For Whom the (Matrimonial) Bell Tolls

By most measures of nice Levi Bellfield (originally Levi Rabbetts) does not score very highly so we might feel few concerns for Mr Bellfield's wellbeing. By that I don't mean that he should be tortured or beaten up, but if his cup of tea in the morning is a little low on sugar it wouldn't prevent my sleep.

As is often the case with people who have committed serious offences, Mr Bellfield is rather popular with the ladies (he was popular with the ladies previously, having allegedly 11 children from 5 relationships, and yes, I am assuming that these were all consensual events that resulted in children as I have no evidence to suggest otherwise), which is always a little surprising when the serious offences involve violence against ladies. The reason why this might be true we'll save for another time. They are known as hybristophiliacs, but strictly speaking this is when it is a paraphilia, so probably would mean that they couldn't be attracted by anyone else or that their attraction causes them distress. You could check this for yourself.

However, the fact is that ladies visit him and to one he proposed. So Mr Bellfield is going to be getting married.

Mr Bellfield has done bad things and is in prison, but by law he is allowed to get married. There are people who are not allowed to get married; you cannot marry your grand dad, but the English marriage laws are fairly lax. So, legally Mr Bellfield is doing nothing wrong. 

Is he doing something that he shouldn't be allowed to?

Once announced the media went into hyperdrive criticising and condemning the decision to allow Mr Bellfield to get married - although there was no decision, he can't be stopped (but a new law in on the way that will stop future-Bellfields; the Victims and Prisoners Bill).

If you are from the lock'em up and throw away the key collective then you will think that anything anyone does if they are in prison is probably a no-no. No to TVs and radios and exercise and healthcare and being released and visits. Bad people need to be treated badly because they are bad and that maybe makes you feel good? I'm not sure why you feel good when other people are denied things, but that's for you to make sense of. 

That it is disgusting that someone like Bellfield, who has raped and killed women, should be allowed to get married is a view that was all over the LBC airwaves on Saturday. The argument seemed to be, why should he be allowed to do things that his victims will never be able to do? Although expressed that way that is not what is meant, as this would mean that Mr Bellfield could never go to the toilet, or blink. My opinion is this is just a vengeful way of thinking that people try to wrap up in a logic that ultimately is faulty.

This was from The Mirror; "Justice Secretary Robert Buckland previously slammed the murderer’s actions, adding the sick plan “beggars belief”.

He said: “Milly never got to see her wedding day. It cannot be right that he gets to have his.”"

Lots of people say things beggar belief and tell us things "frankly", but that doesn't mean they have been well thought through. There are lots of people who have done bad things, and who have harmed people in ways that change those people's lives, but one seldom hears the argument that an offender shouldn't be allowed to walk if their victim suffered a spinal injury in the commission of a crime and now has to use a wheelchair. Please note, this is not to downplay the seriousness of the crimes, rather to think about the basis for the responses to those crimes.

It is not clear to me, as in, I am not sure what I think, about the idea of revenge. I feel it, at times, but at no point have I ever professed to be virtuous or better than anyone else. As a way of living I am not sure it does anyone any good. Research suggests that families of victims, where the killer is given the death penalty, do not feel a sense of relief once the perpetrator has been killed, so it doesn't do anything useful. Do we feel better if we feel vengeful or get our revenge? If you have done it then you'll know. I've wanted to, but eventually take a different approach and don't let that person have the power. I'd rather absent you from my world than have you on my mind. I want my mind to be filled with good thoughts of good people, not bad thoughts about your dumb ass.

Should Mr Bellfield get married? My thought is that as long as his bride is not harmed in any way by being married to him (which I am not sure is likely, given that once identified people will likely abuse and bully her - she's already been accused of having a mental health issue by the public who think she shouldn't/mustn't/can't) then fine. Of course, being married to Mr Bellfield does mean that she is not available for marriage to anyone else not in prison, and if she was thinking of having a family that could be a great loss for her, or having anything close to what we consider a reasonable life. 

My thoughts about Mr Bellfield are a little different.

Is it possible that being married might have a positive impact on Mr Bellfield? He's unlikely to be released, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be a benefit to HMPS or wider society if he becomes a model prisoner, potentially of some kind of benefit within the prison system. 

More broadly, as in, in some ways I am not so worried about Mr Bellfield's well-being as long as he is staying inside, I am not sure that I care if he is happy or not, as long as he is not treated badly. However, I think what has happened with Mr Bellfield is that it does raise a bigger issue. Section 48 of the Victim and Prisoners Bill, which is grinding its way through parliament, would ban life prisoners from getting married (it would also allow the Secretary of State to revoke decisions by the Parole Board, which is stupid - why have a Parole Board). That seems to me to have been done without much thought other than of the vengeful kind. Until someone knows that being married has no impact of a positive kind, of any positive kind, on a life prisoner, this is about as dumb as your ass, which I am trying to avoid.

Surely we need to understand the impact before we bring in a law? So, maybe Mr Bellfield getting married has done some good, raising the question of the value of marriage.

Just to show that I am not simply waving my arms around when I have these thoughts, I have contacted the Ministry of Justice (and hopefully Alex Chalk, the current Justice Minister) with the following;

Dear Mr Chalk

The recent announcement of Levi Bellfield’s plans to marry have raised some of the content of the intended Victims and Prisoners Bill, a part of which is the prevention of Life Prisoners being allowed to marry. I am just curious, has any scientific evidence been used in the development of these plans?

Much research demonstrates that there is a positive impact of marriage on offending and offenders, so it is possible that risk may be lowered or simply that the individuals will experience a better quality of life, and so be less likely to cause problems within the Prison Estate.

My concern is that this part of the legislation is simply exerting power, vengeance, and another form of punishment, rather than based on sound evidence that, for example;

     Marriage has no benefits for society by impacting the psychology of people who offend

     Marriage only has a negative effect on the individuals who marry life prisoners

I wonder if it is worth exploring this further before implementing it in the Bill.

Yours sincerely,

I don't expect an answer as I am not convinced that politicians like to use evidence, they prefer public opinion as that keeps them in jobs and makes them feel popular.

However...some time later...

I did get a reply!

Dear Dr Duff,

Thank you for your letter of 17 June, addressed to the Lord Chancellor, regarding the Victims and Prisoners Bill. As a government official, I have been asked to respond.

Individuals in custody are supported to maintain and develop positive links with their family, friends, and significant others. Where a prisoner applies and is eligible to marry or form a civil partnership in prison, the Governor will make the necessary practical arrangements to enable this to take place in a manner which ensures the security of the prison. For most prisoners, this will continue to be the case after the Victims and Prisoners Bill comes into effect.

The measures in the Bill will only apply to life sentenced prisoners in England and Wales who are also subject to a whole life order. Whole life orders are reserved for those offenders who have committed the most serious crimes; there were 66 such prisoners in England and Wales as of 31 March 2023. The Government is concerned that allowing the marriage or civil partnership of prisoners serving whole life orders undermines public confidence in the Criminal Justice System in its role to deliver justice.

Additionally, as these prisoners can expect to never be released, their ability to benefit in practice from the right to marry is already restricted in a very significant way. Marriage or civil partnership does not give a prisoner or their spouse any additional rights to visits, phone calls or video calls while in prison.

I hope this information is helpful to you.

Yours sincerely,

So it isn't evidence-based, it is because if they did allow it they think people will think that they are gits and anyway, "their ability to benefit in practice from the right to marriage is already restricted in a very significant way." I assume this means shagging. I still think that there might be other benefits, other than the shagging, to being married. Not being married I cannot attest to either the shagging or the other benefits. That's why we need the research.