Danilo Restivo's whole-life sentence quashed

Bournemouth Echo: Danilo Restivo Danilo Restivo

THE man who murdered Heather Barnett has had his whole-life term quashed by the Court of Appeal.

The judgement followed a challenge by Danilo Restivo and three other convicts who were fighting their whole-life tariffs.

Their lawyers argued they should instead have been given life sentences with a direction about the minimum period they would have to serve.

Yesterday the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, quashed Restivo’s whole-life term and instead handed the killer a 40-year-minimum life prison term.

This is the earliest he will be eligible for parole.

Heather’s brother Ben Barnett said he was “disappointed”.

Italian Restivo, 40, was found guilty in June 2011 of the murder of mum-of-two Heather Barnett in Capstone Road, Charminster.

During his trial the jury heard evidence which the prosecution claimed proved he murdered 16-year-old Elisa Claps in Potenza, Italy, on September 12, 1993.

Sentencing Restivo for Heather’s murder, Judge Mr Justice Burnett said the evidence proved he murdered Elisa and he approached his sentencing as “though he had killed before”.

But the Lord Chief Justice concluded: “A defendant cannot simply be sentenced for offences of which he has not been convicted, or on the basis that he has in fact committed them. The ability of the judge to make findings that other offences have been committed does not extend to reaching a non-jury verdict about allegations put before the jury by way of similar fact evidence.”

He said that although the whole-life term must be quashed the term must be “very substantial”, adding that Restivo’s “extensive preparation for the killing”, “display of sexual perversions and sadism” and the mutilation of Heather’s body which he knew would be found by her children led the judges to set a minimum of 40 years.

Months after being found guilty of Heather’s murder, Restivo was convicted in his absence by an Italian court of the murder of Elisa Claps. He was sentenced to 30 years in prison.

Speaking after the announcement yesterday, Ben Barnett said: “I’m disappointed the court reduced Restivo’s sentence as I feel the original sentence was a just and right one. Whilst 40 years is long, it does not preclude Restivo killing again on release.”

He said he did not want to criticise those who made the decision but added: “Perhaps a whole-life sentence would have given Restivo the opportunity to reflect upon what he has done but somehow, I doubt, that this would have ever have been the case.”

Comments (39)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

2:11pm Wed 21 Nov 12

Huey says...

He should be hung drawn and quartered!
He should be hung drawn and quartered! Huey

2:20pm Wed 21 Nov 12

the parsons nose says...

40 years minimum on a fourty year old man is the same as a whole life term ,he will never be released so that appeal was a waste of time , do your bird !
40 years minimum on a fourty year old man is the same as a whole life term ,he will never be released so that appeal was a waste of time , do your bird ! the parsons nose

2:22pm Wed 21 Nov 12

aerolover says...

Do the crime, do the time end of.
Do the crime, do the time end of. aerolover

2:23pm Wed 21 Nov 12

The Renegade Master says...

Hopefully another inmate will do him in way before his term is served. This vile excuse for a human should have been lynched.
Hopefully another inmate will do him in way before his term is served. This vile excuse for a human should have been lynched. The Renegade Master

2:29pm Wed 21 Nov 12

Mr Angry. says...

What an absolute disgrace...........w
hat about the life sentence of the victim(s) and the family members???????

This beggars belief, I would happily string this piece of scum up and kick the chair away if i had a chance to.

Truly disgusting
What an absolute disgrace...........w hat about the life sentence of the victim(s) and the family members??????? This beggars belief, I would happily string this piece of scum up and kick the chair away if i had a chance to. Truly disgusting Mr Angry.

2:53pm Wed 21 Nov 12

RageAgainstTheMachine says...

The Renegade Master wrote:
Hopefully another inmate will do him in way before his term is served. This vile excuse for a human should have been lynched.
I agree 100% with you......
I hope he rots away
[quote][p][bold]The Renegade Master[/bold] wrote: Hopefully another inmate will do him in way before his term is served. This vile excuse for a human should have been lynched.[/p][/quote]I agree 100% with you...... I hope he rots away RageAgainstTheMachine

3:09pm Wed 21 Nov 12

Capricorn 1 says...

Maybe the Italians can have him once his time is served here, and he can do his time over there for killing that poor girl.
Maybe the Italians can have him once his time is served here, and he can do his time over there for killing that poor girl. Capricorn 1

4:09pm Wed 21 Nov 12

s-pb2 says...

Capricorn 1 wrote:
Maybe the Italians can have him once his time is served here, and he can do his time over there for killing that poor girl.
Lets hope that when his 40 year sentence is finished here, his 30 year Italian sentence then kicks in.
[quote][p][bold]Capricorn 1[/bold] wrote: Maybe the Italians can have him once his time is served here, and he can do his time over there for killing that poor girl.[/p][/quote]Lets hope that when his 40 year sentence is finished here, his 30 year Italian sentence then kicks in. s-pb2

4:31pm Wed 21 Nov 12

Letcommonsenseprevail says...

Send him back to Italy and let the Mafia deal with him.........
Send him back to Italy and let the Mafia deal with him......... Letcommonsenseprevail

4:44pm Wed 21 Nov 12

Hobie18007 says...

I don't get this, initially he was given a 30 year sentence and now after appeal he has got a 40 year minimum term...makes sense not. As long as this scum is banged up for good anyway who cares?
I don't get this, initially he was given a 30 year sentence and now after appeal he has got a 40 year minimum term...makes sense not. As long as this scum is banged up for good anyway who cares? Hobie18007

4:46pm Wed 21 Nov 12

Ralph Horris says...

I hope every minute seems like an hour, every hour a day, every day a week and that he lives to be 100 years old.
I hope every minute seems like an hour, every hour a day, every day a week and that he lives to be 100 years old. Ralph Horris

4:58pm Wed 21 Nov 12

pete woodley says...

How much did greedy lawyers make out of the appeal.
How much did greedy lawyers make out of the appeal. pete woodley

5:09pm Wed 21 Nov 12

Eddie's dog says...

Very confusing reporting (to me anyway...).
The article states:
1. "whole-life sentence quashed"
2. "handed a 40-year minimum term",
3. "He was sentenced to 30 years in prison".
Which means what?
Very confusing reporting (to me anyway...). The article states: 1. "whole-life sentence quashed" 2. "handed a 40-year minimum term", 3. "He was sentenced to 30 years in prison". Which means what? Eddie's dog

5:16pm Wed 21 Nov 12

TheDistrict says...

It makes no difference does it. He will either suffer at the hands of the inmates, die in prison, or be finished off when he leaves. Which ever way one looks at it, he is done for.

Capital punishment would have been better, but it is because of the Appellant Courts that this method of punishment does not happen. Get rid of the Appeal courts, and let the DPP do their job.
It makes no difference does it. He will either suffer at the hands of the inmates, die in prison, or be finished off when he leaves. Which ever way one looks at it, he is done for. Capital punishment would have been better, but it is because of the Appellant Courts that this method of punishment does not happen. Get rid of the Appeal courts, and let the DPP do their job. TheDistrict

5:42pm Wed 21 Nov 12

Glashen says...

Eddie's dog wrote:
Very confusing reporting (to me anyway...).
The article states:
1. "whole-life sentence quashed"
2. "handed a 40-year minimum term",
3. "He was sentenced to 30 years in prison".
Which means what?
I think though I agree it is confusing, that the 30 years is for the murder of Elisa Claps.
.
I would say he should never be released, I don't agree with capital punishment, apart from in self defence I don't believe anyone has the right to take another's life. But society has a right not to have someone like this ever living amongst them.
[quote][p][bold]Eddie's dog[/bold] wrote: Very confusing reporting (to me anyway...). The article states: 1. "whole-life sentence quashed" 2. "handed a 40-year minimum term", 3. "He was sentenced to 30 years in prison". Which means what?[/p][/quote]I think though I agree it is confusing, that the 30 years is for the murder of Elisa Claps. . I would say he should never be released, I don't agree with capital punishment, apart from in self defence I don't believe anyone has the right to take another's life. But society has a right not to have someone like this ever living amongst them. Glashen

5:46pm Wed 21 Nov 12

aerolover says...

Hanging is cheaper than a very long jail term for this country. The government is always saying that we have to make cuts, well this one would save millions with all the murders in jail.
Hanging is cheaper than a very long jail term for this country. The government is always saying that we have to make cuts, well this one would save millions with all the murders in jail. aerolover

6:01pm Wed 21 Nov 12

Adrian XX says...

I don't agree with capital punishment either.

But a philosophical point: In the unlikely event that he is killed by another prisoner, would his overall punishment not be reduced? We use phrases like "put him out of his misery" - we mean that death is more pleasant than continued existence. Might this not be the case for him? Surely to serve his entire life in jail is worse than his being terminated by another inmate.
I don't agree with capital punishment either. But a philosophical point: In the unlikely event that he is killed by another prisoner, would his overall punishment not be reduced? We use phrases like "put him out of his misery" - we mean that death is more pleasant than continued existence. Might this not be the case for him? Surely to serve his entire life in jail is worse than his being terminated by another inmate. Adrian XX

6:16pm Wed 21 Nov 12

Gastines2 says...

Lawyers=Appeal=Money
.The financial side of our legal system could do with close examination.A closed club for the boys and now,girls.The millions paid out to lawyers dealing with Qatarda is a good example.The minute I heard about the Jimmy Saville expose' I thought they ,the lawyers ,would be queeing up.Restivo found guilty the straight into appeal?
Lawyers=Appeal=Money .The financial side of our legal system could do with close examination.A closed club for the boys and now,girls.The millions paid out to lawyers dealing with Qatarda is a good example.The minute I heard about the Jimmy Saville expose' I thought they ,the lawyers ,would be queeing up.Restivo found guilty the straight into appeal? Gastines2

6:32pm Wed 21 Nov 12

afcb-mark says...

This vile, evil piece of scum should never be released. I hope one of his new 'mates' finishes him off very slowly and very painfully.
This vile, evil piece of scum should never be released. I hope one of his new 'mates' finishes him off very slowly and very painfully. afcb-mark

6:34pm Wed 21 Nov 12

Forest_Nymph says...

What a disgusting piece of human flesh. He is nothing short of a monster.

Personally, I don;t think she should have been given the chance to appeal his case - but I'm glad he got 40 years which means he will probably never leave prison alive.

I daresay he expected to get his sentence cut to 25 years or so - in which case he shot himself in the foot and all he has done is waste tax payers money on his appeal, because I have no doubt that he got Legal Aid for it. Tuff sh!te to him.
What a disgusting piece of human flesh. He is nothing short of a monster. Personally, I don;t think she should have been given the chance to appeal his case - but I'm glad he got 40 years which means he will probably never leave prison alive. I daresay he expected to get his sentence cut to 25 years or so - in which case he shot himself in the foot and all he has done is waste tax payers money on his appeal, because I have no doubt that he got Legal Aid for it. Tuff sh!te to him. Forest_Nymph

9:22pm Wed 21 Nov 12

Dog friendly 1 says...

I hope this scum gets the full horrible end he deserves. Heather Barnetts' children deserve that right that the person who took away their dear Mum - has lost their freedom for life.
I hope this scum gets the full horrible end he deserves. Heather Barnetts' children deserve that right that the person who took away their dear Mum - has lost their freedom for life. Dog friendly 1

10:30pm Wed 21 Nov 12

West Howe Sean says...

The Renegade Master wrote:
Hopefully another inmate will do him in way before his term is served. This vile excuse for a human should have been lynched.
I hope you don't really mean that.
[quote][p][bold]The Renegade Master[/bold] wrote: Hopefully another inmate will do him in way before his term is served. This vile excuse for a human should have been lynched.[/p][/quote]I hope you don't really mean that. West Howe Sean

11:36pm Wed 21 Nov 12

Glashen says...

Adrian XX wrote:
I don't agree with capital punishment either.

But a philosophical point: In the unlikely event that he is killed by another prisoner, would his overall punishment not be reduced? We use phrases like "put him out of his misery" - we mean that death is more pleasant than continued existence. Might this not be the case for him? Surely to serve his entire life in jail is worse than his being terminated by another inmate.
There can be an argument about what sort if punishment is right. Some would want to make him suffer in agony for as long as possible. With capital punishment in the USA some argue the death should not be humane. There is also the argument that given a long sentence he could achieve some sort of redemption for his crimes. I don't thing that is right either.
-
To me both of the above are too concerned with the criminal. I really don't care about him, but I do care about his victims and society. We have a right to know that this vile individual is never going to live amongst us again and certainly never put anyone else at risk. Beyond that , I really don't care what happens to him.
[quote][p][bold]Adrian XX[/bold] wrote: I don't agree with capital punishment either. But a philosophical point: In the unlikely event that he is killed by another prisoner, would his overall punishment not be reduced? We use phrases like "put him out of his misery" - we mean that death is more pleasant than continued existence. Might this not be the case for him? Surely to serve his entire life in jail is worse than his being terminated by another inmate.[/p][/quote]There can be an argument about what sort if punishment is right. Some would want to make him suffer in agony for as long as possible. With capital punishment in the USA some argue the death should not be humane. There is also the argument that given a long sentence he could achieve some sort of redemption for his crimes. I don't thing that is right either. - To me both of the above are too concerned with the criminal. I really don't care about him, but I do care about his victims and society. We have a right to know that this vile individual is never going to live amongst us again and certainly never put anyone else at risk. Beyond that , I really don't care what happens to him. Glashen

2:58am Thu 22 Nov 12

GBYank says...

Just stunned, absolutely stunned. I seriously don't know what to say.
Just stunned, absolutely stunned. I seriously don't know what to say. GBYank

6:46am Thu 22 Nov 12

cheeriedriteup says...

Eddie's dog wrote:
Very confusing reporting (to me anyway...).
The article states:
1. "whole-life sentence quashed"
2. "handed a 40-year minimum term",
3. "He was sentenced to 30 years in prison".
Which means what?
In short it means that a whole load of public money was wasted, and someone got richer from it , other than this meaningless.
[quote][p][bold]Eddie's dog[/bold] wrote: Very confusing reporting (to me anyway...). The article states: 1. "whole-life sentence quashed" 2. "handed a 40-year minimum term", 3. "He was sentenced to 30 years in prison". Which means what?[/p][/quote]In short it means that a whole load of public money was wasted, and someone got richer from it , other than this meaningless. cheeriedriteup

6:57am Thu 22 Nov 12

cheeriedriteup says...

aerolover wrote:
Hanging is cheaper than a very long jail term for this country. The government is always saying that we have to make cuts, well this one would save millions with all the murders in jail.
Totally agree, hang any killers, stop jailing druggies - put them in the Army on the front line so out Soldiers can shield behind them.
In the case of the hung and death at war giv them a state funeral with headstones that they are no longer recognised.
End result no full jails which will be another cost saving exercise.
[quote][p][bold]aerolover[/bold] wrote: Hanging is cheaper than a very long jail term for this country. The government is always saying that we have to make cuts, well this one would save millions with all the murders in jail.[/p][/quote]Totally agree, hang any killers, stop jailing druggies - put them in the Army on the front line so out Soldiers can shield behind them. In the case of the hung and death at war giv them a state funeral with headstones that they are no longer recognised. End result no full jails which will be another cost saving exercise. cheeriedriteup

8:16am Thu 22 Nov 12

praelis says...

Most life sentences are 30 years and then get halved for good behaviour from what i remember so the judge has actually done us all a favour by quashing this and then giving him a minimum of 40 years, which is what all judges should do when they say life:) that way he cannot get let out earlier for "good behaviour". thats how it seems to me anyhow. i just hope her children can rest a little easier now knowing that justice is done.
Most life sentences are 30 years and then get halved for good behaviour from what i remember so the judge has actually done us all a favour by quashing this and then giving him a minimum of 40 years, which is what all judges should do when they say life:) that way he cannot get let out earlier for "good behaviour". thats how it seems to me anyhow. i just hope her children can rest a little easier now knowing that justice is done. praelis

9:19am Thu 22 Nov 12

the parsons nose says...

praelis wrote:
Most life sentences are 30 years and then get halved for good behaviour from what i remember so the judge has actually done us all a favour by quashing this and then giving him a minimum of 40 years, which is what all judges should do when they say life:) that way he cannot get let out earlier for "good behaviour". thats how it seems to me anyhow. i just hope her children can rest a little easier now knowing that justice is done.
you and many on here dont have a clue . he got a life sentance ,for murder that is mandatory ,a life sentance is not 30 years and you cannot serve half of a life sentance !! the judge at his trial said that for him life means life , hence whole life term , he appealed against that and was handed instead a 40 year MIMIMUM term , never mind good behaviour , he will do at LEAST 40 years ,then his release would be decided by the parole board ,by this time if he lives that long ,he would be 80 years old . be reassured that this man will never again walk the streets . the 30 year sentance was in addition to the life sentance was given by the italian courts for the murder of Elisa Claps
it is somehow slightly ridiculous that none of you agree with murder or capital punishment but you would accept another prisoner killing him . why would that happen ? prisoners in general dont have personal vendettas ,why as a prisoner would you risk a life sentance to avenge another man who has had no effect on your life whatsoever . the proposals on here are just ridiculous ,hes a murderer locked up for life with a load of other murderers , probably worse than him ,prison is not full of avenging angels ,sorry to dissapoint you all
[quote][p][bold]praelis[/bold] wrote: Most life sentences are 30 years and then get halved for good behaviour from what i remember so the judge has actually done us all a favour by quashing this and then giving him a minimum of 40 years, which is what all judges should do when they say life:) that way he cannot get let out earlier for "good behaviour". thats how it seems to me anyhow. i just hope her children can rest a little easier now knowing that justice is done.[/p][/quote]you and many on here dont have a clue . he got a life sentance ,for murder that is mandatory ,a life sentance is not 30 years and you cannot serve half of a life sentance !! the judge at his trial said that for him life means life , hence whole life term , he appealed against that and was handed instead a 40 year MIMIMUM term , never mind good behaviour , he will do at LEAST 40 years ,then his release would be decided by the parole board ,by this time if he lives that long ,he would be 80 years old . be reassured that this man will never again walk the streets . the 30 year sentance was in addition to the life sentance was given by the italian courts for the murder of Elisa Claps it is somehow slightly ridiculous that none of you agree with murder or capital punishment but you would accept another prisoner killing him . why would that happen ? prisoners in general dont have personal vendettas ,why as a prisoner would you risk a life sentance to avenge another man who has had no effect on your life whatsoever . the proposals on here are just ridiculous ,hes a murderer locked up for life with a load of other murderers , probably worse than him ,prison is not full of avenging angels ,sorry to dissapoint you all the parsons nose

9:42am Thu 22 Nov 12

In Absentia says...

As usual the Echo stirs the pot. This is all about legal technicalities. Restivo is not eligible to apply for parole until he's served 40 years and even then if the board consider him a public danger he'll stay inside. Realistically, he still has a whole life term.
As usual the Echo stirs the pot. This is all about legal technicalities. Restivo is not eligible to apply for parole until he's served 40 years and even then if the board consider him a public danger he'll stay inside. Realistically, he still has a whole life term. In Absentia

11:21am Thu 22 Nov 12

Taffytim says...

Why cant we give him back to Itally so they can look after him for 30 years?

Why should we pay for one of theirs?

We can take him back after his itallian time so he can finish off his days here.
Why cant we give him back to Itally so they can look after him for 30 years? Why should we pay for one of theirs? We can take him back after his itallian time so he can finish off his days here. Taffytim

12:04pm Thu 22 Nov 12

mgibbs says...

Why do the echo insist on publishing stories without providing any of the background information, so lay persons can understand the decisions.
Danilo was originally sentenced to a whole of life sentence by a UK court. Following an ECJ ruling that such sentences can only be used in the most extreme of cases, the court of appeal had no option but to quash the original life sentence, and impose a minimum tariff that must be served before being considered for parole. His sentence is still a life sentence, with a minimum term of 40 years. This sentence does not mean that Restivo will be released after 40 years. It means that he can apply for parole after this period of time. Parole is not automatically granted, and will only be granted if the home secretary is satisfied that he no longer poses a threat to society. In addition to the life sentence imposed by the UK courts, Restivo has also been sentenced to 30 by an Italian court. The practical outcome of all of this is that Restivo is extremely unlikely ever to leave prison alive, so in reality the time he will spend in prison is unchanged from the original whole of life sentence he was given.
Why do the echo insist on publishing stories without providing any of the background information, so lay persons can understand the decisions. Danilo was originally sentenced to a whole of life sentence by a UK court. Following an ECJ ruling that such sentences can only be used in the most extreme of cases, the court of appeal had no option but to quash the original life sentence, and impose a minimum tariff that must be served before being considered for parole. His sentence is still a life sentence, with a minimum term of 40 years. This sentence does not mean that Restivo will be released after 40 years. It means that he can apply for parole after this period of time. Parole is not automatically granted, and will only be granted if the home secretary is satisfied that he no longer poses a threat to society. In addition to the life sentence imposed by the UK courts, Restivo has also been sentenced to 30 by an Italian court. The practical outcome of all of this is that Restivo is extremely unlikely ever to leave prison alive, so in reality the time he will spend in prison is unchanged from the original whole of life sentence he was given. mgibbs

12:56pm Thu 22 Nov 12

fossilmole says...

How come our Courts, Judges and the whole legal system seems to spend it's time 'chasing it's tail?'

Whenever one Court decides something another set of ex spurts immediatley change it!
How come our Courts, Judges and the whole legal system seems to spend it's time 'chasing it's tail?' Whenever one Court decides something another set of ex spurts immediatley change it! fossilmole

1:09pm Thu 22 Nov 12

fixedthatforyou says...

Mgibbs, whilst what you say is correct it is not the whole reason this sentence was reduced, the original sentence took into account the muder commited in Italy for which he was not yet convicted. this is unlawful and therefore the sentence was always likely to be reduced even though he has since been convicted.

Some of the commenters on here could do well to search out the full statement made by Ben Barnett and observe the dignity that the family has maintained thoughout thetrail and appeal. it is unforunate the cho didnt see fit to use it in full and just quoted fromit to serve there troll agenda.
Mgibbs, whilst what you say is correct it is not the whole reason this sentence was reduced, the original sentence took into account the muder commited in Italy for which he was not yet convicted. this is unlawful and therefore the sentence was always likely to be reduced even though he has since been convicted. Some of the commenters on here could do well to search out the full statement made by Ben Barnett and observe the dignity that the family has maintained thoughout thetrail and appeal. it is unforunate the cho didnt see fit to use it in full and just quoted fromit to serve there troll agenda. fixedthatforyou

1:38pm Thu 22 Nov 12

grazzer says...

l wish The Echo wouldn't use emotive headlines like "Rot in Jail" as you can only rot if you have Gangrene or Leprosy
l wish The Echo wouldn't use emotive headlines like "Rot in Jail" as you can only rot if you have Gangrene or Leprosy grazzer

1:38pm Thu 22 Nov 12

grazzer says...

l wish The Echo wouldn't use emotive headlines like "Rot in Jail" as you can only rot if you have Gangrene or Leprosy
l wish The Echo wouldn't use emotive headlines like "Rot in Jail" as you can only rot if you have Gangrene or Leprosy grazzer

1:42pm Thu 22 Nov 12

spenkyborf says...

I hope the other prisoners make him their b!tch and have fun with him in the showers !

Dont drop the soap Danilo !
I hope the other prisoners make him their b!tch and have fun with him in the showers ! Dont drop the soap Danilo ! spenkyborf

5:19pm Thu 22 Nov 12

golfer33 says...

Prison in england is very easy these days, the inmates have all the home comforts, after a while they get used to it and seem to like the security and the easy way of life. I think they should be made to work to help the community, doing all the boring work like washing the sheets and the bed pans for hospitals and care homes, at least it would save some of the money it costs to keep them locked up.
Prison in england is very easy these days, the inmates have all the home comforts, after a while they get used to it and seem to like the security and the easy way of life. I think they should be made to work to help the community, doing all the boring work like washing the sheets and the bed pans for hospitals and care homes, at least it would save some of the money it costs to keep them locked up. golfer33

7:56am Fri 23 Nov 12

jac62 says...

i agree with capital punishment, if you take a life in circumstances like this, what gives them the right to live, these grieving families and the public should not have to keep them, an eye for an eye i say.
i agree with capital punishment, if you take a life in circumstances like this, what gives them the right to live, these grieving families and the public should not have to keep them, an eye for an eye i say. jac62

9:57am Fri 23 Nov 12

the parsons nose says...

golfer33 wrote:
Prison in england is very easy these days, the inmates have all the home comforts, after a while they get used to it and seem to like the security and the easy way of life. I think they should be made to work to help the community, doing all the boring work like washing the sheets and the bed pans for hospitals and care homes, at least it would save some of the money it costs to keep them locked up.
they already do at Leyhill Prison and some others i think as well .
the problem is that the unions protest that prisoners are doing work that other people can do so there isnt much prisoners can do , i think they produce a lot of their own stuff , clothing etc ,its just menial work ,the social services side considers education should be the priority ,all of this info is avalible on line
[quote][p][bold]golfer33[/bold] wrote: Prison in england is very easy these days, the inmates have all the home comforts, after a while they get used to it and seem to like the security and the easy way of life. I think they should be made to work to help the community, doing all the boring work like washing the sheets and the bed pans for hospitals and care homes, at least it would save some of the money it costs to keep them locked up.[/p][/quote]they already do at Leyhill Prison and some others i think as well . the problem is that the unions protest that prisoners are doing work that other people can do so there isnt much prisoners can do , i think they produce a lot of their own stuff , clothing etc ,its just menial work ,the social services side considers education should be the priority ,all of this info is avalible on line the parsons nose

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree