The Life Sentence

With the "whole-life" sentences being questioned in the news at the moment, I was actually quite shocked to read that only 50 people in the whole of the British prison system actually have these whole-life sentences.  It's probably because I'm a little sceptical about the nature of human beings, I'm unconvinced that people are intrinsically good - and I'm blatantly surprised that it's a mere 50 people that have committed crimes worthy of this whole-life sentence.

This week (if you've been under a rock and haven't seen it in the news), three men who have been given this sentence have made appeals to the European Court of Human Rights, that the sentence they've been given is "inhumane and degrading."

Let's take Jeremy Bamber.  He killed 5 people to gain his sentence of "at least 25 years" - his two step-parents, his sister and her two 6 year old sons.  The next appellant is Peter Moore, in the early 1990s, Mr Moore killed 4 men, reportedly "for fun."  The final man (at least mentioned by the newspapers) was Douglas Vinter who was sentenced to a life sentence for killing his work mate and then killed his wife upon his release.

Personally, I would rather that these people were never released.  The British penal system has three strands:
(1) Rehabilitation and Reform
(2) Protection of Society
(3) Punishment

If these men are 'beyond reform' - as I'd argue, at the very least, Douglas Vinter is (after all, the life sentence didn't do much to reform him last time, did it?) then there shouldn't be any opportunity for release.  For me, release without reform is, frankly, irresponsible and too much of a risk to society.  By this, I'm not saying that the penal system is good in every case, for petty crimes, there are often better options than prison - as community service often has a better track record with keeping criminals from reoffending than locking them up (where they can interact and learn from worse criminals...)  What I'm saying, is that it is in the best interest of society to keep them where they cannot cause further harm.

But apparently, the European Court of Human Rights doesn't agree with me.  Or, at least, that's the view that many newspapers are portraying.  What the ECtHR have said is that there should be an opportunity for review, and that this does not have to lead to release.  So, nobody is telling us that they have to be released.  What they're saying is, that without the incentive to reform, they won't - which is true - and that the only incentive to reform when given an indefinite sentence, is the opportunity for release.  I don't know how many hoops they'd have to jump through to gain their release, but I can't imagine the British government would make it easy for them.  And besides, despite my incredulity, there are only 50 people that this would apply to.  In theory, I'm happy with them getting the opportunity to appeal their sentence every once in a while, but somehow I question whether I'd be as happy if I thought they'd actually succeed...

So, should there be an appeals system?  Does "good-behaviour" in prison really matter if they might be faking reform just for release?  Do you, even, believe that it would be cheaper, easier and more humane to bring back the death penalty?  Your thoughts are very welcome :)