Whole-life sentence would rate scale of bereavement

Giving judges the power to rule that a murderer should die in jail would have serious consequences for other bereaved families

Acall from the Conservatives to give judges the power to keep Scotland’s worst killers in prison until they die isn’t an earth-shattering development. If any party is going to make a call for stiffer penalties for offenders, it’s likely to be the Conservatives.

What has prompted Scottish party leader Ruth Davidson to put the matter on the agenda is anger over the reduction, at appeal, in the sentence of the shop owner who murdered schoolgirl Paige Doherty. John Leathem will now serve at least 23 years in prison rather than 27, after stabbing the 15-year-old 61 times at his premises in Clydebank.

What is a surprise, however, is to find that the call for whole-life sentences has been heard with a degree of sympathy by the First Minister. “As well as being First Minister I am a human being and there are many occasions where I look at decisions of courts and wish that different decisions had been reached,” Nicola Sturgeon said yesterday. “It may well be that this is one such case.”

It should be noted that the First Minister also stressed that the independence of the judiciary is paramount. But she left no-one in any doubt that she did not approve of what happened, and that her government would consider any proposals for change if the Sentencing Council should recommend any.

Both Ms Davidson and Ms Sturgeon highlighted the pain that had been suffered by the victim’s family, which has been exacerbated by the appeal court judge’s ruling last week that the original sentence was “excessive” and should be cut by four years.

No-one would deny that Paige Doherty’s family and friends have gone through a horrific experience from the day they lost her. Political support for them at this time will be welcomed, but it is hardly a comfort.

It is hard to avoid the conclusion, however, that while a whole-life term would have been a more satisfactory outcome for the family, and would clearly have won significant political support, its introduction would move the problem elsewhere. Making a decision on which killers die in jail and which don’t could cause even more heartache for other families. At present, the legal system operates on the basis that murder means a life sentence. Giving judges the option of handing down a whole-life sentence creates a new grading of offence, which will hurt bereaved families whose loss is deemed to be not significant enough to merit a whole-life sentence.

If the effect on the bereaved family is the driving force behind yesterday’s political pronouncements, we must consider that all murders involve loss and pain. What exactly makes one family’s grief greater than that of another? Is that really a factor we want to attempt to measure?

And as the First Minister herself pointed out, the availability of a whole-life sentence does not mean that it would always be used – offering further potential for anguish.

Calls for change may have high-level support, but we should proceed with utmost caution, and not in the heat of the moment.