30/11/2019
My thoughts are with those who were affected by yesterday's terror attack in London. Whether it is those who were murdered or injured, those who witnessed the attack or those who bravely tackled the attacker, or any of their family and friends, my thoughts are with them.
None of them should have been subjected to such horror.
Usman Khan, the extremist who murdered two and injured another three in his attack, was a convicted terrorist who was released from prison on licence last December. He had served just six years of his sentence after his conviction.
In 2012, he was sentenced to indeterminate detention, with a minimum jail term of eight years, for 'public protection' after having pleaded guilty to preparing terrorist acts. The sentence would have allowed him to be kept in prison beyond the minimum term, should the authorities have deemed it necessary.
The trial judge, referring to Khan and two other defendants, said, "In my judgment, these offenders would remain, even after a lengthy term of imprisonment, of such a significant risk that the public could not be adequately protected by their being managed on licence in the community, subject to conditions, by reference to a preordained release date."
However, the Court of Appeal overturned the sentence in 2013, replacing it with a 16-year-fixed term of which Khan should serve half in prison. He was then released automatically at that point. Time spent on remand in the period leading to his conviction would also have counted towards his sentence. As a result, he was released from prison in December 2018.
There appear to be few things on which I currently agree with Boris Johnson. The situation regarding prison sentences is one though. When someone receives a sentence, they should go to prison and know that they will serve their full sentence. The victims of their crimes should also know that they do not have to worry about seeing the convict until that full term has been completed.
The concept of time off for good behaviour is completely wrong.
All prisoners should be expected to adhere to the rules whilst serving time. Any breaches should lead to punishment; either a loss of privileges or an extension to their sentence.
'Life' imprisonment should be reserved for those convicts who will really have to serve the rest of their lives in prison. All other sentences should be specified in years and months.  If the convict was guilty of a crime that involved violence or sexual abuse, they should be subjected to a detailed assessment before being considered for release; even if they have served their full sentence.  Those who would be subject to an assessment before a decision is made on their release should, in my opinion, include those convicted of:
terror offences;
murderer;
attempted murder;
assault leading to life changing injuries;
rape;
serious sexual assault; and
any crime linked to sexual abuse against children.
More needs to be done to recognise the threat these people pose to others in society. Â Their crimes are such that a life outside of prison should be considered a privilege, not a right.
One of the people who took action to bring an end to Khan's murderous rampage was himself a convicted murder. James Ford, 42, was on day release and attending the same prisoner rehabilitation event as the terrorist. Ford had been jailed for life with a minimum of 15 years in 2004 for the murder of Amanda Champion, a 21-year-old woman with learning difficulties.
Whilst there is some merit in commending him for his actions on Friday, this does not negate the importance of including him in the call for proper sentencing requirements.  He may well be about to enjoy full freedom after serving 15 years for murder, but he should have to face assessment to identify whether he has been rehabilitated, check if he has shown remorse (including whether he has confirmed the motive behind the murder of Amanda Champion) and ascertain whether he poses an ongoing threat to society.
UPDATE: 02/12/2019
I have been reflecting on the words of the families of Jack Merritt and Saskia Jones, the two people murdered by Khan.
Jack Merritt
"Our beautiful, talented boy, died doing what he loved, surrounded by people he loved and who loved him," the family said in a statement.
"Jack lived his principles; he believed in redemption and rehabilitation, not revenge, and he always took the side of the underdog. Jack was an intelligent, thoughtful and empathetic person who was looking forward to building a future with his girlfriend, Leanne, and making a career helping people in the criminal justice system. We know Jack would not want this terrible, isolated incident to be used as a pretext by the government for introducing even more draconian sentences on prisoners, or for detaining people in prison for longer than necessary."
Saskia Jones
"Saskia was a funny, kind, positive influence at the centre of many people's lives," the family of Ms Jones said in a statement.
"Saskia had a great passion for providing invaluable support to victims of criminal injustice, which led her to the point of recently applying for the police graduate recruitment programme, wishing to specialise in victim support."
I do agree that the horrific attack perpetrated by Khan should not be used as a tool to introduce excessive prison sentences.
I have been saying, in personal discussions as well as online, that sentences should be clear and fair. The judge should, in line with the applicable tariffs and with guidance where necessary, determine how long the convicted criminal should spend in prison.
This term should not be 'draconian' or unreasonable. It should be appropriate for the crime committed.
The next point is that we should ensure, before releasing violent criminals, the danger to the public has been assessed and is mitigated as far as possible. This is not about wanting to incarcerate offenders indefinitely, but a desire to protect innocent people from harm.
Comentarios