Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
I don't bloody think so. But he is 72 so hopefully he'll at least die in there.
Hideous monster of a man.
life expectancy is only like 78 or something
so let's leave be.
There seems to be loads of cases like this coming out since Fritzl. Disgusting cunts.
14 years is is pretty harsh.
I work in probation and we meet people who've done far worse and received lighter sentences than that!
and until then, get hell from other inmates, I'd say it's fair enough.
If you really want a sickening sentence, consider the fact that those absolute scumbags who raped that girl for 2 hours before chucking caustic soda all over her will be out in 4 years.
They only have to serve 4 years.
The girl had a mental age of nine and suffered 50% burns. I'm not a Mail reading sort but the 'people' who did this are about as low as you can go.
Have another, that proper made me laugh.
but he'll die in there so i'm not bothered, and his daughters happy with the sentence
if he was younger they'd have given him more
I supervise a guy who raped a 13 year old girl. I think he wound up serving less than a year.
The prisons really are full, I visit them frequently and the Prison Service staff I meet are in absolute despair. You would be truly amazed at just how difficult it is to get a lengthy custodial sentence these days.
Doesn't really matter.
Do brutal beatings like that actually happen in jail, or is it all just a myth? I really hope he gets tortured
A lot of Brits have watched Prison Break and OZ or have seen those documentaries on Sky like 'Lock-Up' and 'America's Toughest Prisons' and seem to think that it's the same here. It really isn't and hasn't been for years.
In reality whilst it can be fucking boring especially if you're being held in a remand prison with little in the way of leisure/educational facilities the Prison Service is ultra-PC and goes to incredible lengths to ensure that prisoners aren't being bullied in any way, shape or form.
I knew it wasn't as bad as TV shows, but still, I thought there was some sort of honour-amongst-thieves thing where they separate themselves from "beasts" by doing them in.
American prisons have a deeply entrenched gang culture. It's pretty much a case of join a gang (especially if you're white) out of sheer concern for your own preservation or be wait to be killed or maimed.
No such culture exists in the UK. There are no prison gangs and there is little factionalism.
Additionally, a comparatively large proportion of US prisoners are three strikers or serving life with no chance of parole, as such they have nothing to lose and will kill on a whim. Their equivalents in the UK are far fewer and will be in secure A-Category prisons rather than mixing it with the general prison population.
'Nonce Bashing' goes on and people who have received a lot of newspaper attention are obviously at enhanced risk, but most of the time they're left alone. They just keep themselves to themselves and tend to live on wings entirely populated by other sex offenders. They're at more risk on the outside.
I was told by a social worker that if prisoners find out someone's a paedophile they treat them badly.
and work with paedophiles on a daily basis (and those are just my colleagues ROFL!!!11 etc etc) and it's not a matter of IF other prisoners find out, EVERYONE knows. Mostly they're left to their own devices.
and said the place was completely run by drug gangs and staff were irrelevant. Some of Scotlands young offenders institutions are notoriously violent, people will be stabbed and beaten by a group of inmates, in other words members of a gang
still entitled to disagree i guess, and you would
people like that don't deserve to live.
It would probably be more of a punishment to send the guy to jail on this occasion, he's quite likely to die there anyway. Killing him would be to easy, although I'd usually be all in favour of a death sentance for something like this.
due to a miscarriage of justice you've just been executed for a crime you didn't commit, frank
do not pass go
do not collect two hundred pounds
if you could prove the person did the crime 100% then yes. The problem is when people get wrongly convicted obviously.
there's always the teentsiest tiniest doubt.
And for cases such as paedophilia, it's difficult to say whether to say it's simply a case of breaking the law, thus deserving punishment, or a severe mental illness, requiring treatment. It's clearly wrong, but the concept that locking someone up will atone for their crimes doesn't really seem to apply in the case of some rapists or paedophiles, who are very obviously ill.
I mean, nobody's trying to deny that this guy is obviously a scumbag and his crimes are terrible and all that. But when people say "this sentence is too lenient" I struggle to work out what they mean. As a genuine, non-facetious question: what basis do people have for making that claim? People just seem to talk past each other about this kind of thing without establishing why they think sentences should be the way they are. (Intuition isn't a good enough answer, by the way.)
And at CG: I still don't know if you're a wind-up merchant or just great at conveniently ignoring every reasonable argument that contradicts yours. Perhaps a little of both. Way to simplify complex issues and tar a lot of nuanced positions with the "idiot" brush.
Jordan, "our first lady," reckons that rapists should be raped, and that the death penalty is AOK! nice!
and rightly so
absolute cunt of a man
hope he chokes on his porridge and dies a slow and very painful death
there's no punishment fit for such a crime
but i don't want a discussion about it with people, y'know. it's not like "i respect your opinion", it's "you're wrong and hearing you tires me. away". not you YOU, just getting that out there. so to speak.
the problem is when people get wrongly convicted, at least with a jail sentance they'll have some life left.
If there it was absolutely 100% that someone comitted a crime such as murder in the first degree, or a crime like this one, they should be killed.
I'd still consider myself a liberal, definitely. For some reason it's often assumed that someone who would condone the death penalty, couldn't possibly be that left-wing.
what types of killing do you find acceptable?
Why "should" they be killed? Show working plz.
you do realise that makes you a non-liberal, yeah?
i couldn't care less, but gs3 says he's a liberal who's in favour of a punishment which is built around the idea of "no chance to rehabilitate". that's not really an ideal at the heart of liberal ideals, 's all i'm saying
it just seems a bit weird that he's fighting for 'liberal' status. let the talking do the talking, or something.
but things like planned murder and serial rapings. Definitely not.
The reason I put 'planned murder' is because I guess it could happen in self defence, in a kind of kill or be killed type of scenario. Death for that would be too harsh.
you've been executed to a miscarriage of justice
so, yeah, g'bye!
so if killing in self-defence is justifiable, and there are other sorts of justifiable killings, there are likely to be common threads that link them.
you do know that murder in self-defence isn't actually a criminal offence at all, yeah?
most of my views are liberal, some of them like this one aren't so liberal. It's not a black and white issue, people lean one way or the other and I'd still say I'm more liberal than anything.
They associate conservatism with David Cameron and being a bore and think of liberalism like "Hey, blacks and gays can come to my party!" They think it's all about peaceful protests and saying stuff like "Let's get PRO-ACTIVE" and condemning paedophiles and rapists to death, when actually they haven't a fucking clue what they're on about.
why won't they realise they're wrong?
Liberal people are more blinded by their own sense of self-satisfaction than anyone else on the planet. I have far more respect for people who are fascist or communist or who smash everything up in a fit of anarchy, but liberals are the middle of the fucking road. They're the Brits who run around weeping because Obama's president, because he's black and they all suffer middle class white guilt.
to my mind, a liberal is somebody who believes in a minimal amount of state interference and regulation, both socially and economically. I do not generally count myself a liberal, though most other people might.
I would define a liberal as someone who believes in minimal government involvement/regulation both socially and economically. I don't view myself as a liberal, although most other people might.
If what you say above is what the word 'liberal' is commonly held to mean these days, we have a real problem with buzzwords replacing real argument.
It depends how much intervention we're talking about here though.
I think what a lot of people are referring to as liberalism I would explicitly call social-liberalism.
I can take being called a social liberal.
but if somebody just started flinging the term 'liberal' at me I would be a little puzzled.
but I don't actually have any respect for Communists.
this is aimed at me right?
You really have no idea what you're talking about, I doubt you know my views on most things, so you don't really have any evidence to back this up.
what a ridiculous generalisation
and then die within two or three, because of the harsh prison conditions.
And I'm not being a namby pamby liberal who is all "I hope he dies in jail!" I just do miss those golden years of prison. If anything this gentleman's life expectancy will probably increase.
stick to being pigfoot
whoops, shouldn't have sent you that PM.
so you would
would be a bad idea
His opinions mean jack shit to me :)
Go home Pigfoot
you really are losing your touch.
you stink of fail tonight.
NO 'IRONIC' X'S
The idea that getting the wrong man would be awful undermines the entire judicial system. I love how people seem to think that prison's a doddle, and if we put you in there wrongly, it's alright if we let you out again. It's not. The person will be pretty fucked up, and given the option, I bet many would choose death over a long stretch for something they didn't do. This doesn't justify getting the wrong man. Nothing can.
As for the 'what about the fact the death penalty is morally wrong?' argument, please shut up and fuck off. Where are you getting these 'morals'? The bible? Why should one person's beliefs govern everyone else's? KILLING PEOPLE IS WRONG. END OF. Wrong. Killing people solves problems. Killing millions of German soldiers in World War 2 stopped them potentially taking over the world. Likewise, killing a criminal would stop him potentially reoffending.
The deterrence the death penalty would offer is obvious. Idiot human rights groups will tell you otherwise but they would. Likewise with all the "death penalty would cost the taxpayer billions" fucking utter bullshit.
The order of importance for sentencing aims should go:
especially the aims of sentencing being in that order
a mistake in the judicial system can be rectified. if you killed 'em, it can't.
also, i think the idea that the judicial system is infallible is a VERY dangerous idea, and i can't help feeling its logical conclusion is that the judicial system becomes very open to abuses because the idea is that it MUST BE RIGHT, so let's make it how we want it etc etc
also, i feel a little bit of sorrow for people who don't see much value in rehabilitation, must be a bit depressing to have that little faith in humanity
but 'The idea that getting the wrong man would be awful undermines the entire judicial system' is a bit dangerous too. i read that as almost going as far as to say that executing the wrong person once is okay if lots of 'right people' have been executed.
And I'm surprised that you'd assume that it is. I'm not an expert on prison by any means, but I've had conversations with people who work in them or have been in them, and by all accounts, it's a horrible horrible place. The psychological damage that it would do to an innocent person who couldn't cope with it is probably epic.
Secondly, I didn't say the judicial system was infallible. It's obviously not. But the whole notion of 'the wrong man' is always going to exist in it. It's a risk that won't ever go away unless some magic technology is developed that can detect dishonesty.
As for value in rehab, again it's a case of priorities. Changing a criminal's life around to give him a future isn't that important to me. I think the most important thing is making sure people are frightened to commit crimes. Let them know that if they do wrong, they will be punished. At the moment, that's not really the case. Then there's the cost of the criminal's upkeep and eventual rehabilitation.
but it's better than nothing, isn't it?
second paragraph, i think that the idea of 'the wrong man' should ensure that there are always (horrible phrase) checks and balances so that the judicial system can admit it's wrong while the person in question is still alive. execution is too final a punishment imho for a system which is not and can never be perfect
third paragraph, you've written 'changing a criminal's life around to give him a future isn't that important to me', and that's just something we're going to have to agree to disagree on
I think the death penalty would cut crime. Therefore it would be acting in favour of potential victims. In my eyes, people who could potentially be put at risk are The Major Priority. I'd do everything I could to make sure this was respected.
As the current system is, I think it's fair to say that potential criminals aren't put off by the sentence they'll receive. In my opinion, this approach - being more concerned with rehabilitating criminals than punishing them - is putting people in danger.
in a society with capital punishment than one without. and that's me who never even nicked a penny sweet from the corner shop as a kid.
agree to disagree, yeah?
but in a way you've strengthened mine.
You've admitted you'd be afraid of the state accusing you of committing a crime. In theory, so would a criminal.
On the other hand, you wouldn't be afraid of being given a curfew between the hours of 7pm and 7am, and being asked to hand your passport over for a month, would you?
because a state that could do that could do anything
and also, i'm not sure i have strengthened your point. you're saying it'd deter me from committing a crime, but i think generally any kind of punishment is enough deterrent for me. kinda, y'know, extrapolating that to apply for everyone's probably not the most sound logic. other people don't think like me
but surely you can admit that the prospect of execution is far more frightening than that of a curfew?
as we've just established. my personal feelings towards punishment are fairly irrelevant
"Changing a criminal's life around to give him a future isn't that important to me"
Why? We know prison doesn't deter people from committing crimes - otherwise prisons wouldn't be so full. We know from our experience pre-abolition that the death penalty doesn't deter people from committing crimes. What do you propose to do with people who come out after serving short stretches for (relatively) minor crimes if you don't plan on putting them in a position where they are more able to live their life in a 'normal' manner?
"We know from our experience pre-abolition that the death penalty doesn't deter people from committing crimes."
Are you saying that crime didn't rise post-abolition?
so abolition didn't really seem to affect the statistics significantly. This is better suited to a criminologist though.
it wasn't until the mid-late 60s that people started to feel extremely unsafe. This makes complete sense too. It's when everything was liberalised and in my opinion, fucked up.
now you're confusing crime and public perception of crime
they're not really related
crime rises could be due to any number of things. Correlation isn't the same as causation. There are so many explanations that are intuitively more plausible than the replacement of a particular penalty for one particular crime - major demographic / social / economic change, etc.
you can seriously blame me though, right? I don't even trust myself to do the right thing half the time.
if you want to deter people from committing crimes, by far the best way is to increase drastically the chance of them being caught.
I don't doubt that punishment has a general, background deterrent effect but people apparently fear "getting caught" more.
Put them all in our infinite prisons?
We don't have the space or the money for it.
that you're likely to get caught. it's allabout people apparently fearing being caught rather than the specific punishment. unless we have a resident psychiatrist, i can see both sides of this going a bit wank.
Although a large number of crimes are spur-of-the-moment and nothing will act as a deterrent for them, fear of being caught is certainly the best way of reducing planned crimes.
It doesn't necessarily take a police state to achieve a decent increase in the chance of catching people, just intelligent use of resources.
"deterrent punishments are proven not to work."
Sorry, but saying things that are:
1. unexplained, and hugely, hugely sweeping and
2. backed up by no evidence whatsoever
is just slightly irritating.
At least you can respect the fact that my arguments are qualified with the phrase "I think" or s.t.t.e.
but it has been the conclusion of several studies I've read in the past. I can try and dig them out if you really, really want.
In any case my main objection is moral but my attempts to shift the conversation in that direction weren't really met with very much response.
Bar the fact that I wrote this in my initial reply?
"As for the 'what about the fact the death penalty is morally wrong?' argument, please shut up and fuck off. Where are you getting these 'morals'? The bible? Why should one person's beliefs govern everyone else's? KILLING PEOPLE IS WRONG. END OF. Wrong. Killing people solves problems. Killing millions of German soldiers in World War 2 stopped them potentially taking over the world. Likewise, killing a criminal would stop him potentially reoffending."
And then this in one lower down:
"Just because you have a moral objection to it does not mean everyone should.
I have a moral objection to the prioritising of a criminal's rights over those of the general public."
your death is a means to an end, and that making an example of you and executing you would deter crime?
is going to execute me in order to set an example?
I'd disagree with it.
I can't remember arguing for the killing of innocent people to set an example, though?
but you cited examples of where peoples' death had led to greater good of some description. so i was just positing "hey it could happen"
I take the view that killing is justified in self-defence or in war, as well as in a couple of other specific situations. These situations are generally very immediate and are against a individual or group that poses a present danger. Killing somebody who has been rendered harmless - by being in prison, for example (or even a prisoner of war) - is another thing altogether. This requires both planning and delay, and to me has very little fundamental difference from premeditated murder.
But this relies solely on the 'been rendered harmless'.
People, generally, don't go to prison for life any more. For some strange reason, 'life' in judicial terms means 'a minimum of 8 years'.
If we found some way that criminals could be locked away for life, being rendered harmless, with very little cost to the taxpayer, I'd support it.
then I think we've surprisingly found a small bit of common ground.
Probably we could argue for hours over exactly who should be, but let's not get into that. I think there needs to be a greater focus on rehabilitation for less serious crime in particular though.
bring back hanging and we'd have no more crime, just like America, uhm
it's just bloodthirsty revenge
reading your posts is like reading a dumbed down copy of The Sun
Having your dad's kids would really fuck you up. How could a father do that to his daighters? :(
re-introduction of the death penalty probably would have a deterrent effect. But then, we were still hanging people for stealing sheep about 150 years ago. The deterrence argument justifies draconian sentences for lots of crimes, trivial and not-so-trivial. How can you draw the line in a principled way?
Although interestingly, in the particular case of murder - one of the main reasons given for abolishing the death penalty in the first place was that it appeared to have no significant deterrent effect for murder. That's not human rights groups saying that either - that's a Royal Commission, 50 years ago.
Life expectancy was lower, we weren't at the same stage in medical knowledge etc. I think attitudes to life would probably have been a lot different too.
I'd propose giving it a trial of about 4 or 5 years. If serious crime levels fell, give it a bit longer. If it made no difference, try something else.
I just think that it seems the government and a lot of people's attitudes on here aren't geared towards cutting crime as much as helping make sure criminals are changed by the state into 'better humans' so as they don't reoffend. I reckon my idea WOULD cut crime and I'm certain it would cut reoffending rates.
I don't see a convincing argument as to why your position would lead to a reduction in crime. Specifically any reasons why a deterrent like you suggest would work.
I have a moral objection to the prioritising of a criminal's rights over those of the general public.
And you're one to talk about convincing arguments.
I have quite strong moral convictions about what circumstances justify the taking of a life. I'm not sure how many people share them.
Neither do I believe that capital punishment has anything whatsoever to do with the rights of the general public. You're welcome to your opinion if you think it does.
should in theory cut crime, but I get what you're saying. I think lots of stuff can potentially have a place in a deterrent model of punishment. Personally I remain sceptical about the death penalty. For murder at least, I'm not sure much significant has changed in 50 years - the vast majority of murder were and still are "heat of the moment" things, which (by hypothesis) aren't really susceptible of deterrence.
But like I said, it's difficult to deny that crime would go down if you introduced the death penalty for lots of things. It's about a value judgement I guess - these days many people would prefer to do other, more costly and potentially not as effective things to deter crime simply so they don't have to take life. As with all value judgements I think that remains an open question up to a point.
they won't change. It's very naive to think we can change all criminals into model citizens, the ones that want to change, will anyway, regardless of what is done by the state to help them rehabilitate.
There is a responsibility to protect the general public and that is far more important than giving criminals an extra chance, particularly if they've commited crimes such as murder or rape. They don't deserve to live, why should innocent people be put at risk to help them out.
I'm not suggesting that some people won't change, I believe it's certainly possible, but how many will change? And what can the state do to help them if they're not prepared to try? People will change if they want to, without the help of rehabilitation, they still have a chance. The criminals that have murdered or raped, deserve to die, those people don't deserve this "chance".
"They don't deserve to live".
so.. for taking a life they should die - an eye for an eye etc.
Raping people often ruins their lives, particularly in a case like the one shown at the start of this thread. And there's also a risk they'll do it again, ruining yet more lives. Victims aren't going to forget being raped, living with the emotional torment in some cases, must be worse than being in jail.
It's not this black and white, but I definitely belive that some of the people that commit these henious crimes, don't deserve the chance to live their lives anymore. They should also be eliminated to protect others.
in "an eye for an eye"? Suggestions for how you deal with fraud and perjury then please. Also, what about people who kill negligently or recklessly, rather than intentionally? Death for them too? If not, why not?
Also - even if you stick on retribution - how on earth is the emotional torment of being raped commensurable with any kind of punishment? Say the victim is a particularly stable or forgiving person. Does the rapist now escape death because, by chance, they didn't ruin their victim's life? Again, if not, why not?
And re: "elimination" to protect others. You realise that this can justify killing serial shoplifters yeah?
taking someones life is unforgiveable and that person shouldn't carry on living their life. There are obviously circumstances where this shouldn't be the case, like when someone is killed as a result of self-defence.
No, that's silly. There is no way of knowing how the victim will react, but there is obviously a chance their life could be ruined so the criminal deserves to be severely punished (life in prison) and in some cases killed. I realise the problem with life sentancing and full prisons, but hopefully bringing back the death penalty will help with this.
No, the crime of shoplifting isn't serious enough to warrant that kind of punishment, those are the kind of criminals that I would like to see put into rehabilitation instead.
it will depend on a number of factors. The jury is there to work out whether they think the defendant is guilty or not guilty, they're not designed to do anything else. The death penalty shouldn't make any difference to this.
If they plead for leniency, I guess their wishes should be taken into account, yeah. They don't get to decicde the final outcome because other people could be at risk, but they can have their say.
And what do you mean, just to play along? You think I'm talking shit don't you? Come on, no need to be polite.
I've always thought I was quite liberal and other people have told me the same.
When it comes to murderers and rapists I have a zero tolerance attitude, but I'm not like this with most things.
I sometimes feel that too much is done to help the criminal get their second chance and not enough done to help the general public.
Just out of curiosity, do you usually find my views "quite terrifying" or is this the first time. You seem to be talking about me in general, wish is a little worrying.
I'm pleased that you accept my views though, most people would just accuse me of trolling.
Why is "an eye for an eye" uniquely appropriate to murder? You've shown that you don't really believe in retribution by accepting that things beyond what harm a person does are relevant to their punishment. So what's so special (and I mean qualitatively special - not just "it's worse") about intentional killing?
Again, I can only repeat that murder in self-defence rightly isn't a criminal offence. But this just proves the point further. Motive can make a difference to culpability. This might be reflected even in cases of "true" murder. Would you execute a man who kills his terminally ill wife in accordance with her wishes?
And again - "the crime of shoplifting isn't serious enough to warrant that kind of punishment". This just begs the question. What is it about crimes that make them "warrant" specific punishments? You still haven't argued that through.
Do you want me to argue why murder should require a more severe punishment than shoplifting? That's what it sounds like to me.
I wouldn't execute a man who kills his terminally ill wife, I've said before that it's not so black and white. I'm not going to explain what would happen in individual scenarios because we'll be here all day.
I think we can take it as read that, generally speaking, murder is more serious than shoplifting. My specific issue is with you (and others - I'm not trying to pick on you here) saying that particular crimes "deserve" or "warrant" particular punishments.
In essence: I'm trying to show that "murder is very serious" or even "murder is (generally speaking) the worst kind of moral wrong" is not an answer to the question "why do murderers deserve to be executed?".
If you're no longer sticking to the idea that murderers "deserve" to be killed then you've changed your position.
Rolling out the death penalty for a few years, then getting rid of it if it didn't work, would cost a phenomenal amount of money. I honestly reckon you could get a greater drop in crime rate by using the same cash to buy boatloads of herion and handing it out free on street corners. Or by doing just about anything with it...
Lady Clark sentenced him to 14 years in prison on each of the four rape charges and one year in custody for a charge of lewd and libidinous behaviour.
Doesn't that mean he's serving four x fourteen years, or is it just me?
you're right, it does. dude's got 56 years
but they'll run concurrently.
At the top of the article it says he's been sentenced to 14 years.
But at the bottom it says 14 years for every rape charge. I missed that bit - or it's been updated.
Hit enter instead of shift, anyway.
i might disagree with his views, but he's thought them through and he's consistent and not trolling
you should just be executed rather than taking up valuable space. 15 years is a long enough time to launch any appeal and prove your innocence.
so yeah, makes sense to me
just in case the spelling/grammar pedants get me
It wouldn't be workable for crimes that long ago, because the techniques for solving crimes like DNA evidence, weren't as advanced.
that was a reaction post, I didn't actually think about my reply.
im sure i could find a news story of someone who commited murder after being released from jail early. Under my system a life would be saved and accurate punishment would have been dealt.
This guy has served 27 years in prison. His life is ruined anyway. Its a gross injustice. Killing him after 15 years would be doing him a favour. I wouldnt be surprised if he killed himself after getting out and realising how different the world is now and not being able to cope.
i dont believe in the death penalty really
If he was significantly younger then I would say no. As for how long would be sufficient, given the nature of his crimes and how difficult it is to rehabilitate someone with this sort of disgusting attitude I probably wouldn't release him.
I do think that many sentences for violent and sexual offences are too lenient and if they weren't I don't think there would be so many people clamouring for the death penalty.
Out of interest when did our sentencing guidelines get changed so dramatically? For a country where you could get hanged for stealing a sheep and that was hanging murderers only 40 odd years ago it seems strange that "life" means only about 15 years.
And no, I don't want the death penalty back. But only because of the possibility of getting the wrong person.
there hasn't been as much of a dramatic change in our sentencing guidelines as most people think. In fact they've got HARSHER since capital punishment was abolished.
It was the mid / late-19th Century when we got rid of most of the existing capital offences except for murder.
Then it was (I think) 1958 when hanging ceased to be the mandatory sentence for all kinds of murder (it continued to be for certain types). However, by this point the Home Secretary was granting repireve and life sentences to over 50% of murderers (can you imagine if a home secretary did that today!?).
Moreover, these life sentence prisoners never had their "minimum term" set by a court. It was all done behind closed doors by politicians and administrators. So the general public never got to know that on average, most were serving a mere 6 or 7 years!
Now, by 2003 that average had risen to about 14 years - so basically doubled. It was at this point that the UK was found to be in breach of human rights law by allowing politicians to set sentences. So now, they're decided in open court. Ironically, making the system more open has resulted in a public perception that "life no longer means life", when in fact, that is more often true now than before. True facts.
Also, under the 2003 sentencing guidelines, the "starting point" for most murder minimum terms is 30 years. So expect the average to carry on rising.
Call me idealistic but I still believe in rehabilitation over retribution. 14 years is still a fucking long time.