Life sentence for murder must be axed!!

[glojo]

Extract from the Times:

***** Judges would have the discretion to match sentences more closely to the crime, reflecting a wide variation in crimes classed as murder at present, from sadistic serial killings of children to a doctor giving an injection to a patient who begs to have his life ended*************


What a joke!
I can understand the theory behind the headline, but the average 'Life' sentence is twelve years and can be as little as six!

I personally feel that life should mean life, and if there are any really exceptional circumstances then a Judge should be able to make recommendations to an elected panel. At present we leave it to Judge's that live in a completely different World to Mr Average and appear to have no regard to what I call 'Justice'.

John

 

[SportsCoupeRich]

he he he ...open that can of worms John!!!

 

[SportsCoupeRich]

As i read it in the legal press the plan is to touch the lower end of the murder sentence by introducing the US system of fisrt second etc degree murder as a stopgap between murder and manslaughter - something that has been severley lacking in the English legal system for a long time.

The proposals are designed to be a punishment for e.g. young adults who turn around and murder their abusive father but with an element of mens reus (criminal intent) and planning, i.e. not an act of the heart/impulse as they say in France... and not for your ordainary run of the mill murderer or manslaughter candidate (e.g battered wife)

i personally welcome the inclusion of an added offence between the two and we should rejoice in the fact that the government are starting to once again allow more discretion from the judiciary who are far more experienced than the government when it comes to legal matters!!!

 

[glojo]

he he he ...open that can of worms John!!!

Can but try

Just had a beautiful pair of bullfinches at my feeder, but they weren't interested in life sentences!!

John

 

[SportsCoupeRich]

philistines!

 

[grasmere]

I prefer the option of, for the main, number 1, not in doubt etc etc

a life for a life - ie hanging or whatever . . .

now THAT is a can of worms

 

[SportsCoupeRich]

worms everywhere!!!!

I believe that people would be alive today if there were a death penalty.

Nancy Regan!

 

[glojo]

As i read it in the legal press the plan is to touch the lower end of the murder sentence by introducing the US system of fisrt second etc degree murder as a stopgap between murder and manslaughter - something that has been severley lacking in the English legal system for a long time.

That is indeed how I read it, but surely our Judges (bless them) have at present the ability to make recommendations. (Life sentence but must serve a minimum of six years, twelve years etc) I just feel that by having all the different so called degree's of murder, everyone will always try to plea bargain down to the lowest common denominator.

Grevious bodily harm with intent being a prime example. This invariably gets thrown out and the lesser charge is accepted. This might be convienant for the judiciary, but it is not right. Certainly not right for the victim who has suffered at the hands of the accused and certainly not justice.

The proposals are designed to be a punishment for e.g. young adults who turn around and murder their abusive father but with an element of mens reus (criminal intent) and planning, i.e. not an act of the heart/impulse as they say in France... and not for your ordainary run of the mill murderer or manslaughter candidate (e.g battered wife)

The trouble with this is that the victim cannot speak! I agree that if there is a history of violence that has been recorded and the accused has never instigated the violence then surely we can look at the offence with compassion and if need be consider manslaughter, but to merely claim abuse (as at present) then that should go before a jury. Fancy you wanting to actually punish someone (my inhouse humour sorry)

but with an element of mens reus (criminal intent)

In prison it doesn't quite have the same definition!! Men's rear

i personally welcome the inclusion of an added offence between the two and we should rejoice in the fact that the government are starting to once again allow more discretion from the judiciary who are far more experienced than the government when it comes to legal matters!!!

I would only welcome it, if the punishments went upwards, something that will never happen. I agree with you about the Judiciary being more experienced in legal matters solely because most of our ministers are ex members of the legal profession!! Strange though that the Home Secretary is one of the few that is not. Plus I suppose the last Transport Minister was an ex Deputy Headmaster!!!!

Oh well lets fetch back capital punishment

Regards,
John

Edit:
More worms

 

[SportsCoupeRich]

more worms indeed, though the mens rear made me laugh a bit too loud in the office!

I think that it is worth noting that at present most of the sentence to which you refer - i.e 12 years - would be the ones covered by this new proposal meaning that they would change very little. The sentences above this (that do exist, honest!) would remain largely untouched.

I think there needs to be a band between, say, 6 - 15 years where there is a more discretion led sentencing policy than todays arrangement which is partly political and hugely based on precedent.

Sentences above this generally for the horrendous crimes and wont change anyway....

Death penalty? as many pros as cons i think!

 

[glojo]

I think there needs to be a band between, say, 6 - 15 years where there is a more discretion led sentencing policy than todays arrangement which is partly political and hugely based on precedent.

I suppose my point is that anyone that actually remains in prison for fifteen years is very, very much the exception.

Folks that commit robberies and kill, rape and kill will very seldom actually serve fifteen years behind bars. They would have been sentenced to life, we would expect them to remain behind bars for at least thirty years, but we all know that will not happen and to me this is where the whole system falls down. We are again (the system) debating the conditions for the accused, making things easier for the accused, giving the accused the chance of a lighter sentence.

I am in the minority, I want prison to be a place of punishment, a deterrent where prisoners actually complain about conditions, not as at present where we get people wanting to go to prison because the conditions are so nice......... (have I said this before!! )

hang em all!!!! Shoot em (incidentally folks I'm against capital punishment)

More worms

John

 

[rees_A]

The main problem is that the criminals who commit the crimes have no respect for their victims and also their is no deterrent from the law. I think the death penalty should be re-introduced, until it is, our murder rates will continue to increase.

I would bring back the death penalty for more serious forms of murder. ie involving children/rape etc. The less serious forms described above should still carry a mandatory life sentence where 'life' means you stay in prison until you are dead.

 

[SportsCoupeRich]

human rights anyone.....


~~~~~~
~~~~~
~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~

look at al those worms up there!!!

 

[glojo]

human rights anyone.....


~~~~~~
~~~~~
~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~

look at al those worms up there!!!

If they protect the victim you bet!

Ooops sorry the poor accused mustn't be seen to be punished that would definitely violate their human rights!!!!

Just imagine the outcry if I suggested that the banning of tobacco could be a punishment for misbehaving 'inmates' of Her Majesties Prisons??? That would definitely violate their Human Rights

Have we lit the touch paper?

John

 

[Jukie]

I advocate zero tolerance for all crimes, however minimal.

And start by locking the do-gooders up who have brought us to a point where the criminal has more protection and rights than the victim.

 

[tim.100]

human rights anyone.....

For whom? Human rights are very selective these days!!

Human rights = Legal Aid or rich.

A long time since the concept was applied to prevent Nazi death camps.

 

[fwb44]

If they protect the victim you bet!

Ooops sorry the poor accused mustn't be seen to be punished that would definitely violate their human rights!!!!

Just imagine the outcry if I suggested that the banning of tobacco could be a punishment for misbehaving 'inmates' of Her Majesties Prisons??? That would definitely violate their Human Rights

Have we lit the touch paper?

John

You're what they call a troll, really, aren't you? At least goldfinches can't answer back ...

 

[SportsCoupeRich]

For whom? Human rights are very selective these days!!

Human rights = Legal Aid or rich.

A long time since the concept was applied to prevent Nazi death camps.

human rights are compromised but not selective - this may have a lot to do wih the fact society is no longer religious.

I am sure you have far more human rights than you think.

 

[glojo]

human rights are compromised but not selective - this may have a lot to do wih the fact society is no longer religious.

I am sure you have far more human rights than you think.

I think we are very lucky to live in such a tolerant and free country. The human rights that we have are to me a priviliedge that I am very grateful for. BUT........ criminals violate my human rights, and your human rights to live in peace..... Once these criminals do this then I personally feel they have made a clear decision to do it, therefore they should expect to have some of their own human rights simply restricted. Certainly not withdrawn. No criminal is forced to commit crime, there are plenty of organizations, help or aid out there. A small restriction on certains rules whilst detained would perhaps act as a deterrant?

Am I a troll?

I hope not, I enjoy a good old healthy debate and am a 'prisoner' confined to my keyboard, so cannot get out to bore the pants off my fellow man.

Hopefully I am never offensive (not deliberately anyway) and if I am too contraversial then ooops sorry.

Regards,
John

Edit perhaps these 'Bull' finches have had to much effect

 

[SportsCoupeRich]

not a privalige but a universal, unalienable benefit - at least thats the defn from John Locke in his book regarding Lockian Rights.

Really need to stop reading all this philosophy!

 

[glojo]

Really need to stop reading all this philosophy!

Ouch I have just had 30 minutes of hydrotherapy and it really hurts when I laugh. Mega ouch.

I take it then that all the aliens at Area 51 are not entitled to this 'benefit!'?

but a universal, unalienable benefit

Regards,
John