Carolyn Lund
Ministry of Justice
Runner-up, Public Sector Young Thinker of the Year

My daily working life surrounds me with men who have committed horrific crimes and for whom release from prison is not an option. Their sentences ensure a natural life term is served. This paper outlines the argument against using natural life terms and aims to show that no just, humane and democratic society should impose such tariffs. Challenging moral questions have to be asked, and answered, by society if the Prison Service's statement of purpose is to be achieved – to assist prisoners to lead law abiding lives in custody and on release and to treat those in custody with decency and humanity. I aim to present a path through this perpetual controversy by highlighting how the use of the natural life term does not offer society or the offender any real, tangible benefit when we decide what the true purpose of custody is.
     Custody's current focus is upon reducing re-offending. We use our prison system to rehabilitate via a range of techniques and interventions. We lead by example with pro-social behaviour modelling, we offer offending behaviour programmes that address thought and behavioural patterns and we plan meticulously through the custodial sentence to structure and define the stages of rehabilitation for, and with, the offenders themselves. In no way do I discount the commendable and successful outcome this process can have. My quandary is that with all these actions, processes and interventions we ultimately seek a change. We seek a reduction of risk that has a tangible goal that serves as our intended motivator for the offender – release from custody. With a natural life sentence we offer no such option. The proverbial light at the end of the tunnel does not exist. Here we, as a society, are plunged into the moral and legal maze that asks us: is this humane? Is it our only option? Is it fundamentally right?
     Answers to these questions are dependant upon our view of custody and what we believe the purpose is. Should we see these sentences in the context of reducing re-offending or in the context of custody as deterrent or for the purposes of retribution? The fact that the offender knows from day one of sentencing that their tariff has delivered a death sentence, albeit one which offers prolonged existence within custody rather than a shorter wait for the inevitable, makes the answer more difficult. It makes us ask who we seek retribution for and more importantly, does this redress the 'balance' of sentence fitting the crime? I do not believe it does because it will never turn the clock back, no matter how lengthy the sentence. Society must address the humanity and decency in issuing life tariffs which I believe are a more morally comfortable form of capital punishment in the 21st century.
     It is an important consideration in this argument that cultural sentiment at the time of sentencing can, and does, influence sentences given by the courts. As time passes and cultural climates and attitude to crime naturally evolve, those sentenced in previous contexts do not disappear. Their sentences continue unabated and despite changes in sentencing policy and public attitudes to crime, their lack of opportunity to ever truly progress persists. With natural life tariffs we give no account to age and its impact on risk. We end up with geriatric units within the confines of custody where men in their 80s are still imprisoned for a crime committed in their 30s. Prison does not provide infinite capacity and nor should it, being the reserve for those offenders who require a custodial sentence. I believe we unnecessarily block part, albeit a small part, of the system with men who may have the potential to survive a law abiding life in the community.
     It is important also to take account of the financial cost of imprisonment and look at the challenging debate around investment of resources into these offenders in the current climate of value for money priorities. As a taxpayer where are your priorities when public spending hits the headlines? The NHS provisions that you and your family access? Education for your children or indeed yourself? Providing a third or fourth Open University degree to a man sentenced to natural life at £2,000 per course? I suspect the latter isn't on many people's top 10 list. But it is a fact. 'We' the taxpayer do spend this, on top of the approximate £30,000 per year per offender to merely contain them. Plus a weekly wage all at a cost. Is that value for money? I think not.
     My final consideration is the potential for natural life tariffs to feed public fear of crime by supporting a media perception that judges have or need to use these sentences because either the offenders are so dangerous that they have an absolute inability to reform or that imprisonment offers society a magic-wand-like answer to its ills. Do you dare comprehend that some of the offenders portrayed in the media for being 'monsters' may not be as the press present them to you?
     Ultimately I ask the audience to step beyond the comfort zone of being able to throw away the metaphorical key and ask them to understand the motivational power that is freedom, something that I held without consideration until meeting the men who will never regain the opportunity to be free citizens.

Forthcoming in the UK and Ireland

Young Scotland Programme
November 2008
[click here]


Young England and Wales Programme: January 2009
[click here] to download brochure
[click here] to book online

UK Young Local Authority of the Year 2009
[click here] to download brochure
[click here] to book online

Retrospective

Young Local Government Programme: Autumn 2008
[click here

Young Scotland and Young All-Ireland Programmes
Summer 2008
[More]

Young
England
and Wales Programme:
Spring 2008
More]

Young UK and Ireland Final
2008
[More]

Young Local Authority of
the Year
2008
[More]

News

Collette Paterson on the Young Scotland Programme
[click here]

Walter Humes on the Young UK and Ireland final
[click here]