Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T18:33:04.185Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The moral narrative of criminal responsibility and the principled justification of tariffs for murder: Myra Hindley and Thompson and Venables

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

David Gurnham
David Gurnham*
Affiliation:
University of Reading
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper examines the role of retributivism as a principled justification for punishment in the context of the judicial tariff judgments on Myra Hindley and Thompson and Venables. The paper examines the development of retributivist theory from the foundational premise of liberal individualism to its contemporary understanding as a communication of public censure. It is argued that, against the background of legal judgment on tariff issues, retributivism cannot be meaningful in itself. Determining the retributive requirements of justice necessarily involves the construction of a moral narrative made up of both retributivist (retrospective) and consequentialist (prospective) elements.

Type
Research Article
Information
Legal Studies , Volume 23 , Issue 4 , November 2003 , pp. 605 - 623
Copyright
Copyright © Society of Legal Scholars 2003

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, exp Hindley [2001] AC 410, [2002] 2 ALL ER 385, [2000] 2 WLR 730, [2000] 15 LS Gaz R 39, HL.

2 Re Thompson and Venables (tariff recommendations) [2001] 1 ALL ER 737.

3 Hansard HC Official Report (sixth series) col 420, 10 Nov 1997; upholding a previous Home Office policy of 1990 and 1994 despite a previous Home Office-imposed tariff of 30 years, and also recommendations by Lane LCJ and the trial judge that she should serve 25 years.

4 See S Foster’ Preserving prisoners' expectations: the public law protection of prisoners' rights' (1998) 2 J Civ Lib 2 at 73.

5 On the dangers of political motivation in setting tariffs, see C Valier ‘Cruel Britannia’ (2002) Counsel 14; also B Block ‘Two Murdering Women’ (1998) 162 JP 5 at 90; also S Shute ‘The Place of Public Opinion in Sentencing Law’ [1998] Crim LR 465; also B Mills ‘Taking the politics out of sentencing’ (2002) 152(7040) NLJ 1077 at 1081; For a defence of the Home Secretary's role in this regard, see Coutts, J A Whole life tariff after mandatory life sentence’ (2000) 64 (5)Google Scholar J Crim L 491.

6 Significant contributions to this more ‘traditional’ view of femininity and violence are S S M Edwards ‘The gender politics of homicide’ in Edwards, S S M (ed) Sex and Gender in the Legal Process (London: Blackstone: 1996 Google Scholar); H Barnett Introduction to Feminist Jurisprudence (London:Cavendish Publishing Ltd, 1998) pp 251–264, 265–273; C Bell and M Fox ‘Telling Stories of Women Who Kill’ (1996) 5(4) S & LS 471. More radical perspectives which accommodate the possibility of women being the perpetrators of crime committed not because of intolerable circumstances can be found in F Heidensohn Women and Crime (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1996); Birch, H (ed) Moving Targets: Women, Murder and Representation (London: Virago, 1993 Google Scholar).

7 R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Hindley [1998] QB 75 1.

8 R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Hindley [2000] QB 152.

9 R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Hindley [2000] 2 ALL ER 385.

10 [2000] 2 All ER 385 at 389.

11 [1998] QB 751 at 769.

12 [1998] QB 751 at 769. This interpretation of ‘life imprisonment’ is supported in C McDiarmid ‘Children Who Murder: What is Her Majesty's Pleasure?’ [2000] Crim LR 547; For an opposing view, see L Blom-Cooper and T Morris ‘Life Until Death: Interpretations of Section 1(1) of the Murder (Abolition of the Death Penalty) Act 1965’ [1999] Crim LR 899 who argue that there is no indication that Parliament intended ‘life imprisonment’ to equate with a prisoner's natural life.

13 [2000] QB 152 at 170, per Lord Wool MR, applying the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997.

14 Counsel relied on Pierson v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1998] AC 539, [1997] 3 All ER 577.

15 [2000] 2 All ER 385 at 391.

16 [2000] 2 All ER 385 at 391.

17 See [2000] 2 All ER 385 at 392 for Lord Steyn's rejection of this argument.

18 See Garland, D The Culture of Control: Crime and Social Order in Contemporary Society (Chicago: University of Chicago Press and Oxford University Press, 2001) pp 8 – 9 Google Scholar.

19 Garland, n 18 above, pp 12–13; also pp 58–59.

20 The Consolidated Criminal Practice Direction [2002] 2 Cr App R 35, s 49.19 533, pp 577–578.

21 R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, exp Hindley [2001] AC 410, [2002] 2 All ER 385, HL.

22 Re Thompson and Venables (tariff recommendations) [2001] 1 All ER 737 at 741; they were ten when they committed the murder; for commentary see J Morton‘ The End of the Matter?’ (2001) NLJ 15 (6966) 5; also Editorial’ Sauce for the Goslings' (2000) 150 (6958) NLJ 1607.

23 Venables v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2001] 2 WLR 1038 (Fan Div); for commentary see B Mahendra ‘Property in Privacy and Confidentiality’ (2001) NLJ 151 (6979) 53 1–532; also H Conway ‘Anonymity for Venables and Thompson’ (2001) L Ex 24.

24 Michael Howard, Hansard HC Official Report (sixth series) cols 861–864,27 July 1993, ruling, in effect, that both classes of prisoners must serve a tariff set by the Home Secretary in the interests of retribution and deterrence prior to considerations of risk and reform in recommending release.

25 R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Venables and Thompson [1997] 1 All ER 327, CA.

26 R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Venables and Thompson [1998] AC 407, HL.

27 Art 6(1) ECHR, interpreted in T v United Kingdom (2000) EHHR 121 at 200 as requiring decisions regarding tariffs to be made by a judicial rather than a political figure.

28 [2001] 1 All ER 737 at 740.

29 [2001] 1 All ER 737 at 742.

30 See Duff, R A Punishment, Communication and Community (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001) p 7 Google Scholar.

31 See section 3(b) below.

32 Opinion is divided, however, as to the precise nature of ‘responsibility’ and its relationship to other moral philosophical concepts such as voluntariness, free will and constraint – and also to criminal law concepts of intention and recklessness.

33 See B Williams ‘Moral Responsibility and Political Freedom’ (1997) 56 CLJ 1 at 96.

34 Rashdall, H The Theory of Good and Evil vol 1 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1924) pp 284–304 Google Scholar.

35 Kant, I The Metaphysics of Morals (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991) p 56 Google Scholar.

36 Nome Law, A W, Ideology and Punishment: Retrieval and Critique of the Liberal Ideal of Criminal Justice (Dordrect; London: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1991) pp 51–54 Google Scholar.

37 Hegel, F W G The Hegel Reader S Houlgate (ed) (Oxford: Blackwell, 1998) p 12/s 99.Google Scholar

38 Hegel, n 37 above, p 123/s 96.

39 Hegel, n 37 above, p 123/s 97.

40 Hegel, n 37 above, p 120/s 92.

41 Hegel, n 37 above, p 129/s 101.

42 F Dostoyevsky Crime and Punishment (London: Penguin Books: Penguin Popular Classics, 1997) ch 8.

43 Hegel, n 37 above, p 251/s 218.

44 Hegel, n 37 above, p 246/s 214.

45 Hawkins, D J B ‘Punishment and Moral Responsibility’ in E Grupp (ed) Theories of Punishment (Bloomington, London: Indiana University Press, 1971) p 16 Google Scholar.

46 J D Mabbot ‘Punishment’ in H B Acton (ed) The Philosophy of Punishment (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1969) p 41.

47 Norrie, n 36 above, p 131.

48 Mabbot, n 46 above, p 49.

49 C W K Mundle ‘Punishment and Desert’ in Grupp, n 45 above, pp 71–72.

50 Hart, H L A Punishment and Responsibility: Essays in the Philosophy of Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978 Google Scholar); J Rawls’ Two Concepts of Rules' in Acton, n 46 above, pp 108–109.

51 Hart, n 50 above, p 8.

52 Hart, n 50 above, p 9.

53 Duff, A and Hirsch, Avon Responsibility, Retribution and the’ Voluntary‘: A Response to Williams 1997) 56(1)Google Scholar CLJ 103 at 112.

54 Duff and von Hirsch, n 53 above, at 110–111.

55 See R A Duff ‘Penal Communications: Recent Work in the Philosophy of Punishment’ (1996) 20 Crime & Justice 1 at 41–45.

56 Duff, n 30 above, pp 40–41.

57 Duff, R A ‘Punishment, Communication and Community’ in M Matravers (ed) Punishment and Political Theory (Oxford and Portland, Oregon: Hart Publishing, 1999) p 52 Google Scholar.

58 Duff, n 57 above, p 47.

59 A von Hirsch ‘Punishment, Penance and the State: A Reply to Duff’ in Matravers, n 57 above, p 80.

60 Duff, n 57 above, p 61.

61 Duff, n 57 above, p 52.

62 I Weijers ‘The Moral Dialogue: A Pedagogical Perspective on Juvenile Justice’ in I Weijers and Duff, R A (eds) Punishing Juveniles: Principle and Critique (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2002) p 143 Google Scholar.

63 M Matravers “‘What to Say?’: The Communicative Element in Punishment and Moral Theory’ in Matravers, n 57 above, pp 108–123.

64 B Ackerman Private Property and the Constitution (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 1977) p 79.

65 Garland, n 18 above, p 13; See also Ryan, M Penal Policy and Political Culture in England and Wales (Winchester: Waterside Press, 2003 Google Scholar).

66 Garland, D Punishment and Modern Society: A Study in Social Theory (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990) p 9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

67 Garland, n 66 above, p 9.

68 Garland, n 66 above, p 9.

69 R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Hindley [2001] AC 410, [2002] 2 All ER 385, HL.

70 Re Thompson and Venables (tariff recommendations) [2001] 1 All ER 737.

71 F E Zimring ‘Penal Proportionality for the Young Offender: Notes on Immaturity, Capacity and Diminished Responsibility’ in T Grisso and R G Schwartz Youth on Trial:A Developmental Perspective on Juvenile Justice (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000) p 283.

72 [2001] 1 All ER 737 at 740.

73 [2002] 2 All ER 385 at 392.

74 Including 21,000 coupons received by the Sun newspaper from its readers saying that ‘Bulger killers must rot in jail’.

75 R v Secretary of State for Home Department, exp Venables and Thompson [1998] AC 407 at 525–526, per Lord Steyn.

76 Applies to persons between the ages of ten and 17 who are convicted of murder, per s 16.

77 S 53(1).

78 McDiarmid, n 12 above.

79 R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Venables and Thompson [1998] AC 407 at 500.

80 McDiarmid, n 12 above, p 555.

81 [1998] AC 407 at 525, per Lord Steyn.

82 [1998] AC 407 at 511, per Lord Lloyd.

83 [1998] AC 407 at 5 14, per Lord Lloyd.

84 See The Consolidated Criminal Practice Direction [2002] 2 Cr App R 35, s 49.21, p 533.

85 [2000] 2 All ER 385 at 392, per Lord Steyn.

86 J Upton ‘The prisoners who will never be released’ Guardian, 31 January 2001, available at http://www.society.guardian.co.uWcrimeandpunishmentstory0,8 150,43 1436,00.html.

87 For discussion on characterisations of female offenders, see F Heidensohn‘ Women and Crime: Questions for Criminology’ in P Carlen and A WorrAll (eds) Gender, Crime and Justice (Milton Keynes, Philadelphia: Open University Press, 1987) pp 16–27; for commentary on the differential treatment of mean and women in the context of infanticide, see A Wilczynski’ Mad or bad? Child-killers, gender and the courts' (1997) 37 BrJ Crim 3 at 419–436.

88 Shute, n 5 above.

89 Luke 15:ll–31.

90 Luke 15:22–3.

91 Luke 15:30.

92 Dickens, C Oliver Twist (London: Penguin World Classics, 1982) p 340 Google Scholar.

93 A von Hirsch ‘Proportionate Sentences for Juveniles: How Different Than for Adults?’ (2001) 3 P&S 2 at 225.

94 Von Hirsch, n 93 above, at 232.

95 I Weijers in Weijers and Duff, n 62 above, pp 135–136.

96 [2001] 1 All ER 737 at 741.

97 [2001] 1 All ER 737 at 741.

98 The same repentant passage appears twice in the space of three verses (18–21).

99 Duff, n 57 above, p 52.

100 Von Hirsch, n 59 above, pp 69–70.

101 Luke 15:31.

102 E Crowther ‘A Matter For Consideration’ (1998) 162 JP 39 at 770–771.

103 Upton, n 86 above.

104 R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, exp Hindley [2001] AC 410. [2002] 2 All ER 385, HL.

105 Re Thompson and Venables (tariff recommendations) [2001] 1 All ER 737.