Teenager jailed for 18 months still in prison 18 years later

Understanding the Sentence

• Multiple commenters clarify that the “18 months” was the tariff (minimum punishment) of an IPP (Imprisonment for Public Protection) sentence, not a fixed term.
• Under IPP, after the tariff the prisoner is held indefinitely until a parole board is satisfied they are no longer a danger; the burden is largely on the prisoner.
• IPP was abolished in 2012 as unjust/overused, but not applied retroactively, leaving thousands with no fixed release date.

Fairness, Human Rights, and Politics

• Many see IPP as a gross human‑rights abuse: effectively life sentences for crimes that wouldn’t otherwise permit it, with psychological harm and suicides.
• Politicians are criticized for keeping existing IPPs to avoid PR risk if someone reoffends after release.
• Some argue resentencing is logistically hard and politically risky, so it has been deprioritized.

Details of the Case and Article Bias

• Commenters note the man’s record includes multiple robberies and assaults, and later charges for throwing excrement in prison, which the article reportedly downplays.
• Others respond that even with these facts, an effectively endless sentence for teenage robberies and fights is disproportionate and unjust.

Public Safety vs. Punishment and Rehabilitation

• One side: IPP is defended as “protective custody” for habitual or violent offenders; society’s safety should outweigh the offender’s liberty once a pattern is clear.
• Opposing side: Western justice should punish only for proven past crimes, not predicted future risk; indefinite detention flips the presumption of innocence.
• Strongly punitive voices argue that repeated violent acts should mean permanent removal from society; others call this cruel, error‑prone, and easily abused.
• Several point out that prison conditions and lack of treatment can themselves drive in‑prison “reoffending”.

Comparisons with Other Countries

• Similar mechanisms mentioned: New Zealand “preventive detention”, Dutch TBS (psychiatric, treatment‑oriented), and Canadian “dangerous offender” designation.
• Some note these systems differ crucially by requiring psychiatric evaluation and treatment, unlike IPP.

Due Process and Legal Mechanisms

• Lawyers in the thread question why new in‑prison offences aren’t tried separately, instead of being folded into open‑ended IPP detention.
• Clarifications: habeas corpus can’t help if a valid court order exists; challenges must target the sentence or parole decisions via appeals/judicial review.

Systemic Issues: Parole, Prisons, and Perception

• Parole boards are said to be structurally biased toward non‑release: they can only “lose” if they free someone who reoffends.
• Cutbacks reportedly limit access to required courses, making it hard for IPP prisoners to “prove” safety.
• Broader critiques focus on dehumanization of prisoners, perverse incentives in prison labor, and media‑driven fear that supports harsh policies.