For the Term of His Natural Life

I am interested to know you thoughts on this.

Some people commit absolutely heinous crimes, are charged, are judged by a jury of common folk who all must find the person guilty and are sentenced by the presiding judge. That sounds fine, doesn't it.

At times the general public think sentences are inadequate, but they have not heard all the evidence or the judge's reasoning for the sentence.

The sentences are usually between 20 and 30 years in gaol, but even before their sentence is completed, they are eligible to apply for parole. For the unrepentant and unreformed prisoners, this will normally be denied. One such person may be Julian Knight who shot dead nine people and injured many more in a random mass shooting. 

But eventually they have served their sentences and are released from gaol. That is unless the State Government intervenes and decides to keep them in gaol at His Majesty's pleasure. To me the decision seems to made by the view of the general public. Keep the bastard locked up, or similar. 

There are a number of criminals who have served their time and are detained at His Majesty's pleasure. 

I am not sure if I feel comfortable with this as it mixes up public opinion, governments, the law and royal assent. They were sentenced for the crime they committed, served their time and should be released. (And very closely monitored if necessary)

It may be best to argue that their sentences were inadequate, with a good whipping added to make them repent, or a longer sentence. I am just not keen on governments interfering with the legal system, even though they do so all the time with legislation.