if there is improvement that balances out the original crime.

Locking people up and throwing away the key is a third world policy and places like the UK should know better. The U.S. is another story but private prisons will always make life sentences more profitable.

 

[HonestJoe]

Sorry but it is.

Judge one - "I sentence you to a whole life term in prison" = life sentence.

Judge two- I sentence you to a whole life term to be reviewed every 5 / 10 / 15 / 20 / 25 (insert own number) years" ≠ life sentence.

Sentence doesn't mean imprisonment. Sentence covers anything imposed by the court upon the convicted. A fine is a sentence, community service is a sentence, a suspended sentence is (surprisingly) a sentence and fixed term imprisonment is a sentence.

A life sentence doesn't necessarily mean life in prison and in the vast majority of cases (in the US and Europe at least) it doesn't. Life sentences usually have a minimum term of imprisonment and then the scope for release on parole (which usually happens eventually). Anyone on parole is still serving their sentence and for life sentences, parole in the event of their release lasts for the rest of their life.

Whole life sentences ("life imprisonment", "life without parole") are what is under discussion here. They work on the assumption that the prisoner will never be release from prison but in most jurisdictions, there is usually some scope for that. In the UK, the Home Secretary can release a prisoner on "compassionate grounds" for example.

The ruling states that there should be some form of review process during whole life sentences. That doesn't prevent it being a life sentence - were anyone released via this process, they'd remain on parole for the rest of their lives - and it doesn't really prevent it being a whole-life sentence since there is still no presumption that they will be released and nothing preventing the criteria being extremely strict (as it should be). These prisoners can and almost certainly will still remain in prison for the rest of their lives.

There is a question of public perception but that doesn't make that perception correct - the public are grossly misinformed on these distinctions, primarily by lazy media reporting and dishonest headlines.

 

[samsmart]

Sorry but it is.

Judge one - "I sentence you to a whole life term in prison" = life sentence.

Judge two- I sentence you to a whole life term to be reviewed every 5 / 10 / 15 / 20 / 25 (insert own number) years" ≠ life sentence.

Just because lifetime sentences must be reviewed doesn't mean all prisoners with lifetime sentences won't serve for life.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

-- it should be a basic right to have their case heard --

There was me thinking prison was because someone had denied someone else their rights (life / liberty etc).

-- to see if there is improvement that balances out the original crime --

Speaking specifically about the type of crime that merits a whole life sentence, how can anyone ever balance out their crimes of serial murder / paedophila / rape?

-- Whole life sentences ("life imprisonment", "life without parole") are what is under discussion here. They work on the assumption that the prisoner will never be release from prison but in most jurisdictions, there is usually some scope for that. In the UK, the Home Secretary can release a prisoner on "compassionate grounds" for example.

The ruling states that there should be some form of review process during whole life sentences. That doesn't prevent it being a life sentence - were anyone released via this process, they'd remain on parole for the rest of their lives - and it doesn't really prevent it being a whole-life sentence since there is still no presumption that they will be released and nothing preventing the criteria being extremely strict (as it should be). These prisoners can and almost certainly will still remain in prison for the rest of their lives.

I'm well aware of the point of parole - even for those on parole for the rest of their lives however it just takes recidivism by one such person who plays up to the system after his / her parole (after however many years) to show how foolish the idea of parole for those who should otherwise serve their life in prison.

We come down to whether the "basic rights" of a very serious criminal are more important than the rights of their potential victims in future. Current re-offending statistics by those who do get parole are not very encouraging that my opinion will be changed on this matter.

 

[Henrin]

A punishment without end is just revenge.

 

[HonestJoe]

I'm well aware of the point of parole - even for those on parole for the rest of their lives however it just takes recidivism by one such person who plays up to the system after his / her parole (after however many years) to show how foolish the idea of parole for those who should otherwise serve their life in prison.

Seriously? One person plays the system and the system is automatically condemned? By that argument, we should scrap the legal system full stop! Nothing is perfect.

Anyway, this is an argument against parole in general, be it during a fixed length sentence, a life sentence or (potentially in the future) a whole-life sentence. It could even be said that it's an argument against ever releasing any prisoner at all, certainly any violent one. That's an entire different topic though.

We come down to whether the "basic rights" of a very serious criminal are more important than the rights of their potential victims in future. Current re-offending statistics by those who do get parole are not very encouraging that my opinion will be changed on this matter.

No more or less than any other judicial decision or any restrictions upon them. For example, dangerous drivers commonly re-offend and put people's lives at risk - should they all be locked up for life on a first offence? Do the laws and rules that prevent this as an option put the rights of the criminal before their potential victims? Your emotive response is understandable but it's not realistic.

Incidentally, re-offending rates are generally too high because all of the attention is on punishment and revenge with little or no interest in rehabilitation.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

Seriously? One person plays the system and the system is automatically condemned? By that argument, we should scrap the legal system full stop! Nothing is perfect.

Whole life sentences are usually reserved for the mass or multiple killers / rapists etc. A Peter Sutcliffe / Ian Huntley type predator - not the same as a petty burglar who commits repeat offences. If not repeat killers / paedophiles then they have committed a really aggravated offence.

Anyway, this is an argument against parole in general, be it during a fixed length sentence, a life sentence or (potentially in the future) a whole-life sentence. It could even be said that it's an argument against ever releasing any prisoner at all, certainly any violent one. That's an entire different topic though.

Agreed - and not even what I'm arguing anyway.

No more or less than any other judicial decision or any restrictions upon them. For example, dangerous drivers commonly re-offend and put people's lives at risk - should they all be locked up for life on a first offence? Do the laws and rules that prevent this as an option put the rights of the criminal before their potential victims? Your emotive response is understandable but it's not realistic.

A dangerous driver is offered retraining / points / losing their licence etc depending on the severity. If that dangerous driver commits a range of murders and eventually fits the whole life sentence category then obviously they should be locked up for life.

Incidentally, re-offending rates are generally too high because all of the attention is on punishment and revenge with little or no interest in rehabilitation.

As the thread is about the worst kind of offenders, I'm all ears for how we rehabilitate people like Peter Sutcliffe, Ian Huntley, Myra Hyndley, Steve Wright, Denis Nilsen and others.

 

[HonestJoe]

Whole life sentences are usually reserved for the mass or multiple killers / rapists etc…

Sure, but your objection seemed to be about the principle of parole in general. If that objection is relevant to whole-life sentences, why wouldn't it also be relevant to other sentences, at least the most serious conventional life sentences?

Also, your statement was that one single incident of recidivism would demonstrate the entire concept a failure. Why wouldn't that single-failure principle apply to any other aspect of the justice system?

I simply don't see any technical arguments here specifically against the idea of there being some form of periodic review process for whole-life sentences, only an emotive one. I've never considered emotion to be a good basis for a legal system.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

Sure, but your objection seemed to be about the principle of parole in general. If that objection is relevant to whole-life sentences, why wouldn't it also be relevant to other sentences, at least the most serious conventional life sentences?

I must have written it out badly - parole is a worthy concept in 90% of cases, even if the problem of recidivism exists. I am against parole for whole life sentences and against the mockery and expense of going through parole hearings for those who have committed the worst crimes. Those such as I named who had whole life sentences applied to them.

What the EU has asked for is an expensive charade every (insert number of years here) so often.

Also, your statement was that one single incident of recidivism would demonstrate the entire concept a failure. Why wouldn't that single-failure principle apply to any other aspect of the justice system?

Recidivism in regards to a whole life sentence prisoner released who then commits crimes again. What's the point of letting a Peter Sutcliffe out just to go and notch up his 14th or 15th victim?

I simply don't see any technical arguments here specifically against the idea of there being some form of periodic review process for whole-life sentences, only an emotive one. I've never considered emotion to be a good basis for a legal system.

OK, give me a technical argument for the idea of periodic reviews of the very worst criminals then.

 

[Northern Light]

There was me thinking prison was because someone had denied someone else their rights (life / liberty etc).

That hasn't changed.

Speaking specifically about the type of crime that merits a whole life sentence, how can anyone ever balance out their crimes of serial murder / paedophila / rape?

Not sure that they can, to be honest. But the scientific evidence shows that people can rehabilitate, which is why many people receive murder sentences with probation as an option after about 30 years. The circumstances of some murders are not necessarily psychopathic.

I'm well aware of the point of parole - even for those on parole for the rest of their lives however it just takes recidivism by one such person who plays up to the system after his / her parole (after however many years) to show how foolish the idea of parole for those who should otherwise serve their life in prison.

I just think the parole option makes our justice system more fair. It's not about having an innate desire to see murderers go free.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

-- Not sure that they can, to be honest. But the scientific evidence shows that people can rehabilitate, which is why many people receive murder sentences with probation as an option after about 30 years. The circumstances of some murders are not necessarily psychopathic.

Let me just be clear again - what I oppose is changing the whole life sentence judgement that the EU has asked /ordered us to change. This does not affect anyone with a life sentence who can currently get parole - people already get life sentences where they may serve as little as 8 years / 15 years etc and that is much like anywhere else. The EU decision does however affect the category where a judge has ordered a whole life sentence.

Currently, this accounts for only 50 prisoners in the UK.

Not just England, but the whole of the UK. Why we have to now pander to the most dangerous category of prisoners (I know the courts have not asked for release) by organising and paying for the charade of having parole hearings for people like Dale Cregan / Ian Brady / Peter Sutcliffe etc is beyond me.

-- I just think the parole option makes our justice system more fair. It's not about having an innate desire to see murderers go free.

I'm not arguing about fairness or setting prisoners free, besides - fairness is something many of these people denied their victims so that holds short shrift for me.

Someone argued that the judgement does not do away with life sentences - but in effect it does. How many times do we read of a lower category life sentence where the judgment adds "sentenced to life, must serve a minimum of 10 years?"

Does that not take away the meaning of "life sentence" in itself?

 

[HonestJoe]

I must have written it out badly - parole is a worthy concept in 90% of cases, even if the problem of recidivism exists.

Well then you can't use recidivism as an argument against it with whole life sentences.

What the EU has asked for is an expensive charade every (insert number of years here) so often.

There's no reason for it to be especially expensive - we're talking a handful of additions to the thousands of parole hearings already carried out.

OK, give me a technical argument for the idea of periodic reviews of the very worst criminals then.

The same technical arguments for it with serious criminals who don't received a whole-life sentence for whatever reason. I don't see any fundamental difference between the hypothetically worse killer given a life sentence and the least worst given a whole-life sentence.

Of course, the other technical reason is that it been ruled in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights.

 

[PeteEU]

What the EU has asked for is an expensive charade every (insert number of years here) so often.

You own Supreme Court asked for this long before the EU. All the EU is doing is applying it to 3 men who were sentenced before the UK Supreme Court made its ruling.

Just this week there was a guy given a life sentence... minimum 25 years. That judge followed the guidelines as put down by the UK Supreme Court.

 

[PeteEU]

Let me just be clear again - what I oppose is changing the whole life sentence judgement that the EU has asked /ordered us to change. This does not affect anyone with a life sentence who can currently get parole - people already get life sentences where they may serve as little as 8 years / 15 years etc and that is much like anywhere else. The EU decision does however affect the category where a judge has ordered a whole life sentence.

Currently, this accounts for only 50 prisoners in the UK.

Not just England, but the whole of the UK. Why we have to now pander to the most dangerous category of prisoners (I know the courts have not asked for release) by organising and paying for the charade of having parole hearings for people like Dale Cregan / Ian Brady / Peter Sutcliffe etc is beyond me.

Ian Brady has had a parole hearing a couple of times. What makes him any different than one of these guys? His crimes are considered by many as the worst in UK history.

Dale Cregan's sentence was clearly against your own Supreme Courts ruling and clearly a vengeance sentence by the judicial system because he gunned down 2 cops. It is not the fault of the ECHR that your judges dont read the UK Supreme Court rulings and have a nasty side when it comes to cop killers.

As for Peter Sutcliffe he actually was originally sentenced correctly. He was sentenced to life term with a minimum of 30 years. The issue here is that in 2010, a year before he could be released, then that ruling was changed to life without the possibility of release... and that might be illegal, unless he is deemed a danger to society. He is an old man after all so any 15+ year extended sentence is life.

No one is saying to release these guys, and holding a 10 minutes hearing every 10 or 15 years does not cost much, and keeps the judicial system in check.

I'm not arguing about fairness or setting prisoners free, besides - fairness is something many of these people denied their victims so that holds short shrift for me.

No you are arguing the lowest of the lowest... revenge and vengeance. I have zero sympathy for these men and if guilty, then they deserve their sentence, but we are suppose to be all equal to the law, and UK law is seriously lacking in this area. First having a politician set the term is beyond idiotic, and then not giving the possibility of a hearing on the possibility of parole for these very few criminals, all in sensationalist cases is frankly disgusting. People are suppose to be equal under the law, hence a man who murders and gets life with a minimum of 25 years and gets his hearing should be no different than Dale Cregan, but there is a difference.

Someone argued that the judgement does not do away with life sentences - but in effect it does. How many times do we read of a lower category life sentence where the judgment adds "sentenced to life, must serve a minimum of 10 years?"

Does that not take away the meaning of "life sentence" in itself?

No it does not do away with life sentences, meaning or otherwise. Do you really think that Anders Brevik is going to get out after he served his minimum sentence? Of course not, he will be declared a menace to society and be locked up for another 5-10 years till the next hearing, who will declare him a menace again. Ian Brady, who got life, who got the right to get a hearing... he aint never leaving prison is he?

 

[Infinite Chaos]

-- been ruled in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights.

That's your only technical reason. I don't accept the other argument - partly because the argument isn't easily followed (by me)

-- All the EU is doing is applying it to 3 men who were sentenced before the UK Supreme Court made its ruling --

Considering one of them (Vinter) was paroled after serving 9 years of a life sentence and then went on to strangle and murder his wife by stabbing her repeatedly - it's all rather stupid to argue this man's human rights are breached. He breached one person's rights, was paroled and then went on to brutally breach another's.

However, I accept that if we stay in the EU and we can not renegotiate our position we are going to have to bend on this. All the time though, I will argue against such statements as this by the QC who stood for the 3 prisoners - "The imposition of a whole-life sentence crushes human dignity from the outset, as it removes any chance and therefore any hope of release in the future. The individual is left in a position of hopelessness whereby he cannot progress whatever occurs."

There is no redress for the loss of human dignity or human life caused by these people that we now have to treat as if they were any other petty criminal.

 

[PeteEU]

Considering one of them (Vinter) was paroled after serving 9 years of a life sentence and then went on to strangle and murder his wife by stabbing her repeatedly - it's all rather stupid to argue this man's human rights are breached. He breached one person's rights, was paroled and then went on to brutally breach another's.

Listen Vinter will never see daylight again. But the point is again, you are suppose to be equal in the eyes of the law, and this man, and a very few select others have not been treated equally because of poor governance from repeated British governments, and frankly pathetic judges. The fact that there are still judges that attempt to give life sentences with "never see daylight again" clauses, shows how poorly run your judicial system is since your own supreme court has stated that the judges cant do this... they must set a minimum. Now that minimum can be 50 years, but a minimum has to be set.

Just because these men are bastards and horrible humans, does not mean we can piss on their human rights of which the UK has signed up for.. well actually written. And then we are back to equal in the eyes of the law. Yes the victims deserve justice and they will get justice if the judges and legal system follow the freaking rules. But as long as they dont, then it is in fact the moron judges and politicians that are failing the victims by not insuring that basic human rights are followed and using the rules and treaties which they have signed up for, to make sure that these men are punished and stay behind bars. Had the UK government done this when they were forced to rewrite their sentencing laws in 2003 after loosing the first time in the European court, then you would not be in this situation in at least 1 of the cases involved. The 2 others were from before 2003, and when a freaking politician set the sentence... how fair is that? Do you actually approve of such things?

And that is why I have used Brevik and Norway as an example. They have minimum sentences on life, and if the release panel then finds that the person is a risk for society, then they wont get released for another 5-10 years.. and that can be repeated.

However, I accept that if we stay in the EU and we can not renegotiate our position we are going to have to bend on this. All the time though, I will argue against such statements as this by the QC who stood for the 3 prisoners - "The imposition of a whole-life sentence crushes human dignity from the outset, as it removes any chance and therefore any hope of release in the future. The individual is left in a position of hopelessness whereby he cannot progress whatever occurs."

And I agree. In fact I would almost say your stance is more humane. "You are to serve life".. the person knows he will die in prison.. and has to accept that. Now what the European court wants is harsh... every X years to be put before a parole board, and given a chance of freedom, only to have it taken away because the board or whoever is responsible say that you are unfit.

There is no redress for the loss of human dignity or human life caused by these people that we now have to treat as if they were any other petty criminal.

Listen you cant do anything to help the victims.. they are dead. But you can make sure that their abusers are treated according to the law and human rights else the whole principle of our society is at a risk.. we are a law and order society, not a vengeance society. Even the most vile human beings deserve to be treated according to the law and basic human rights.. else we are back in the dark ages where the wrong opinions meant you were tortured to death. We are suppose to have evolved away from such horrors.... right?

 

[Infinite Chaos]

-- In fact I would almost say your stance is more humane. "You are to serve life".. the person knows he will die in prison.. and has to accept that. Now what the European court wants is harsh... every X years to be put before a parole board, and given a chance of freedom, only to have it taken away because the board or whoever is responsible say that you are unfit --

That is not harsh to the relatives of someone murdered. They have to suffer for the rest of their lives, whereas a paroled criminal will have a reprieve offered.

-- Even the most vile human beings deserve to be treated according to the law and basic human rights..

Always remembering we are talking about people who have ignored other people's basic human rights, that by having unlawfully killed others, they are then put into a place which is a restriction on all their rights. Remember they are incarcerated - meaning their rights are not the same as any other citizen's.

 

[PeteEU]

That is not harsh to the relatives of someone murdered. They have to suffer for the rest of their lives, whereas a paroled criminal will have a reprieve offered.

You are still assuming that he will be paroled...

Always remembering we are talking about people who have ignored other people's basic human rights, that by having unlawfully killed others, they are then put into a place which is a restriction on all their rights. Remember they are incarcerated - meaning their rights are not the same as any other citizen's.

So you are saying that because these people have violated other people's basic human rights, then it is justified that the state and "we the people" throw away all our laws and principles and violate their rights .. out of vengeance?

So if you are accused of a crime, then you loose your basic human rights? Or is it only if someone dies? How about if you accidentally kill someone in a car accident? No human rights for youuuuuuuuu. After all you have to be equal in the eyes of the law, so you cant have one rule for one person and not for another...

 

[Captain Adverse]

You are still assuming that he will be paroled...

I don't live in the EU, but I have checked into this thread from time to time. I've noticed you making this point, and it seems wierd since you are essentially arguing that life sentences without possibility of parole are unfair for various reasons...

...Odd because your counter argument to opposing views seems to be "they won't get one anyway." What would be the point of granting a "possibility" that you indicate will not really exist? That's lip service to an ideal, not support for the ideal. I think you need to come up with a valid response to those who state it is punishment that fits the crime...essentially a life wasted for a life wasted.

NOTE: I am not arguing against your basic point, just that your supporting argument for it seems illogical on it's face.

 

[PeteEU]

I don't live in the EU, but I have checked into this thread from time to time. I've noticed you making this point, and it seems wierd since you are essentially arguing that life sentences without possibility of parole are unfair for various reasons...

...Odd because your counter argument to opposing views seems to be "they won't get one anyway." What would be the point of granting a "possibility" that you indicate will not really exist? That's lip service to an ideal, not support for the ideal. I think you need to come up with a valid response to those who state it is punishment that fits the crime...essentially a life wasted for a life wasted.

NOTE: I am not arguing against your basic point, just that your supporting argument for it seems illogical on it's face.

What I am trying to point out is the inconsistency in UK law, which is the basis for the EHRC ruling.

You have 2 murderers, one gets a life sentence with a minimum of say 30 years, the other is far more in the media and gets a life sentence with "going to rot in jail"... they have done pretty much the same thing.

And that is only for murderers since 2003 when the law was changed after the EHRC ruled that their system at the time was against human rights... they basically had elected politicians dictate sentences and not the legal system.

Case in point.. their own Supreme Court has ruled that a life sentence must have a minimum term attached, and yet judges are still breaking that rule. Why? because the whole sentencing guidelines were just that... guidelines, not etched in stone... all of it. That means judges can interpret the whole sentencing process as they wish, which has caused massive differences in sentences.. and that is fundamentally the problem.

All this could have been avoided if they had better law makers.

 

[HonestJoe]

That's your only technical reason. I don't accept the other argument - partly because the argument isn't easily followed (by me)

No, it's the only one you're willing to try to understand. I don't see what's difficult with the concept that there is no general moral difference between those on whole life sentences and those on conventional life sentences. You could pick out extreme individuals but in general terms they're the exceptions and it is exceptions that systems like parole are specifically designed to address.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

No, it's the only one you're willing to try to understand. I don't see what's difficult with the concept that there is no general moral difference between those on whole life sentences and those on conventional life sentences. You could pick out extreme individuals but in general terms they're the exceptions and it is exceptions that systems like parole are specifically designed to address.

If you aren't willing to rephrase better then that's your choice. I didn't rubbish you or your post, didn't go into ad hominem. We'll leave our discussion / exchange there: thank you for your input. Goodbye.

You are still assuming that he will be paroled...

List of prisoners with whole-life tariffs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you look at the lists, quite a few of the prisoners on whole life sentences had already been paroled and then gone on to murder again. These guys have mainly had their chance, had parole and then murdered again.

Why should they be offered further chances? It's not about having better law-makers - these people have had parole and murdered again.

So you are saying that because these people have violated other people's basic human rights, then it is justified that the state and "we the people" throw away all our laws and principles and violate their rights .. out of vengeance?

So if you are accused of a crime, then you loose your basic human rights? Or is it only if someone dies? How about if you accidentally kill someone in a car accident? No human rights for youuuuuuuuu. After all you have to be equal in the eyes of the law, so you cant have one rule for one person and not for another...

All this could have been avoided if they had better law makers.

Call it vengeance if that suits you - for me it's about people who have gone through court, had a life sentence with parole and then who have murdered again.

Some of these people have had their chance, why do they deserve further at tax-payer expense? How would better law-makers answer the fact that many of the 49 on whole life sentence have already been paroled?

 

[Captain Adverse]

I don't live in the EU, but I have checked into this thread from time to time. I've noticed you making this point, and it seems wierd since you are essentially arguing that life sentences without possibility of parole are unfair for various reasons...

...Odd because your counter argument to opposing views seems to be "they won't get one anyway." What would be the point of granting a "possibility" that you indicate will not really exist? That's lip service to an ideal, not support for the ideal. I think you need to come up with a valid response to those who state it is punishment that fits the crime...essentially a life wasted for a life wasted.

NOTE: I am not arguing against your basic point, just that your supporting argument for it seems illogical on it's face.

What I am trying to point out is the inconsistency in UK law, which is the basis for the EHRC ruling.

You have 2 murderers, one gets a life sentence with a minimum of say 30 years, the other is far more in the media and gets a life sentence with "going to rot in jail"... they have done pretty much the same thing.

And that is only for murderers since 2003 when the law was changed after the EHRC ruled that their system at the time was against human rights... they basically had elected politicians dictate sentences and not the legal system.

Case in point.. their own Supreme Court has ruled that a life sentence must have a minimum term attached, and yet judges are still breaking that rule. Why? because the whole sentencing guidelines were just that... guidelines, not etched in stone... all of it. That means judges can interpret the whole sentencing process as they wish, which has caused massive differences in sentences.. and that is fundamentally the problem.

All this could have been avoided if they had better law makers.

Again, nothing you state in your response addresses the issue I raised. I am not concerned with your main position, only with the fact that your constant response to the point about a life wasted for a life wasted is "they won't get a parole anyway." If this is so, what does it matter if some courts are giving out life without parole sentences? You need to come up with a better response than that, or your over-all argument remains invalid.