• Optional@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    52
    ·
    2 months ago

    He was given an indeterminate sentence, known as imprisonment for public protection (IPP). This meant that while he could be released after 19 months and 27 days, he could also be jailed for up to 99 years. IPP was first used as a sentence in England and Wales in 2005, having been introduced by Labour in 2003 to detain in prison people who posed a significant risk of causing harm to the public. It was a controversial sentence. Critics said that jailing people for what they could do, rather than what they had done, contradicted the basic principle of justice: that people are innocent until proven guilty.

    Yeah, no shit. Jesus Fucking Christ.

    • Dasus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      2 months ago

      Holy shit.

      So basically anyone who is deemed enough of a nuisance can be indefinitely locked up?

    • ChocoboRocket@lemmy.world
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      I can almost understand the idea when applied to extremely dangerous individuals. There should absolutely be some kind of separate system for people who are too dangerous to be able to reintegrate into society.

      A one size fits all justice system is a terrible way to run a society

      • andyburke@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        2 months ago

        That is called “life in prison without the chance for parole,” at least in the US.

        • Nomecks@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          It’s called “Three strikes you’re out” in some states. Commit three crimes of any severity and go away for a long time.

      • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 months ago

        In most cases, though, you can get those individuals on actual charges. People aren’t usually violent completely out of the blue and a suspicion of future violence might come from prior acts of violence or securing materials for mass violence (like building explosive devices)…

        The rationale for detaining someone for public safety is almost always coming from prior acts that we have laws for. We should force law enforcement to actually use those laws since they’ll have a burden of proof to enact enforcement… the IPP loophole is awful because it leaves no legal recourse - there was no trial you can appeal or at least argue against.