WI Whole Life Tariffs Are Abolished?

What if Whole Life Tariffs are abolished in the UK? What would the effects be of this, from across the political spectrum to public reaction? Any effects on crime rates? POD is 1980.

It can either be by the European Court of Human Rights or by Parliament. Unrealistic as it may be, discuss the effects if done by both (not at the same time of course).
 
If the European Court Of Human Rights try, I think parliament will ignore it. In the (unlikely) event that Thatcher (or any of her successors) go along with this, I don't see any OTL life prisoners being released as a result.

I think a Life Prisoner would simply be sentenced to the highest minimum term possible, then when they come up for parole, the Home Secretary (or chief judge, or whoever makes these decisions now a days) will bend over backwards if necessary to find an excuse to keep them where they are, partly because of the prisoners protection (it'd be cheaper to keep them in prison than it would be to arrange the protection they'd need on the outside from vidulanties) and partly because public opinion just won't back the release of say, Myra Hindlie, even if you get every psychologist and crime expert saying she'd been fully rehabilitated.

If anything, the abolition of the whole life term might make judges sentence "lifers" to higher minimum terms in response, than they might have done OTL if that makes sense.
 
Any more takers?

What would the reaction be of the public? Any other major events from a result of this?
 
Surely the UK isn't the only country in Europe to have life imprisonment without parole? Why WOULD the court rule that way?

(Never having heard the phrase "Whole Life Tariff" before, I thought this was going to be about a some sort of tax on life insurance.)
 
I'm pretty sure one of the European courts has had an issue with this. Anyway, it'd be political anathema to get rid of this, given the British appetite for 'tough on crime'. A Labour government would fear serious repurcussions especially, because they've always had problems perhaps trying to prove that they are indeed tough on crime. Partly why they've ignored Law Commission reports calling for first and second degree murder.
 
I'm pretty sure one of the European courts has had an issue with this. Anyway, it'd be political anathema to get rid of this, given the British appetite for 'tough on crime'. A Labour government would fear serious repurcussions especially, because they've always had problems perhaps trying to prove that they are indeed tough on crime. Partly why they've ignored Law Commission reports calling for first and second degree murder.

A quick look suggests that the EU courts have ruled that it's ok, (from 07).
 
Lets say they ruled that they weren't ok, lets say 30 years is the max (unless they still still present an danger to the public etc).

Perhaps it just brings the reaction that the Parliament has had to the Prisoner voting question. Ignore the ruling and stoke up the anti EU feelings.
 
Lets say they ruled that they weren't ok, lets say 30 years is the max (unless they still still present an danger to the public etc).
???I thought the only question was whether the "without parole" would be allowed to stand. From the minimal information I looked at, it looked like there was no question of striking down life imprisonment at the time.
 
Top