Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

When taking a life should not mean life in jail

Heather Mills examines calls to scrap the mandatory sentence for murder

Heather Mills
Friday 07 July 1995 23:02 BST
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

For the second time in a week, a high-profile case has revived calls for an overhaul on the law of murder.

The release of Emma Humphreys after 10 years in jail raises questions over the merits of the life sentence, which judges are compelled to impose on anyone convicted of murder.

The same questions were raised at the start of the week over the case of Private Lee Clegg, released from jail after serving only four years of a life sentence for killing a joyrider in Northern Ireland.

Miss Humphreys' release came after a campaign on behalf of many battered women who kill, to amend the defences available to murder.

In particular, they wanted the law on provocation - said to better reflect a man's instant reaction to an event rather than a woman's slower build to breaking point.

Now a growing body of influential opinion - includingLord Taylor, the Lord Chief Justice, and Lord Lane, his predecessor - believe such controversy in the one case and the need to tinker with defences in another could be avoided if the mandatory life sentence for murder was abolished.

At present, judges cannot reflect any understanding, mercy or sympathy for a battered wife, the soldier, or the doctor engaged on a mercy-killing. They have to be sentenced in exactly the same way as the terrorist, the violent robber or serial killer.

The issue is currently being considered by the all party Home Affairs Select Committee, which heard from a succession of judges, lawyers and campaigners that the cases this week were just two of many that were serving to undermine public confidence in the sentence.

Interestingly, the only evidence in support of maintaining the sentence came from Michael Howard, the Home Secretary, who believes that, in the absence of a death penalty, the mandatory sentence is needed to reflect society's condemnation of the crime. But Julie Bindel, of Justice For Women, said yesterday: "We are putting forward a new defence of self-preservation. We also want to extend provocation so that violent men cannot use it when they claim their wives have been nagging them or for infidelity, but which allows women like Emma who have suffered years of abuse to actually use it properly."

Lord Ackner, the recently retired Law Lord, said: "The House of Lords in its legislative capacity has tried again and again to get the law changed, but the Government won't have it."

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in