The “depraved killers” penalty: a commentary on the 2023 UK sentencing changes to individuals charged with sexually motivated or sadistic murders

Abstract

Purpose

British Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, recently introduced a “whole life order” sentence in response to sexually motivated or sadistic homicide offences (Gov.uk, 2023). Effectively, this condemns the recipient to the remainder of their life in incarceration and renders rehabilitative interventions redundant. The purpose of this paper is to explore the literature pertaining to public pedagogy, definitions and convictions, and rehabilitative interventions – all in relation to those considered to have committed sexuallymotivated or sadistic murders, with emphasis on the implications of such.

Design/methodology/approach

Through this commentary, this paper explores the following points in line with existing literature: (a) public knowledge of the criminal justice system and those who have committed homicide offences, (b) the manner of defining and convicting sexually motivated and sadistic murders and (c) current access to rehabilitation intervention programmes.

Findings

This paper closes by recommending future research initiatives to deliver forensic-specific education for the general public as well as qualitative studies into the discourse around retribution to enable a conjunction between public concern and academic underpinning. Wider implications concerning public understandings, convictions, rehabilitations and politics are discussed.

Originality/value

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first paper that explores the practical and theoretical implications of imposing a whole life order on those charged with sadistic or sexual-motivated murders.

Citation

Hammond, C., Thatcher, A.S. and Fido, D. (2024), "The “depraved killers” penalty: a commentary on the 2023 UK sentencing changes to individuals charged with sexually motivated or sadistic murders", Safer Communities, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 430-443. https://doi.org/10.1108/SC-03-2024-0011

Introduction

On the 26th of August 2023, UK Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, introduced plans to broaden the scope of laws to target so-called “depraved killers”, which removed opportunities for parole or release; thus, making rehabilitative measures redundant. Indeed, rehabilitation works under the belief that those that have committed a crime should be provided the opportunity and education to amend their behaviours towards being a productive member of the community (Woodland, 2023). The development of idiographic strategies for rehabilitation is superfluous when the change of parole is refused or not an option for certain individuals (van Zyl Smit and Appleton, 2019; van Zyl Smit et al., 2014). However, there is room to question why this law has been amended, difficulties associated with successful conviction and the impact this would have on wider intervention access.

This legal development builds on the UK government’s work to cut crime and build stronger communities throughout the country (Gov.uk, 2021), which since 2010 has been associated with a reduction in violent crime by 46% and neighbourhood crime by 51% (Gov.uk, 2023). However, whilst this law is not new, this scheme urges judges to have increased confidence in dispensing whole life orders without a risk of challenge in the Court of Appeals (Gov.uk, 2023); a sentence condemning an individual to spend the rest of their life in prison (Hart, 2015). It is important to note that this law only applies to murders where the victim and perpetrator are unknown to one another, and that the full life tariff does not apply to individuals who kill a partner, relative, friend or associate (Gov.uk, 2023; McCann and Boulton, 2023). Therefore, the introduction of this law has led to calls from the latter group’s families for equal retribution in cases of domestic homicide – including the mothers of the highly publicised cases of Ellie Gould, Meghan Newborough and Poppy Devey appearing on news outlets (Adu, 2022; Fisher, 2021; Wishart, 2023; Yorke, 2023).

Academic and public interest into criminality has spanned decades with particular interest peaking with the rise of true crime consumption (Boling and Hull, 2018; Wiest, 2016) and increased accessibility to crime-related information (Mastrorocco and Minale, 2018; Rosenberger et al., 2023; Velásquez et al., 2020). Of which, limited understandings that the UK public have of the criminal justice system is often garnered from the increased interest in true crime media (Pickett, 2019), arguably further skewing knowledge of policing, court processes and prison life. However, few true crime outlets rely on scholarly underpinnings prior to development or publication (Pace, 2019), especially when tabloids are not bound by the same misinformation guidelines of the Independent Press Standards Organisation that broadsheets are (Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, 2019). Preferred mediums, such as TikTok and X (formerly Twitter; Recobo Barraza, 2022; Shejuti, 2023), are often used by laypersons for complex assemblage without prior forensic psychology or equivalent pathway education or qualifications, giving way to digital vigilantism (Trottier, 2017). Furthermore, publicised works in newspapers, documentaries, film and television are said to be influential on public opinions in terms of moral panic (Walsh, 2020), fear of crime (Prieto Curiel et al., 2020; Näsi et al., 2021) and an unfamiliarity with important judicial theoretical and empirical developments (Pickett, 2019), amongst other influences. This is regardless of demographics and political standings (Coppock et al., 2018), but it is hypothesised that political parties can capitalise on this tendency to promote higher affiliations in the general public, especially prior to upcoming elections. Narratives built around those convicted of sexually motivated or sadistic murders use buzz words in popularised media to gain views and readership numbers (e.g. Gekoski et al., 2012), including terms such as “psychopath”, “sadist” and “monster”, which are, both, clinically incorrect and dehumanising to the individual (Kruse and Skilbrei, 2024; Vione et al., 2023). Emotive responses to such terms are further incited when the media draws focus to the sexual element of the crime whilst disregarding empirical evidence (Rothwell et al., 2021), arguably contributing to harsher judgments of those convicted of the offence.

Following documentaries and dramatised television shows about prisons, the public are generally aware of the presence of violence in prisons, but they are usually ignorant to the increased risk of health problems, self-harm and suicide (Mills and Kendall, 2016), most of which can indicate mental health problems in those serving prison sentences. Additionally, media stories tend to exaggerate the facilities that some prisoners have access to – such as conjugal visits (Bashinsky, 2023; James, 2009), gaming consoles (Grant, 2022) and televisions (Rath, 2012), with some members of the public begrudging access to free educational programmes (Dewey et al., 2020; Rangel Torrijo and De Maeyer, 2019). Indeed, current literature in the domain of print media suggests the UK public view a prison sentence as soft incarceration that is easy and not punitive enough (Maruna and King, 2013; Roberts and Hough, 2005; Wozniak, 2014), with 76% of respondents to a UK newspaper expressing concerns of shorter and more lenient sentences (Toynbee, 2022) despite average sentence lengths having increased in the last 20 years (King, 2019). Historically, and internationally, such findings also mirror respondents in two US states (Farkas, 1999) where 60% believed those in prison spend their time “playing cards and watching television” (p. 269). This leads us to question why there would be calls for longer sentences in the UK – when average sentence length has already increased – if there is the image of an easy time. Overall, the literature on the topic of public understandings of incarceration would lead to suggesting an alternative to serving prison sentences, due to the perceived easy nature, but this has not been the case in this law – one that is said to be reflective of public demands.

Most of the existing research into sexually motivated homicide focuses on the sexual offending aspect due to the higher frequency of commission of the offence – with approximately 700 recorded homicides in the year ending March 2022 (Office for National Statistics, 2023a) compared to 1.1 million victims of sexual offending (Office for National Statistics, 2023c). Both crimes, however, invoke negative emotions from the general public (Olver and Barlow, 2010; Willis et al., 2010), including the big five: anger, fear, resentment, frustration and anxiety (Cheung-Blunden and Blunden, 2008). Indeed, broader research suggests the public prefer punitive methods over rehabilitative ones (e.g. Hammond et al., 2023; O’Hear and Wheelock, 2016) with sexual offences, and arguably sexually motivated homicide, at the forefront of punitive judgements (Rothwell et al., 2021). Data analyses, and Parliament’s rationale, have revealed public support for harsher punishments of sexually motivated crimes is usually a direct response to highly publicised crimes (Butts and Mears, 2001). Nevertheless, statistics suggest these punishments to be more expensive and less effective than rehabilitation (Scott and Steinberg, 2008). For example, in the 2017-18 financial year, incarceration cost the UK taxpayers £5.63bn (Newton et al., 2019), falling by approximately 25% to £4.2bn in the year 2022-23 (Webster, 2024). Whereas the economic cost of rehabilitation amounted to £510m (Newton et al., 2019) – more than ten times less than keeping individuals in UK prisons – and remains constant. Public opinion has an influence on governmental policies (Gov.uk, 2023; Shapiro, 2011), such as His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS), tax allocations and this amendment to whole life order sentencing, with others also frequently being based on public desire (i.e. sentence types and lengths; Piquero and Steinberg, 2010), detailed by retribution theories (where the punishment must match the severity of the crime; Serisier, 2017). Subsequently, public opinion of criminality can fluctuate with social and economic changes and can be affected by media representation or ignorance of certain types of offences or individuals that have committed the offence (Levenson et al., 2007; Melossi, 2000; Serisier, 2017), therefore, cannot and should not, be relied upon for law-making.

This commentary aims to highlight some features of the extant research in the field of forensic psychology with some notable oversights and challenges this presents to our understanding of the impact on the individual, the community and wider rehabilitative access. This draws from similar existing literature in the subject area (e.g. Metzner, 2012; Roper, 2018), leaving us with the following questions:

Q1.

What is the public’s knowledge of convicting individuals who have committed serious offences?

Q2.

How are sexually motivated and sadistic murders defined and convicted?

Q3.

What is the current access to rehabilitative intervention programmes?

Commentary

Public knowledge

Few laypersons have direct experiences of forensic settings, and therefore, know little about the reality of the judicial system (Roberts and Hough, 2005). This poses many issues with the indication that the general public can influence governmental policies (Shapiro, 2011). Representative of extant literature, this decision is derived from a shift from expert-driven penal policies to those expressive of public concerns (Garland, 2001). Parliament’s address to the public regarding this law attributes its introduction to the public’s calls for harsher penal sentences (Roberts and Hough, 2015; Vardsveen and Wiener, 2021), but their understanding of the inner workings of the Criminal Justice System, crime rates or underpinning psychological and criminological theories is limited (Maruna and King, 2013; Roberts and Hough, 2005; Vandiver and Giacopassi, 1997). Thus, seeking guidance and professional opinion from experts within said fields would be a more appropriate action.

Forensic psychology is recognised in academia as holding specific importance and applicability in the assessment, rehabilitation and management of individuals undergoing incarceration (Bartol and Bartol, 2011), but it is not taught as an independent discipline in most regions of the UK. There is an overall exclusion of interaction effects between demographics in research, specifically that of educational needs related to rehabilitation, punishment and crime prevention (Chen and Einat, 2015), highlighting the requirement for research to extend the public’s overall knowledge of the field. However, Hammond et al. (2024) found those educated with a higher education degree (i.e. degrees obtained from universities) are likely to prefer rehabilitation, but just 33% of the general public in the UK have a degree-level education (Office for National Statistics, 2023b). With higher education degrees focusing on critical thinking skills (i.e. actively analysing information as a guideline for beliefs and actions; Sternberg and Halpern, 2020), it is reasonable to assume that information is mostly processed at face value rather than on the critical plane that is often necessary for a rounded argument. As such, it may be deduced that the preference for a more punitive response is due to the limited forensic-specific education and the lower frequency of individuals holding a degree-level qualification – therefore, focus should be on education rather than law development.

Retributive attitudes originate from morality or crime and perceived culpability of the individual in question (Tyler and Boeckmann, 1997; Yelderman, 2016), where moralistic outrage is provoked by deviation from societal norms (Darley, 2009; Silver and Abell, 2016). Simply, the angrier individuals become about criminality, the more likely they are to impose harsh punitive criminal sentences (Hartnagel and Templeton, 2012; Johnson, 2010; Singer et al., 2019) – arguably, with sadistic or sexually motivated murder at the height of those attitudes. The effects of perceived harmfulness of offences are most evident when exploring punitive preferences for similar crimes, but differing intentions (Schutten et al., 2022). For example, studies have found harsher judgments towards intoxicated drivers in fatal over non-fatal accidents (Applegate et al., 1996); more contemporary papers reaped similar result for a range of offenses including assault, rape and robbery (Maruna and King, 2013). Therefore, supporting the notion for harsher sentences on those accused of sexually motivated or sadistic murders over other types of murder due to the harsher treatment of those accused of sexual offences (Rothwell et al., 2021). Opposingly, utilitarian viewpoints are direct concerns for personal and community safety involving societally perceived dangerousness of the accused individual (Tyler and Boeckmann, 1997). These two branches work in unity to influence punitive judgments, including an equal response to severity (Brooks, 2019) and promotion of community safety (Cullen et al., 2000; McKay, 2020).

Sexually motivated and sadistic murders

Most problematically with introducing a law on sexually motivated murders is that there is no agreed and universally accepted definition of the term “sexual homicide” (Kerr et al., 2013; Schlesinger, 2021). There have been several attempted suggestions (e.g. Burgess et al., 1986; Meloy, 2000; Schlesinger, 2021), but most agree that crime scene evidence must be obtained, ranging from masturbation to actual penetration of the victim (oral, anal or vaginal; Kerr et al., 2013) with animate or inanimate objects. Hence, allowing both males and females to be convicted of sexually motivated murder, so long as motivation can be proven beyond reasonable doubt (Wickenheiser, 2021). However, there is room for ambiguity, with increased funding required for forensic and psychological evaluations of cases. Sexually motivated murders can be symbolically expressed, often buried under anger and curiosity through the mutilation of the victim genitals (Meloy, 2000), thus, requiring further investigation.

Should this law be rooted in academic research, most studies rely on guidelines provided by FBI researchers from the 1980s (e.g. Beauregard and Proulx, 2007; Proulx et al., 2020). Such parameters (Ressler et al., 1988) could consider homicide to be sexual should they meet one of the following criteria:

• partially or fully naked victim;

• exposed genitals;

• sexually explicit position of the body;

• inanimate object in a body cavity;

• evidence of sexual contact; or

• substantiative sexual activity.

In terms of the investigation, the offense is not appropriately defined, nor does it provide investigators with useful information about potential perpetrators (Kerr et al., 2013). Overall, there is substantial room for error if this were used to investigate and convict individuals accused of committing a sexually motivated murder – resulting in a misplaced whole life order. This concern is further complicated when the construct of sexual sadism is introduced.

Sexual sadism is a form of sexual fantasy that includes inflicting physical and/or emotional abuse for sexual pleasure, with manifestations ranging from sadistic acts between consenting partners to the abuse of non-consenting victims (Kirsch and Becker, 2007; Mokros et al., 2014). According to the Diagnostics and Statistics Manual of Mental Disorder (DSM-5; APA, 2013), sexual sadism qualifies as a paraphilic disorder – defined as intense and persistent sexual interest towards atypical activities, persons and objects indexed via sexual urges, thoughts, behaviours and fantasies (Seto et al., 2021) – but only if fantasies and urges cause personal distress or are acted out upon non-consenting victims (Mokros et al., 2019). Paraphilic interests, specifically sadism (Mokros et al., 2014), have been identified as a significant risk factor in sexual offending (Seto, 2019). Determining diagnoses – including paraphilic disorder – among those convicted of sexual offenses is of paramount importance, as scholars have suggested that severe sexual sadism may lead to a perpetrator seriously injuring or killing their victims if they have a personality disorder diagnosis (Healey et al., 2013). Whilst this information is beneficial in the diagnosis and recognition of a paraphilia that can or has led to a sadistic murder, it is extremely difficult to determine the prevalence of sexual sadism among those convicted of sexual offenses (Higgs et al., 2021), and it does not alleviate the strain on the Criminal Justice System (CJS) to obtain it. The complexities of identifying sexual sadism among those with previous convictions further highlight concerns with establishing whether a conviction is deserving of this newly proposed whole life order.

Rehabilitative interventions

Research from the field of forensic psychology indicates rehabilitative methods would be the indefinite intervention (e.g. Gendreau et al., 2014; Hammond et al., 2024; Harding, 2014; Karthaus et al., 2019), with research giving way to increasingly technical and sophisticated environments and programmes (Garland, 2001) to provide better informed support to those currently incarcerated. However, beginning in the early 1970s, rehabilitation was publicly discredited and dubbed “dirty” (Phelps, 2011); with judicial staff and researchers aiming to change the discourse and justify the implementation of interventions; but wholly, sentencing structures that underpin the rehabilitative process were deconstructed (Ward and Maruna, 2007). Some of the first prisons in the USA and the UK claimed a range of rehabilitative programmes (Morris and Rothman, 1998) ranging from isolation and silence to physical discipline and manual labour (Phelps, 2011). However, in what has since been named the progressive era, prison officers and governing staff began to consider rehabilitation as the process of enabling the transformation of incarcerated individuals into ideal members of the community who are able to govern themselves (McLennan, 2008). Following these studies, the Martinson Report was published in 1974, focusing on favourable rehabilitation programmes – education, vocational training and counselling therapies – but also, the inclusion of a rehabilitative institutional setting (usually forensic) coupled with pharmacological options to “treat” criminality (Martinson, 1974). Taken together, these ideas and publications suggest the need for rehabilitation has been recognised to create functioning and healthy members of society (van Zyl Smit and Appleton, 2019), whereas the implementation of a whole life order renders these strides in progress as redundant – allowing to argue that we have digressed progress to a time before the 1970’s.

The core of HMPPS holds three main objectives: public protection; punishment and rehabilitation (Home Office, 2003; Karthaus et al., 2019), of which a whole life order renders the latter redundant if the individual is without chance of parole or release (van Zyl Smit and Appleton, 2019). Some debate that reducing recidivism requires the individual to make more positive choices and to take responsibility for their actions, and subsequent consequences of such (Gendreau et al., 2014; Karthaus et al., 2019). However, public understanding of rehabilitative care within the UK’s prison system is tarnished by Michael Howard’s 1992 “Prison Works” speech (Burnett and Maruna, 2004) but further research suggests prison-based rehabilitation programmes can reduce post-release reoffending rates amongst some individuals that have committed offences (Harding, 2014); of which is entirely pointless when presented with a whole life order.

Despite the move towards policies reflective of public concerns (Garland, 2001), politicians have greater control over penal stratagem and are more concerned about appearing lenient on crime, it has become harder to continue funding rehabilitative intervention programmes (Jacobson, 2005; Rothman, 2003). Literature around the judicial system, including law and social research (e.g. Carroll, 2005; Lynch, 2000; McNeill et al., 2009; Scheingold, 1992), have displayed that politics and official statements often do not come to fruition in practice as the driving force of the rhetoric and the practice may diverge from one another. The mental health problems, self-harm and suicide ideations in those serving prison sentences (Mills and Kendall, 2016) will be largely ignored due to the political undertone of the whole life order, rather than for the protection of incarcerated individuals. Therefore, it may be deduced that despite the introduction of this law in response to public concerns, it can be used as a tool for politicians to garner support – and votes – for their campaigns.

Discussion

Throughout this commentary, we have sought to challenge the proposed law for ostensibly named “depraved killers”, proposing a full life tariff for anyone convicted of sadistic or sexually motivated murders (Gov.uk, 2023). However, most notably, this does not apply to such cases where the victim and perpetrator are known to one another (McCann and Boulton, 2023). This proposes secondary issues, such as opening for families of domestic cases of murder to appeal their convictions, the application of this sentence to other offences and finally, limited access to rehabilitation.

Literature suggests the public understand little about the judicial system (e.g. Roberts and Hough, 2005), but Sunak claims the law is based upon public concern and desire for harsher punishment (Gov.uk, 2023). It may be posited that this discourse diverges from the practicality of introducing the law to fund political campaigns (Phelps, 2011), therefore, misleading the general public on the outcome of such rhetoric. However, this may be reflective of retribution theory (Piquero and Steinberg, 2010), where the severity of the punishment should be equal to that of the offence in the court of public opinion. Whilst the shift from expert-driven judicial processes to one demonstrative of public concerns (Garland, 2001) is in line with requests for harsher penal sentences (Roberts and Hough, 2015; Vardsveen and Wiener, 2021), it is not in congruence with the limited understanding of the judicial system (Maruna and King, 2013). Thus, not being proven or supported as a just or appropriate manner of law-making.

Similarly, much of what the general public know and understand about the inner workings of the CJS, such as crime itself, prisons, rehabilitation and individuals that commit offences, comes from popular TV and media on true crime (Pace, 2019). All of such are said to depict a perspective of an easy life whilst incarcerated (Farkas, 1999; Maruna and King, 2013), ignoring the rife issues with physical and mental health, self-harm and suicide (Mills and Kendall, 2016). In accordance with the retribution theory (Piquero and Steinberg, 2010), the calls for harsher punishments from the public is comprehensible from an academic perspective. Hence, the public would benefit from mandatory knowledge of forensic settings and judicial systems to ensure they are not disorientated by exaggerated media stories (Callanan, 2012) or political stratagem (McNeill et al., 2009; Phelps, 2011).

In terms of the sexually motivated and sadistic murders, despite attempts there remains much ambiguity in their definitions (e.g. Burgess et al., 1986; Meloy, 2000; Schlesinger, 2021). When it comes to introducing a law to target these offences, training is required to identify (Kerr et al., 2013; Schlesinger, 2021), convictions are more difficult (Wickenheiser, 2021) and the sentencing is not valid for domestic homicides (Gov.uk, 2023; McCann and Boulton, 2023). Diagnosing paraphilic disorders, especially amongst those convicted of sexual offences is of significant importance as severe sexual sadism in conjunction with a personality disorder diagnosis may lead to serious injury or death of victims (Healey et al., 2013). Whilst this information is beneficial in the diagnosis and treatment, the difficulty in determining the prevalence rates of sexual sadism among those already convicted of sexual offenses (Higgs et al., 2021) further highlights the concern with identifying whether a homicide is sexually motivated. Thus, supporting concerns around a lack of accuracy in convicting an individual of such offenses.

Once an individual has been successfully convicted of either a sexually motivated or sadistic homicide, their sentencing of a whole life order is implemented (characterised as spending the remainder of their life in prison; Hart, 2015). However, this renders the core principles of HMPPS (public protection, punishment and rehabilitation; Home Office, 2003; Karthaus et al., 2019) redundant by only targeting the second objective. The debate of individual involvement in rehabilitative care (Gendreau et al., 2014; Karthaus et al., 2019) directly maps onto the 1970’s ethos of personal transformation to ideal members of the community and self-governance (McLennan, 2008). Indeed, the Martinson (1974) report stresses the importance of education, vocational training and counselling for incarcerated individuals – as expected – but the addition of a rehabilitative setting and drug therapies best combat criminality and reduce recidivism (Martinson, 1974). The presence of such report from a US governing body may suggest that ignorance of such to focus on punishment as a deterrent only is, arguably, the withdrawal of progress in targeting crime.

Future recommendations and conclusions

It should be noted that future research is required to build on existing literature that details the need for forensic-specific education internationally (e.g. Gendreau et al., 2014; Hammond et al., 2023; 2024; Harding, 2014). There is scope for utility of this work outside that of forensic psychology, specifically for scholars in the realm of case law, politics and sociology, with applicability to research and commentary in these areas that can extend the narrative further. The necessity for this as a mandatory practice in international educational settings could prevent politicians from capitalising on increasing interest in true crime and desire to understand the inner working of the CJS (Boling and Hull, 2018; Wiest, 2016). This can reduce the divergence between the impetus rhetoric and practice from one another that is often perpetuated by politicians (Carroll, 2005; Lynch, 2000; McNeill et al., 2009; Phelps, 2011), such is occurring in parliament this year with this new law. Potentially encouraging a move towards rehabilitative methods that is reflective of existing literature in the field of forensic psychology (e.g. Gendreau et al., 2014; Harding, 2014; Karthaus et al., 2019) and moving judicial systems, by way of electoral voting, towards intervention programmes for those serving their sentences in prison.

On the whole, Rishi Sunak’s law to target professed “depraved killers” would be better used to educate the general public on forensic policies and processes to enable a better understanding of the criminal justice system. This would allow law-making to include academic underpinning with empirical evidence in conjunction with public opinion to devise a system that meets retributive preferences and rehabilitates the individual that has committed the offence. Furthermore, it will avoid the inevitable victim blaming that will be associated with the ignorance of victims who are targeted in domestic disputes and scenarios – permitting any victim of homicide, and their family, to equal retribution and those who have perpetrated the crime to access to interventions.