I PARTLY agree with David J Crawford (Letters, March 13) regarding life sentences for murder.
Someone who has committed murder should certainly be appropriately dealt with; and given that we no longer have capital punishment for this crime, the "next best thing" seems to be a whole-life jail sentence actually served in jail (not "out on licence" after a few years of incarceration).
And I think that this should certainly apply to some of the "revolving door killers", reports of whose continuing activities we all see in the media.
However, it seems that, as reported in your editorial ("Verdict on criminal justice: serious reform is needed", The Herald, March 12), our criminal justice system needs serious reform both to address the multiple personal problems of many in prison, and who we put in prison in the first place.
But this should not mean that we become afraid to do what needs to be done, which is, if required, lock-up –for a whole life term – those murderers who are judged, by rational experts not influenced by a politically-correct agenda, too dangerous ever to be released.
And by politically-correct agenda, I mean that which seems to completely ignore the victims of murder, both direct and peripheral, in favour of a rush to protect the "human rights" of the murderer. This is the agenda of the misguided.
Philip Adams,
7 Whirlie Road, Crosslee, Renfrewshire.
I DON'T know how many murderers David Crawford has met, but in my experience of years of prison work those who "deliberately kill" are in the minority. Mr Crawford wants to "dispense with the Victorian concept of redemption" but seems happy to espouse other old-fashioned ideas such as banishment to an uninhabited island.I can think of far worse potential next door neighbours than a life parolee who is trying to get on with his life.
Cathy Baird,
36 Jubilee Road,
Dunipace.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here