More about what 'life' means in Malta
Those who don’t believe me when I say that life doesn’t mean life in Malta might yet believe police and murder historian Eddie Attard. It turns out that I do know what I’m talking about sometimes. Here he is, in a comment on www.timesofmalta.com today. I stand corrected for saying that no one has served a prison term longer than 25 years in Malta. One man has: 27 years.
As for the life sentence meted out to a (probably half-starved) 12-year-old boy for stealing from a Gozo sanctuary – dear heaven, how terrible. I’m sure the Madonna whose immaculate conception was celebrated at the sanctuary was thrilled to have revenge exacted on her behalf. You never know, with these 12-year-old boys…I wonder what became of the poor kid.
Eddie Attard
According to our criminal Code, after sentencing any person to imprisonment for life, the court may recommend in writing to the Prime Minister within 24 hous the minimum period which in its view should elapse before the prisoner is released from prison. So far, the longest prison sentence in Malta was that of John Naylor. He was released after 27 years.The youngest prisoner with life sentence was 12-year oldToni Cutajar in 1838 who was caught stealing from the santuary of the Immaculate Conception at, Qala, Gozo. Only six prisoners with life sentence left the prison in a coffin since 1800
14 Comments Comment
Reply to Ray Borg Click here to cancel reply
You give the impression that life means something different in other countries. I’m sure it does in a few but many European countries (the UK for one) have the same kind of system.
[Daphne – That’s exactly what I said in an earlier comment: as far as I know, the United States is the only country in the democratic west where life means life.]
So this guy will most probably walk free by the time he’s 57 or whereabouts. Now, I wonder, what will he then do to scrape a living? No pension, and I would believe, no social services of sort. Or is there a social service for ex-cons?
On an other issue – watching Malta Illejla on Net TV. Interview with Ambassador Bordonaro. The interviewer could hardly be understood, translating from Maltese. What an embarrassment. If Roger de Giorgio is watching he must be cringing at his legacy at NET.
[Daphne – If the interview was the one that took place at the ambassador’s residence while she was hosting guests to watch a live transmission of the inaugural speech, I have another beef about it: the interviewer, who was there presumably to watch the speech, approached the ambassador the very minute Obama began his address, and cornered her on the sofa with her questions. So not only did she not listen to the speech she had been invited to listen to, but she also prevented the ambassador from doing so. I was just behind that sofa, and while Obama was speaking, there was this muttered babble throughout, with the TV camera rolling. Some people really have no idea.]
And does it work as a deterrent? Not really. Having said that, I find it abhorrent that someone can kill and get away with serving seven years.
[Daphne – More interestingly still, the lawyer who got Diane Gerada’s husband off with seven years was the very same one acting ‘parte civile’ for Josette Scicluna’s family, and preaching to the court about how men who perform such awful crimes should be locked up for life. What sickening hypocrisy. Anything for a fast buck.]
Interesting. However, I think Attard overlooks the fact that for most of the two-hundred year period he considers murder did not mean life but capital punishment.
What I mean to say is that the crimes which led to life before the removal of capital punishment from our statute books were probably much less serious that those which lead to life today and it is not because we’re more enlightened but simply because then there was a more severe punishment “available”.
As to the US I suppose this depends on the state in question but I get the impression quite a few of them work it out by attaching a long prison sentence (such as, for example, a 100 years) which is hard to outlive. Unless, that is you are a 12 year old.
Finally, I don’t know if Attard’s “leaving prison in a coffin” is factual or a literary flourish. As far as I know there is a cemetery on the prison grounds where all those who received capital punishment are laid to rest. It would be interesting to know if those who die while serving a prison sentence (whether life or not) are laid to rest there too.
[Daphne – I can help you on the last point. Executed prisoners were buried within the prison compound. The bodies of prisoners who died while serving their sentence were released to their families for private burial, in the past as today.]
Far be it from me to gainsay anyone more well-read than I in the area, but the received wisdom is that life does, indeed, mean life. Perhaps someone with a knowledge of the law could oblige by letting us know what the situation is today.
[Daphne – Il-qadisa M*****a, Andew, you as well? Life means life everywhere, but in practically all western democracies, the state has found ways to release people serving a life sentence after a couple of decades at most, to clear out the prisons, relieve the prison administration of having to run an old people’s home, and let’s be honest, for humane reasons too.]
I stand to be corrected on this matter but I am under the impression that Mosbah Ben Brahim and Ben Ali Wahid Ben Hassine have multiple life sentences (i.e., a life sentence for each murder incident). If this is the case, then we are looking at something more than the customary upper limit of 25 years in jail for this pair.
[Daphne – You stand to be corrected and I’ll correct you. The Maltese system does not allow for ‘multiple’ sentences of this nature. Besides, if you have one sentence for one crime and another sentence for another crime altogether, then they run concurrently.]
I don’t think it makes sense to send someone to prison for 25 years but tell them they they are getting a “life sentence”. If the Court (and society) wants that person to stay in jail for not more than 25 years they should sentence them to 25 years and we ought to do away with the concept of life sentences.
As they are now, prison sentences are like puzzles: you start with a number (of years) expressed by the Court, then you have to work out an arithmetic problem to obtain the answer: how long will that person actually stay in prison.
Life imprisonment, meaning that the person who committed this crime comes out of Kordin in a coffin, is what this convicted murderer deserves. I cannot understand the rationale behind this uncalled for discussion. A person who, after being sentenced, turns to the family of his victim and says “I am alive” twice deserves to be locked up and the keys to his cell thrown away. Yes he is still alive and he can receive visits from his family and friends. The family and the daughter of his victim can only pray for her and put flowers on her grave.
[Daphne – Speak for yourself. Do you imagine that his family want to see him again? Don’t you have the imagination to understand what it means for people who more quiet and decent than most to live with the fact that their son did this? Given the terrible, nightmarish choice, what would you opt for: that your son is killed or that he stabs the mother of his child 50 times in front of your grand-daughter and gets a life sentence? I know what I would rather.]
Calm down D, all I’m saying is that what everyone seems to be saying (that’s including criminal lawyers) is that here it’s understood that life the way this low-life got it means life. Presumably someone who knows criminal law will go definitive on this.
[Daphne – You know as I do that criminal lawyers have no more say in the matter than the judge does. The president can over-rule them all with a pardon which waives the rest of the sentence.]
Lawyers seem to be taking the ‘hypocrite’ oath to serve and entertain the public and charge hefty fees.It does explain why we have quite a few ‘funny’ lawyers.
And then lawyers wonder why they’re considered the scum of the earth!
[Daphne – More interestingly still, the lawyer who got Diane Gerada’s husband off with seven years was the very same one acting ‘parte civile’ for Josette Scicluna’s family, and preaching to the court about how men who perform such awful crimes should be locked up for life. What sickening hypocrisy. Anything for a fast buck.]
Now you’ve said it! Yet the accused is entitled to the best possible defence, isn’t he? This is something I could never understand, how lawyers can offer the best possible defence to scum who commit the vilest of deeds. When I read that Fritzl’s lawyer is promising a ‘vigorous defence’ of his client, I wanted to puke. This guy raped his own daughter 3000 times, as well as murdering several of their offspring. How can anyone defend that and be able to look at himself in a mirror?
[Daphne – I suppose they look at it in the same way as a hangman does: somebody has to do the job, and anyway, it’s a living. That’s fine by me. At least it’s legal, which is more than can be said for their clients and for the source of the money from which many of their fees are paid. What really gets to me is when they portray it as a noble calling, upholding the principles of justice and all that bollocks. They’d be more honest, and win more respect, if they called it by its name: dirty work, but hell, somebody has to do it.]
Allow me to make some corrections. (1)In Malta we do not have a multiple life sentence. (2) The bodies of those executed were not released to their families